No, I have only started to think about it again since you posted your pieces. Three or four decades ago I wrote a lot of ragtime, and tried to make a point of extending some feature of each rag in a personal direction.
https://www.box.net/shared/7y8airqopmFor example, the final strain of this one cycles three keys in non-uniform metres plus a coda which does the same thing. But it still, in some sense, preserves the "feeling" of classical ragtime, which elusive quality I find quite hard to pin down specifically.
I wasn't a typical young player who found it easy to absorb modern features into the core of my spontaneous creation, so for many years I wallowed in a desire to write and play in the dated idioms I loved. And I did write heaps of conventional piano pieces which I still enjoy, mostly in ragtime, stride, swing and late romantic styles. I didn't see any point in embracing iconoclasm for its own sake, unless it genuinely moved me, and I still don't now.
However, over the last decade or so I seem to have undergone a retarded adolescent infatuation with playing and recording improvisation, hundreds of hours of it, in consequence of which I have become deeply attached to all sorts of piano sounds I would have rejected in my youth. I cannot explain why I have gone this way; most people seem to go the opposite. So the answer to your question is that, should the urge to create notated music return, I would try to embed the colossal variety of sounds and playing forms of my improvisation into the previous idioms in new ways which mean something to me. One of these idioms would certainly be the rag, with some classical properties intact and some replaced by new features.
At this time I don't think I'm quite ready for written composition again and therefore would not want to be too clear on specifics, even to myself.
Thank you for posting more of your pieces, which I find have an engaging and distinct personality.