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.
