[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10
Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
It cuteness is the only objection anyone makes, I'll take that as
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".