On 11/14/06, Eli Barzilay <eli_at_barzilay.org> 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".
add1
The comment clearly stated the purpose was finding a singular name.
As "string" is singular, no alternative is needed.
--
Carl Eastlund
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 14:24:35 UTC