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

[Eli Barzilay]

On Nov 14, John Cowan wrote:
> Eli Barzilay scripsit:
> 
> > * 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'.
> 
> This seems to be an argument in favor of "byte-string" rather than
> against it.

Like I said, I'd have no problem with "byte-string" if "string"
changes to "character-string".


> > * so `bytes' is a good compromise.  (I use "byte strings" in text
> >   instead of "byteses".)
> 
> The fact that you do so is the best evidence that using "bytes" for
> a singular object is a bad idea.  Scheme programs *are* text --
> highly conventionalized, but text.

I strongly disagree with any kind of equation that involves program
text and human text.  And BTW, I have written code that uses names
like `fieldss' for a list of fields.  In natural text, it doesn't
bother me that to pluralize one step you add an "s", and for a second
step you prefix it with "list of ".  But in code that does bother me.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!