[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: when GC is permitted

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