Hi all,
I've been following the recent WG1 discussion of byte-vector literal syntax
with interest, but I'm not a working-group member, so I'll have to post here
instead and hope the right people see the posting :-)
I wanted to point out the choices Erlang has made for its literal
representation of byte-vectors.
- byte-vectors are enclosed between double angle-brackets, <<>>. In
Scheme, this would naturally appear as #bs() or similar.
- the contents are given as either literal numeric values,
comma-separated, or as double-quoted strings of ASCII; for example, <<1, 2,
3>> is a length-three byte-vector, as is <<"ABC">>. <<"ABC", 1, 2, 3,
"DEF">> is a length-nine byte-vector.
- Erlang also supports a more sophisticated syntax for pattern-matching
and unquoting other encoded values of various types and encodings, which I
don't think would directly fit Scheme well at this point (and almost
certainly not for WG1 at all).
So Scheme could have something like:
#bs(1 2 3)
#bs("ABC" 1 2 3 "DEF")
#bs(65 66 67 1 2 3 68 69 70)
#bs(#x41 #x42 #x43)
... with the restriction that only ASCII characters be used in the shorthand
double-quoted subsyntax.
Regards,
Tony
--
Tony Garnock-Jones
[email protected]
http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
