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

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:17 AM, 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 most interested in not having a type name that is plural.  I  
don't care that much about the name "byte-vector".  "Bytes" is just  
awkward.