Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:
> It's a clearer explanation.  I'm not sure how useful it is to solve
> the problem.  Consider for example that, applying the rule as you've
> stated it, all calls to any function that accepts or returns a Scheme
> value must be made from within a gc-excluding begin/end pair.

Both you and Felix have misunderstood where I was coming from.  I
don't support Kelsey's proposed solution as adequately addressing all
the concerns we've raised about SRFI-50.  I still don't like it.  But
within the priorities he's explained, it does address the problem I
raised.  Everything I wrote was simply a response to your assertion
that Kelsey had said something nonsensical --- not an indication that
I think SRFI-50 is peachy as amended.

Similarly with my reply to Felix.  I think the overhead of the Minor
API vs. SRFI-50 is acceptable.  For heavy Scheme object munging, if
you've got a good compiler, you should write Scheme code.  But two
orders of magnitude *is* a significant amount of overhead, and Kelsey
isn't some kind of dope for being concerned about it, given that he
can't escape to Scheme code for speed.