Me wrote:

(Argh, the twisted semantics again - I rephrase slightly)

>
> The two approaches are not complementary at all. The approach taken
> by this draft is to expose very many implementation
> dependent details. And the authors basically justify this
> with a) highly subjective (and IMHO incorrect) performance considerations
> and b) by simply ignoring anything but simple-minded implementation
> strategies. The alternative would
> be to hide the details (either using extra indirections or mapping
> argument/return values to C types, transparently, under full control
> of the implementor, and (this is important) making *no* assumptions
> about read/write-barriers, GC model, string representation, threading
> model, etc.
> My point is that all these issues *can* be addressed, not by specifying
> each and every little detail, but by simple adding a layer of
> abstraction.
>
>
> cheers,
> felix
>