[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Bytevectors should be called u8vectors
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> To be clear, this is not just a naming convention, but an API
> philosophy. In R7RS large we will _not_ be providing a SRFI-4 API,
> but instead be following the R6RS style (i.e. bytevector-u32-ref on
> the same underlying bytevector data type instead of a new u32vector
> data type). The reasons for this were too many to summarize right now -
> I'll have to leave that to a rationale document.
I'm proposing providing both bytevector-u32-ref and u32vector-ref, both
of which apply to the bytevector type; the first takes a byte offset,
the second an element offset.
But nothing about the bytevector API in R7RS-large is settled except
that there will be one.
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan
ear. However, I would suggest you wash your cowan@x
hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list