Am Do., 8. Okt. 2020 um 14:26 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> > 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"?

If you think of Emacs buffers, yes.

The problem with "vector" is that the data type described by SRFI 214
behaves more like a list than a vector. It's not "conceptionally the
same as a vector"! So while one may not initially know what a "buffer"
is, at least it does not lead to false connotations when one looks at
the existing zoo of Scheme types.