This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> From: Richard Kelsey <kelsey@xxxxxxx>
[re bear's version of unspecific]
> Sure, but a portable FFI cannot assume that the implementation
> supports your type of unspecific value. Having the FFI use
> a single 'unspecific' value works in your implementaion (you
> just create a single unspecific value for use in C code). It
> isn't as useful as it might be in your implementation but it
> is portable.
That would be persuasive if there were some compelling reason to treat
"give me an unspecific value" as special in the FFI. Since there
isn't, it isn't.
You're saying "Well, I chose to make a special case of UNSPECIFIC for
reasons I haven't cared to get into --- but my decision is just fine
because surely you can hack around it in your implementation."
-t