> All right, I'm okay with foreign-status or anything similar to that,
> just not with foreign-error, as some statuses are success rather than
> failure statuses, like HTTP 200 or VMS error code 2 (analogous to 0 as a
> Posix process status).

Thanks. The thesaurus isn't encouraging here -- 'status' and 'result'
are the only reasonable alternatives to 'error'.

> But I don't see how foreign-status-ref can be both convenient (lambdas
> are forced) and transparent.  Two access methods are needed, one for
> each purpose.

Why does it need to be transparent?