On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 00:40 -0700, Brian Harvey wrote: > > I don't know about you but I *do* regard strings primarily as > > text intended for human readability > > +1 > > Does anyone think that bytevectors are a necessary feature of WG1 Scheme? > I can see why WG2 should have both strings and bytevectors, but WG1 shouldn't > (imho) include anything about bytes, binary, etc. Maybe not even bitwise > logical operators. (Of course all that stuff will be loadable as optional > libraries, like the rest of WG2's features.)
Suppose that WG1 Scheme requireds regular vectors, a way to create disjoint types, and fixnums. Then it is possible for library-code to define objects with the semantics of bytevectors, though lacking an assurance of a compact representation for these. As an adjunct to the core specification (by appendix or via inclusion by reference) bytevectors can be given a (usable, not optimal) definitional implementation. That seems the best of both worlds, to me. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
