John Cowan writes: > Vincent Manis scripsit: ... > > 8. p. 47. I'm not in love with U8 as a name anywhere, especially given > > that WG1 doesn't offer U16, U32, etc., and, further, binary files > > are read by bytes. I would prefer the names READ-OCTET, PEEK-OCTET, > > WRITE-OCTET, and (ugh!) OCTET-READY?. A lesser but acceptable naming > > scheme would be to replace `OCTET' in thse names by `BYTE'. > > There is a ticket about naming bytes/octets already. However, the > current WG2 proposal does provide S8, U16, S16 etc. etc.
I think the -u8- family of names is good precisely because there will be a whole family of like-named procedures in the large language. The main rationale for having these in the small language is, I think, to provide a necessary infrastructure for a larger language. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
