[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Bytevectors should be called u8vectors
- To: "will@x" <will@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Bytevectors should be called u8vectors
- From: Marc Feeley <feeley@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:45:44 +0200
- Cc: "scheme-reports@x" <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <7542012.2075981342628401124.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
- References: <7542012.2075981342628401124.JavaMail.root@zimbra>
On 2012-07-18, at 6:20 PM, will@x wrote:
> On Sun Jul 15 16:15:18 EDT 2012, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>>> Just as another data point, I've used and implemented both APIs. I find
>>>> the bytevector formulation more useful. (Incidentally, the assertion
>>>> that the "bytevector" name is without history is incorrect.)
>>> Fill us in on this, please?
> Actually, the bytevector name and basic API date back to 1984 or 1985.
> Bytevectors were provided by MacScheme (1985), and I believe they were
> provided by PC Scheme (1984) as well.
I want to point out that I was saying the proposed *API* for bytevectors has little history, i.e. bytevector-u8-ref, etc. The important point is that the u8vector API, where bytevectors are seen as a vector of bytes (as the name implies), has been widely implemented and there is lots of existing code and Scheme implementations (and 2 SRFIs) which use that API.
Why should R7RS specify a less widely used API when the bytevector operations it defines are strictly those of a vector of bytes?
If compatibility with R6RS is so important, why is the bytevector external representation not the same? I.e. #vu8(...) . It seems like the R7RS bytevectors are neither here nor there.
Scheme-reports mailing list