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.
Me wrote: (Argh, the twisted semantics again - I rephrase slightly)
The two approaches are not complementary at all. The approach taken by this draft is to expose very many implementation dependent details. And the authors basically justify this with a) highly subjective (and IMHO incorrect) performance considerations and b) by simply ignoring anything but simple-minded implementation strategies. The alternative would be to hide the details (either using extra indirections or mapping argument/return values to C types, transparently, under full control of the implementor, and (this is important) making *no* assumptions about read/write-barriers, GC model, string representation, threading model, etc. My point is that all these issues *can* be addressed, not by specifyingeach and every little detail, but by simple adding a layer of abstraction.cheers, felix