Richard Kelsey wrote:

>    (C) Withdraw SRFI-50 from consideration until after there
>        is separate SRFI describing a more general and more
>        portable FFI
> ...
>
> 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).

"C" would certainly be my preference.

Marc