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.
Sorry, Richard, but I get the impression that you have not really grasped the intention behind the SRFI process.
Ok, that was a little bit too snotty. I apologize and rephrase: AFAICT, SRFIs should provide a basis for writing portable Scheme code. The current situation where we have a multitude of Scheme implementations, each providing a more or less different interface to common functionality is not particularly satisfying. So to quote srfi.schemers.org:The "Scheme Requests for Implementation" (SRFI) process is a new approach to helping Scheme users to write portable and yet useful code. It is a forum for people interested in coordinating libraries and other additions to the Scheme
language between implementations. But, if we end up with a multitude of different SRFIs, addressing common functionality (this reminds me of SRFI-0 vs. SRFI-7, BTW), we have gained nothing. Now you say:
I can understand wanting the first FFI SRFI being a safer, more general one, perhaps based on JNI or Pika. This SRFI isn't that SRFI because that isn't the type of FFI that Mike and I needed.
What exactly does this mean? This could be understood either as a) You are trying to meet your personal needs, regardless of other opinions b) You have started with what you have most experience, regardless of more portable solutions Both answers may be satisfying from a personal point of view, yet I think they don't really fit the style of a SRFI. cheers, felix