Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:57:49 -0800 (PST)
   From: Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net>

   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