On Nov 14, David Van Horn wrote:
> Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> > In <11. Bytes objects>, I suggest using the term "byte-vector" instead
> > of "bytes." A plural name for the type will lead to confusion and is
> > inconsistent with the names used for all other Scheme types. Even if
> > "byte-vector" isn't chosen, please consider a singular name. I'd much
> > rather say "two byte-vectors" instead of "two byteses" or "two objects
> > of type bytes" or the ambiguous "two bytes."
>
> Succ(n)
>
> The language around "bytes objects" is already confused by the
> similarity between bytes (plural of byte) and the bytes object
> (singular) in the draft. Analogously, we don't call strings "characters
> objects".
sub1
I think that this argument also asks for "character-vector" instead of
"string".
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 14:17:35 UTC