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

[David Van Horn]

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 only advocating that there be some singular name for these kinds of 
objects, not byte-vector specifically.

David