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.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:57:49 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> So I think it is an abuse -- albeit a kind of abuse the SRFI process explicitly declines to prohibit -- when authors say (and I'm not certain that this is what you're saying but it's sure looking that way): "Consensus doesn't matter for this SRFI. My goal is to have a finalized SRFI with essentially the same content as my draft. Your objections are interesting but contradict my goal: I guess we just have to agree to disagree." No, that is not at all what I was trying to say. I'll try again. At this point I can see four different ways of proceeding: (A) Rewrite SRFI-50 using either Pika-style or JNI-style during the SRFI discussion period (B) Address as many of the issues that have been raised as is possible while leaving SRFI-50's style intact (C) Withdraw SRFI-50 from consideration until after there is separate SRFI describing a more general and more portable FFI (D) Withdraw SRFI-50 permanently (A) is not possible because time is too short. It took Mike and I a long time to produce the original SRFI-50 draft and that was after an even longer period working on and using the original implementation. I have much less experience with JNI-style and none at all with Pika-style. (B) would be my choice, especially because I think that we could now come up with a much better characterization of what SRFI-50 is and is not intended for than exists in the current draft. I very much doubt that any amount of additional discussion would switch my preference to (D). So what I want to know, in an attempt to locate some consensus, is whether the folks that have been objecting to SRFI-50 in its current form would be happy (or at least significantly less unhappy) with (C). -Richard Kelsey