I think one of two things should happen: 1. If a bytevector refers to a vector of octets, then bytevector should be renamed to u8vector, as the formal comment specifies.
2. If a bytevector is to refer to the system's native word width (which is often called a "byte" and is not necessarily an octet), then the standard should specify this and keep the name bytevector. I don't think the Scheme standard should equate "byte" with "octet". Robert Smith On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Marc Feeley <[email protected]> wrote: > Formal Comment > > Submitter's name: Marc Feeley > Submitter's email: feeley at iro.umontreal.ca > Relevant draft: r7rs draft 6 > > Type: defect > Priority: minor > Relevant section of draft: 6.9. Bytevectors > > Summary: Bytevectors should be called u8vectors > > Many implementations of Scheme have adopted SRFI-4 where bytevectors > are called u8vectors, and where the procedures operating on > bytevectors have u8vector in their name. > > I see no reason to introduce new names. It will require many > implementations to implement the new names, and moreover the SRFI-4 > names will have to be kept for code which uses SRFI-4. This is > needless bloat. > > The name u8vector is a very mnemonic way of expressing verbally the > external representation #u8(...) which is used by R7RS for > bytevectors. > > I also find the names bytevector-u8-ref and bytevector-u8-set! > very clumsy and verbose compared to u8vector-ref and u8vector-set!. > > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
