Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
> My proposal (implemented in SCM) used SRFI-4 abbreviations.  Per
> Bothner wants FLOAT, -U, and -S for names.  Bear wants square brackets
> ... [Taylor] did a good job, moving us toward Scheme vocabulary and
> away from bastard C types.

The naming is not a big deal for me, although I would prefer something
terse and grounded in "hardware-speak" (e.g., single, double, signed,
unsigned, bit) rather than "math-speak" (e.g., real, integer, boolean),
since the goal is to specify specific "hardware" types instead of the
usual "math" types!

> As for the new prototype names, they are directly provided by the 13
> definitions in SRFI-58:
>
>   (define A:complex-64 ac64)
>   (define A:complex-32 ac32) ... [etc]

Earlier, I incorrectly complained about inconsistencies between SRFI 47
and SRFI 58 naming conventions, because I hadn't noticed this change
yet. Good work, and sorry if I caused confusion.

> My array procedure missive may have crossed in the emails ....
> Calls to `array' look very much like SRFI-10 read-syntax:
>
>   (define ident2 (array 2 A:real-32 '((1.0 0.0) (0.0 1.0))))

This procedure is a good idea, and I'm surprised that it wasn't already
in SRFI 47. Even if you have quasiquotable array literals, it's still
helpful to have an initializing constructor.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd