On 2012-07-18, at 6:20 PM, [email protected] 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? >> >> R6RS. > > 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. > > Will
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. Marc _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
