Andy Wingo scripsit: > John! Here I was certain you would agree, like with make-vector and > make-string.
See the post I just sent about blobs vs. byte vectors. A byte vector constructor should have a fill argument, a blob constructor should not (because blobs are typeless). > For example, let's say I provide a primitive implementing the mmap > syscall, and have it return a blob. Perhaps I would like to expose a > range of that memory to a procedure, and allow it to set the memory. > I want a shared-state sub-blob, but "sub" really doesn't combine well > with "blob". Dunno! I originally used "subblob" instead of "partial-blob-copy", creating a disjoint blob in the manner of substring, but I decided the word was too ugly. Indeed, the reason blob-copy and partial-blob-copy are distinct is that copy-string and substring are distinct, though obviously they could have been unified too. If I wanted shared objects, I'd go with substring/shared (per SRFI 13, which permits implementations to return a shared substring but does not require it) and partial-blob/shared. -- Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan ear. However, I would suggest you wash your [email protected] hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --gadicath _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
