Marc Feeley scripsit: > I don't think we agree here. It is confusing to have two names for > the same thing. Somehow we have managed with both `call-with-current-continuation` and `call/cc`, though. The latter name is available in Racket*, Gauche, Gambit, Chicken, Bigloo, Guile*, Kawa, SISC, Chibi**, Chez*, Vicare*, Larceny*, Ypsilon*, Mosh*, IronScheme*, NexJ, STKlos, KSi, SigScheme, TinyScheme, Scheme 7, XLisp, XLisp, Rep, Schemik, Elk, UMB, Oaklisp, Llava, SXM, Sizzle, Spark, Inlab, Owl Lisp. It is not available in MIT, Scheme48/scsh, SCM, Shoe, Dream, RScheme, BDC, VX, FemtoLisp, Dfsch. In reference to precise error reporting, the following Schemes that support `call/cc` return different errors from `(call-with-current-continuation 32)` and `(call/cc 32)`: Chicken, Bigloo, Guile***, Chez, Vicare, Ypsilon***, XLisp, Oaklisp***. [*] Required by R6RS [**] Required by R7RS-small [***] Differ only in a hex address for the procedure or opcode > If it is a coincidence that two names exist for the same function > (say an identity function in an assertion module, and an identity > function in a combina tor module, or a particular function in a > module implemented with and without tr acing) then that is reasonable. > But here we are talking about two names for functions with the same > with the same intent on the same data type. I disagree entirely. In the overall context, one set of functions picks a binary data type out of a blob and is indexed by byte. The other set picks an element out of a homogeneous binary vector view of the same blob. The u8 (as well as s8) versions are degenerately the same, that's all. > > SRFI 4: Racket, Gauche, Gambit, Chicken, Bigloo, Guile, Kawa, Scheme48, > > STklos, RScheme. This information is probably out of date. > > > > R6RS: Guile, Chez, Vicare, Larceny, Ypsilon, Mosh. > > As I suspected, common practice would favor the SRFI-4 API. I carelessly omitted Racket from the R6RS list. > As a double-check I went to googlebattle.com and battled u8vector-ref > and bytevector-u8-ref and u8vector-ref is 4 times more popular. Unsurprising, given the relative publications dates of SRFI 4 (1999) and R6RS (2007). As someone said today, the future as well as the past must be considered. > A more thorough investigation which examines existing code bases would > be interesting. Alas, Google Code Search is no more. > >> I have a feeling that the use of "bytevector" in the names of > >> procedures in R7RS small is due to WG2 concerns of extending the set of > >> operations on bytevectors to 16, 32, etc bit width access operations. > >> Alaric Snell-Pym and others have pointed out that "blob" is a better > >> name for such a data type. I agree. And yet the R6RS editors chose to use "bytevector" as well as providing those selfsame operations. -- Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> of a creatific thinkerizer. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Peter da Silva _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
