This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
It cuteness is the only objection anyone makes, I'll take that as consensus.
OK, I'll be stronger: I think the integer-16 vs integer+16 convention is ugly and violates the principle of "least surprise". If somebody sees "uinteger16" or "uint16" or "uinteger-16" most programmers can probably guess the meaning, or at least figure out where to look. But I would have no idea that "integer+16" means "unsigned".
The words "signed" and "unsigned" do not occur in R4RS or R5RS; neither does "int". Scheme owes nothing to C, except for looking so fine in comparison.
But "uinteger16" is still a reasonable and non-confusing abbreviation for "exact-16-bit-nonnegative-integer". But if you disagree, I'd still much prefer rather have "nonnegative-integer-16" over "integer+16".
As discussed earlier, shorter names necessarily omit some of the numerical attributes. The fully specified Scheme names would be:
Right, but I'd still argue that "float-32" is a better abbreviated name than "real-32". -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/