[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] "Byte-vector" would be a better name than "bytes" for a data type.

From: Arthur A. Gleckler <arthur>
Date: Tue Nov 14 14:24:05 2006

On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:

> 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".

I'm most interested in not having a type name that is plural. I
don't care that much about the name "byte-vector". "Bytes" is just
awkward.
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 14:23:32 UTC