Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

> It cuteness is the only objection anyone makes, I'll take that as
> consensus.

OK, I'll be stronger: I think the integer-16 vs integer+16 convention
is ugly and violates the principle of "least surprise".  If somebody
sees "uinteger16" or "uint16" or "uinteger-16" most programmers can
probably guess the meaning, or at least figure out where to look.
But I would have no idea that "integer+16" means "unsigned".

> The words "signed" and "unsigned" do not occur in R4RS or R5RS;
> neither does "int".  Scheme owes nothing to C, except for looking so
> fine in comparison.

But "uinteger16" is still a reasonable and non-confusing abbreviation
for "exact-16-bit-nonnegative-integer".  But if you disagree, I'd still
much prefer rather have "nonnegative-integer-16" over "integer+16".

> As discussed earlier, shorter names necessarily omit some of the
> numerical attributes.  The fully specified Scheme names would be:

>   inexact-IEEE-64-bit-floating-point-real-array
>   inexact-IEEE-32-bit-floating-point-real-array

Right, but I'd still argue that "float-32" is a better abbreviated
name than "real-32".
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/