On Nov 14, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> 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.
sub1, still.
IMO:
* `bytes' are closer in use to strings than vector.
* so `byte-string' is a better name, but then `character-' is implicit
in one but not the other. Similar asymmetry to `length' vs
`vector-length'.
* so a better choice would be `character-string' and `byte-string',
but that's inconvenient.
* so `bytes' is a good compromise. (I use "byte strings" in text
instead of "byteses".)
Again -- all that was in my subjective opinon.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 14:46:27 UTC