>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:

Tom> One approach to this, that taken by the draft, is to make an FFI that
Tom> models a substantial part of the semantics of the high-level language
Tom> -- then let the FFI-using programmer fill in the gap between that and
Tom> our target libraries.

Tom> Another approach, that proposed by Felix (if I'm reading right), is to
Tom> make an FFI that captures the semantics of the libraries in a
Tom> first-class way -- then let the FFI-_implementing_ programmer fill in
Tom> the gap between that and his high-level language implementation.

That's also how I'd state it.  To my mind, this means the two
approaches are complementary rather than exclusive.  But Felix seems
to disagree.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla