On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:31:51 +0100, felix <xxxxxx@call-with-current-
continuation.org> wrote:

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

Ok, that was a little bit too snotty. I apologize and rephrase:

AFAICT, SRFIs should provide a basis for writing portable
Scheme code. The current situation where we have a multitude of
Scheme implementations, each providing a more or less
different interface to common functionality is not
particularly satisfying. So to quote srfi.schemers.org:

 The "Scheme Requests for Implementation" (SRFI) process is a new approach
to
 helping Scheme users to write portable and yet useful code. It is a forum
for people interested in coordinating libraries and other additions to the
Scheme
 language between implementations.

But, if we end up with a multitude of different SRFIs, addressing
common functionality (this reminds me of SRFI-0 vs. SRFI-7, BTW), we
have gained nothing.

Now you say:

> 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.
 What exactly does this mean? This could be understood either as

a) You are trying to meet your personal needs, regardless of
   other opinions
b) You have started with what you have most experience, regardless
   of more portable solutions

Both answers may be satisfying from a personal point of view,
yet I think they don't really fit the style of a SRFI.

cheers,
felix