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

Re: an alternative idea for general binary vectors

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 66 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 66 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

>>>>> "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