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

From: David Van Horn <dvanhorn>
Date: Tue Nov 14 14:24:29 2006

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 only advocating that there be some singular name for these kinds of
objects, not byte-vector specifically.

David
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 14:24:24 UTC