On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 06:59:33PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > I also find the names bytevector-u8-ref and bytevector-u8-set!
> > very clumsy and verbose compared to u8vector-ref and u8vector-set!.
>
> http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/BlobAPI , which was reviewed but not
> adopted by WG1 (it may become part of R7RS-large, however) proposes two
> sets of names, one of the form bytevector-<type>-ref which is indexed
> by byte index, and one of the fomr <type>vector-ref which is indexed
> by element number and is SRFI-4 compatible.  In the case of u8 and s8
> these of course coincide.  However, it would be very inconsistent to
> use u8vector-ref in the small language, where u8 is the only access type
> directly supported.
>
> I am therefore closing this ticket.

What's the point of opening a ticket and then immediately closing it
again?  Can you even *do* that without input from the other members?

Also, there may have been no new *arguments*, but the fact it's a formal
comment (complaint) from the community (and an implementer, no less)
should hold some weight and shouldn't be dismissed offhand.

I think this deserves some more careful consideration.  Asking every
implementation out there that already supports SRFI-4 to rename their
procedures without a very good reason is obnoxious.

Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
							-- Donald Knuth

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