xxxxxx@philips.com wrote:
> First of all I would like to express my support for this SRFI; in
> particular
> because it is so concise and useful. In my opinion there is no conflict
> at all with SRFI-4, neither in the Scheme system nor in my mind.

So how would making these changes:
   byte-vector? -> u8vector?
   make-byte-vector -> make-u8vector
   byte-vector -> u8vactor
   byte-vector-length -> u8vector-length
   byte-vector-ref -> u8vector-ref
   byte-vector-ref! -> u8vector-ref!
affect the usefulness of SRFI-66?  I fail to see how that would be
any less useful.  That is all we're asking.  The SRFI-4-compatible
naming scheme is more concise.  The conciseness isn't just the length
of the names, which is a benefit but not very important.
More important is *specification* length and *language* size.
Adding 6 functions to "proposed standard enhanced Scheme" means
there are 6 more functions that Scheme programmers have to know,
and 6 more functions that have to be documented in reference manuals.

A major goal of Scheme is minimality: it is better to have powerful
"building-block" abstractions on which one can build user functions,
rather than providing all possible user functions.  When we talking
about adding new functions that provide no new functionality and
are actually more verbose, then I think we're doing the wrong thing.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/