The name 'binary32' in bytevector-binary32-ref etc. assumes general
consensus that it refers to IEEE754 terms.  This may not be an issue,
as we have no conflicting usage other than referring to flonum
formats.

But it occurred to me what if we want to have flonum equivalence of
bytevector->[su]int-list etc.?  It may be (bytevector->binary-list
bytevector endianness size [start [end]]), but the word 'binary'
becomes very vague.

If we won't have such procedure, or we'll instead have
(bytevector->flonum-list bytevector endianness format [start [end]]),
where format is 'binary32, 'decimal64 etc., then we can coexist with
bytevector-binary32-ref.

I don't have a strong opinion.  Just bring this up for the record.

--shiro