This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 66 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 66 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
First of all I would like to express my support for this SRFI; in particularbecause it is so concise and useful. In my opinion there is no conflict at all with SRFI-4, neither in the Scheme system nor in my mind.
So how would making these changes: byte-vector? -> u8vector? make-byte-vector -> make-u8vector byte-vector -> u8vactor byte-vector-length -> u8vector-length byte-vector-ref -> u8vector-ref byte-vector-ref! -> u8vector-ref! affect the usefulness of SRFI-66? I fail to see how that would be any less useful. That is all we're asking. The SRFI-4-compatible naming scheme is more concise. The conciseness isn't just the length of the names, which is a benefit but not very important. More important is *specification* length and *language* size. Adding 6 functions to "proposed standard enhanced Scheme" means there are 6 more functions that Scheme programmers have to know, and 6 more functions that have to be documented in reference manuals. A major goal of Scheme is minimality: it is better to have powerful "building-block" abstractions on which one can build user functions, rather than providing all possible user functions. When we talking about adding new functions that provide no new functionality and are actually more verbose, then I think we're doing the wrong thing. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/