Re: Incompatibility with SRFI-4

[Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Feeley <feeley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Marc> I wonder why you did not use the SRFI-4 names for your byte-vector
Marc> procedures. 

Because I wanted the names to make sense in a context where SRFI 4 is
not available, or the user doesn't know about it.  "u8vector" seemed
too much of a mouthful if the others aren't there.

Marc> I just don't see any good reason to invent a new SRFI-4
Marc> incompatible API for byte-vectors given that many Scheme
Marc> implementations currently support SRFI-4.

There's no incompatibility, as the names I use are completely disjoint
from those of SRFI.  Both can co-exist peacefully.

I should probably put in a note that a Scheme system that supports
SRFI 4 is expected to use the same underlying type as u8vector.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla