> The nice thing about "buffer" is that "charbuffer", "bytebuffer",
> "u32buffer" are still reasonably simple, compared to, say,
> "chararraylist".

Those types are conceptually the same as the existing u32vector, etc.
The only difference is that they are growable. Does "buffer"
signifygrowability compared to "vector"?

In my experience, synonyms in naming are usually a sign that something
in the design is not right and needs more thought.