[ERR5RS] FFI concern from a lowly user

[Leonardo Valeri Manera]

On 03/02/2008, David Rush <kumoyuki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 7:46 PM, Leonardo Valeri Manera <l.valerimanera at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 02/02/2008, David Rush <kumoyuki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 2008 2:58 PM, Leonardo Valeri Manera
> <l.valerimanera at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > extensions or the like, but because of the lack of a portable FFI
> > > > structure.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > The lack of such an ability for scheme is, I think, a major problem...
>
>
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-0/srfi-0.html
>  http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-7/srfi-7.html

I'm sorry, should I interpret that as "gain wisdom fom teh sfri's,
stupid nub!" or as "it shall be up to the ffi lib or/and app
programmer to implement as many ffi interfaces as there are scheme
implementations in order to make a portale app, stupid nub!" ? :D

Either way, thanks for taking the time to answer my silly questions :)

Cheers,
Leo