bytevector docs -> compound data types?

bytevector docs -> compound data types?

[Andy Wingo]

Hi,

Currently the bytevector docs are in the "Simple data types" section.
Would they not be a better fit in "Compound data types", along with
uniform vectors &c?

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: bytevector docs -> compound data types?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> Currently the bytevector docs are in the "Simple data types" section.
> Would they not be a better fit in "Compound data types", along with
> uniform vectors &c?

See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2009-05/msg00077.html .

An argument in favor of the current layout is this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* Strings::                     Sequences of characters.
* Bytevectors::                 Sequences of bytes.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The rationale was that some Guile programs have come to use strings to
store binary data, and we want to insist on the difference between
characters and bytes.

OTOH it obviously makes sense to have them close to uniform vectors, so
either way is fine with me.

Thanks,
Ludo'.

Re: bytevector docs -> compound data types?

[Andy Wingo]

Hi,

On Thu 25 Jun 2009 00:39, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Currently the bytevector docs are in the "Simple data types" section.
>> Would they not be a better fit in "Compound data types", along with
>> uniform vectors &c?
>
> An argument in favor of the current layout is this:
>
> * Strings::                     Sequences of characters.
> * Bytevectors::                 Sequences of bytes.

This might also be an argument for moving strings to "compound data
types"... Perhaps we should move both, so that the "Generalized vector"
section has all kinds of vectors nearby?

Another option of course is to not classify data types by "simple" or
"compound", but some division is necessary.

Perhaps our master wordsmith Baron von Jerram has a perspective :)

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

Re: bytevector docs -> compound data types?

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> Another option of course is to not classify data types by "simple" or
> "compound", but some division is necessary.
>
> Perhaps our master wordsmith Baron von Jerram has a perspective :)

Huh?  Where did that `Baron' come from?

But anyway...  I don't have a strong opinion here, but

- I think that bytevectors go with other kinds of vectors more closely
  than they go with strings

- I think we could benefit from discarding the Simple vs Compound
  division - i.e. combine everything into a single `Data Types'
  section.  `Pairs' could be much nearer the top of the combined list
  than it is now.

Regards,
        Neil