[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors

>>>>> "Taylor" == Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Taylor> I based that design on SRFI 56 (binary I/O).  I don't think it would be
Taylor> as much of an issue in Scheme as in C, though, as there is in general
Taylor> less low-level clutter to distract one with in Scheme compared to C.
Taylor> However, it's not a fundamental facet of my alternative binary vector
Taylor> suggestion; the endianness parameter could be required just as well.

Sure.  But that gets you to what I noted at the outset: you now have a
much larger API.  Given that many applications don't need this, I
think it should go into a separate SRFI to complement this one.

You're right bringing it up in that it does raise the naming issue
once again: in this context, neither "u8vector" nor "byte-vector"
would be appropriate.  It would probably have to be "bits-vector" or
"binary-vector" (and "bit(s)"), right?

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