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

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Arthur A. Gleckler <arthur>
Date: Wed Nov 15 23:51:19 2006

On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:42 PM, David T. Pierson wrote:

> byte-array
> byte-sequence
> byte-block
> byte-buffer
> binary (Jeff Read's suggestion from Erlang)
> block
> buffer

Nice ideas. I would be quite happy with any of these.

> byfer (portmanteau for byte buffer)
> bytor (portmanteau for byte vector)

Please, no!
Received on Wed Nov 15 2006 - 23:51:05 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Arthur A. Gleckler: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Scheme should not be changed to be case sensitive."
Previous message: David T. Pierson: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] "Byte-vector" would be a better name than "bytes" for a data type."
In reply to: David T. Pierson: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] "Byte-vector" would be a better name than "bytes" for a data type."
Next in thread: Eli Barzilay: "[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] "Byte-vector" would be a better name than "bytes" for a data type."

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:00 UTC