On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 06:59:33PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > I also find the names bytevector-u8-ref and bytevector-u8-set! > > very clumsy and verbose compared to u8vector-ref and u8vector-set!. > > http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/BlobAPI , which was reviewed but not > adopted by WG1 (it may become part of R7RS-large, however) proposes two > sets of names, one of the form bytevector-<type>-ref which is indexed > by byte index, and one of the fomr <type>vector-ref which is indexed > by element number and is SRFI-4 compatible. In the case of u8 and s8 > these of course coincide. However, it would be very inconsistent to > use u8vector-ref in the small language, where u8 is the only access type > directly supported. > > I am therefore closing this ticket.
What's the point of opening a ticket and then immediately closing it again? Can you even *do* that without input from the other members? Also, there may have been no new *arguments*, but the fact it's a formal comment (complaint) from the community (and an implementer, no less) should hold some weight and shouldn't be dismissed offhand. I think this deserves some more careful consideration. Asking every implementation out there that already supports SRFI-4 to rename their procedures without a very good reason is obnoxious. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
