On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:04:39 -0500, Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> wrote:

> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:42:48 +0100
> From: Felix Winkelmann <xxxxxx@proxima-mt.de>
>
>> Now, I'm all for maximum performance, if possible. But that's not
>> (IMHO) the proper goal for this SRFI.
>
> I am curious as to what you mean by 'this SRFI'.  Do you think that
> maximum performace is not a proper goal for any FFI SRFI?  Or only
> for the first one?  Would you be less displeased by SRFI-50 if it
> appeared after a JNI-style SRFI was in place?

Maximum performance is secondary here, period. When writing code for
a Scheme FFI that is too low-level and exposes too many implementation-
specific details, you are walking on very thin ice. It requires
implementation-specific knowledge that a user of the FFI normally
shouldn't be bothered with. If the necessary abstractions have
a certain performance impact, then it should be accepted.

I would be less displeased having a single, portable, robust
SRFI for accessing external libraries. It's as simple as that,
and probably a not completely unreasonable desire.

>
> 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.
>

Sorry, Richard, but I get the impression that you have not really
grasped the intention behind the SRFI process.

cheers,
felix