[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] "Byte-vector" would be a better name
than "bytes" for a data type.
eli at barzilay.org
Tue Nov 14 15:01:46 EST 2006
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!
More information about the r6rs-discuss