I think one of two things should happen:

1. If a bytevector refers to a vector of octets, then bytevector
should be renamed to u8vector, as the formal comment specifies.

2. If a bytevector is to refer to the system's native word width
(which is often called a "byte" and is not necessarily an octet), then
the standard should specify this and keep the name bytevector.

I don't think the Scheme standard should equate "byte" with "octet".

Robert Smith

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Marc Feeley <feeley@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> Formal Comment
>
> Submitter's name: Marc Feeley
> Submitter's email: feeley at iro.umontreal.ca
> Relevant draft: r7rs draft 6
>
> Type: defect
> Priority: minor
> Relevant section of draft: 6.9. Bytevectors
>
> Summary: Bytevectors should be called u8vectors
>
> Many implementations of Scheme have adopted SRFI-4 where bytevectors
> are called u8vectors, and where the procedures operating on
> bytevectors have u8vector in their name.
>
> I see no reason to introduce new names.  It will require many
> implementations to implement the new names, and moreover the SRFI-4
> names will have to be kept for code which uses SRFI-4.  This is
> needless bloat.
>
> The name u8vector is a very mnemonic way of expressing verbally the
> external representation #u8(...) which is used by R7RS for
> bytevectors.
>
> I also find the names bytevector-u8-ref and bytevector-u8-set!
> very clumsy and verbose compared to u8vector-ref and u8vector-set!.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scheme-reports mailing list
> Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports