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

[Shiro Kawai]

From: Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Formal] "Byte-vector" would be a better name than "bytes" for a data type.
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:46:27 -0500

> 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".)

A bit off-topic...

Hmm.. byte-vector strongly suggests it's an array of bytes,
implying indexed access is O(1).  I think it matches the
practical use of byte vectors (such as dealing with contiguous
region of memory).

On the other hand, a string is a sequence of characters, but
it doesn't need to be an array of characters---it may
internally be a list of characters, or a balanced tree, or
something else.

So byte<->vector and character<->string aren't parallel, IMHO.

To return to on-topic, I'm +1 to byte-vector.

--shiro