John Cowan writes:
> Vincent Manis scripsit:
...
> > 8. p. 47. I'm not in love with U8 as a name anywhere, especially given
> > that WG1 doesn't offer U16, U32, etc., and, further, binary files
> > are read by bytes. I would prefer the names READ-OCTET, PEEK-OCTET,
> > WRITE-OCTET, and (ugh!) OCTET-READY?. A lesser but acceptable naming
> > scheme would be to replace `OCTET' in thse names by `BYTE'.
>
> There is a ticket about naming bytes/octets already.  However, the
> current WG2 proposal does provide S8, U16, S16 etc. etc.

I think the -u8- family of names is good precisely because there will
be a whole family of like-named procedures in the large language. The
main rationale for having these in the small language is, I think, to
provide a necessary infrastructure for a larger language.

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