[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
First, I like this SRFI -- it should have been here long ago. I have a
few comments, though:
- MAKE-BYTE-VECTOR isn't exactly analogous to MAKE-VECTOR[*], in that
the fill argument isn't optional. It would be reasonable, I think,
to make the fill argument be optional with a default of 0, which
would make their signatures compatible.
- Could a BYTE-VECTOR-COPY!, similar to SRFI 13's STRING-COPY! & SRFI
43's VECTOR-COPY!, also be introduced? Such an operation is very
commonly used with byte vectors, and it is generally a good idea to
have such a low-level operation as this to be built-in to the byte
vector interface as a primitive, rather than always defined atop it
in utility libraries.
- It is explicitly unspecified whether byte vectors are disjoint from
vectors, but must byte vectors also be disjoint from strings? MIT
Scheme's byte vectors are not, for instance. It would be good, I
think, to add a note about that.
- Though it is obviously outside the scope of this SRFI, will there
be another SRFI or will R6RS include support for binary block I/O
with byte vectors? Perhaps Alex Shinn ought to be prodded about it
in SRFI 56.
[*] - A few of the 'analogous to ...'s of your procedure descriptions
accidentally refer to the byte vector operations, by the way, not the
regular vector operations; for instance, MAKE-BYTE-VECTOR's description
says: 'Analogous to MAKE-BYTE-VECTOR.'