[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Bytevectors should be called u8vectors

Peter Bex scripsit:

> 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?

It records that a formal comment was made in a way that's easier to
search than the mailing list archive.  Other members can reopen it if
they see fit.

> 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 didn't dismiss it out of hand.  That would have been "Nope, we already
decided otherwise."

> 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.

"Rename" implies that the old names go away, but it's only inside the
(scheme base) library that the R7RS-small names have to be visible.
In the REPL, (scheme base) must be imported, but so can other names at
the discretion of the implementation.

La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi                            John Cowan
Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi.              cowan@x
                --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Scheme-reports mailing list