> From: Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org>

    [re bear's version of unspecific]

    > Sure, but a portable FFI cannot assume that the implementation
    > supports your type of unspecific value.  Having the FFI use
    > a single 'unspecific' value works in your implementaion (you
    > just create a single unspecific value for use in C code).  It
    > isn't as useful as it might be in your implementation but it
    > is portable.

That would be persuasive if there were some compelling reason to treat
"give me an unspecific value" as special in the FFI.   Since there
isn't, it isn't.

You're saying "Well, I chose to make a special case of UNSPECIFIC for
reasons I haven't cared to get into --- but my decision is just fine
because surely you can hack around it in your implementation."

-t