r6rsguy at free-comp-shop.com writes:
> I am concerned that the syntax #vu8(...) for a bytevector
> is irregular, hard to remember, and ugly. It seems to have
> been taken (sort of) from SRFI-4, but _none_ of the rest
> of SRFI-4 is specified. Indeed, SRFI-4 says that the external
> representation of a bytevector should be #u8(...). without the
> #\v, and that the various procedures have names like u8vector?
> and u8vector-set!
>
> But the name of these objects has been changed to "bytevector",
> why not write the external representation as #bytevector(...)?
> That is a little bit longer, but not longer than any of the
> names of procedures that operate on bytevectors.
This post has an explanation:
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-4/mail-archive/msg00002.html
> I suggest that the following name changes would improve euphony:
> bytevector-u8-ref to octetvector-ref
> bytevector-s8-ref to bytevector-ref
> bytevector-u8-set! to octetvector-set!
> bytevector-s8-set! to bytevector-set!
> bytevector->u8-list to octetvector->list
> u8-list->bytevector to list->bytevector
This would suggest that "octetvectors" and "bytevectors" are different
things, which they are not.
> new procedure:
> (bytevector->list <bytevector>) similar to octetvector->list,
> but returns a list of integers in the range {-128..127}
> There seems to be no procedure bytevector->s8-list, which
> would be the natural name of this procedure in the R5.94
> system.
Right, but it is easily done using `bytevector->sint-list'. We
considered adding more variants, but decided against it, as it would
introduce bloat without introducing much value.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Jun 19 2007 - 04:24:28 UTC