Re: when GC is permitted Michael Sperber 10 Jan 2004 20:18 UTC

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <> writes:

>> From: Richard Kelsey <>

>> 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.

Tom> In off-list conversations about SRFI-50, that paragraph has raised a
Tom> few hackles. [...]

You're misinterpreting what Richard wrote.  He's explaining the
*history* of the draft, not the rationale for the future, which
Richard, I, and you don't know yet.  In your response, you changed all
occurrences of "need" to the present tense (note the past tense above)
which, urmh, changes the semantics to something that raises a few
hackles with me.

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla