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

[David T. Pierson]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:09:59PM -0800, 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."

While I agree that having a plural name for a type is not ideal, I do
not like the name "byte-vector" if this type is to be disjoint from the
vector type.  A byte-vector that is not a vector would be at least as
confusing as a bytes that is a single object.

I also think that a one-word name for a type is highly preferable when
it is to be used as the prefix for (many) procedures related to this type.

I also note that PLT Scheme introduced a bytes type about a year ago
IIRC.  I don't recall anyone on the PLT mailing list having trouble with
it, but perhaps someone else does?

So I would prefer "bytes" to "byte-vector", but here are some other
ideas:

  byte-array
  byte-sequence
  byte-block
  byte-buffer
  binary (Jeff Read's suggestion from Erlang)
  block
  buffer
  byfer (portmanteau for byte buffer)
  bytor (portmanteau for byte vector)

My vote would be for any of the one word names.

David