On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:41 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Alex Shinn scripsit: > >> What we actually voted on was: http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/BlobAPI >> which is similar to R6RS but encodes the endianness in the >> names for brevity and efficiency. This was a WG2 proposal, >> and the WG1 version of this was just the *-u8-* subset. > > I've extended BlobAPI for WG2 purposes to provide both R6RS-style names > (byte offsets) and SRFI-4-style names (element offsets). However, > the SRFI-4-style provides only accessors and mutators, not disjoint > vector types.
Sure, you can change your mind about what you think is good for WG2, but you can't retroactively change the vote. Pending a proper WG2 vote, the WG1 members must act under the assumption that WG2 will have R6RS-style blobs only. But modulo reader syntax SRFI-4 support is trivial, and we've already provided the (srfi 4) namespace for implementations to support. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
