From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle Meyer Subject: Re: Comments on process template syntax In-Reply-To: References: <871rrdthmz.fsf@elephly.net> <87lfpjswla.fsf@elephly.net> <6be1d411b6caab4e91b67fd24bde5095afb65bc5.camel@gnu.org> <87k153spu3.fsf@elephly.net> <874kw6slwm.fsf@elephly.net> <87d0at129q.fsf@kyleam.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:02:52 +0000 Message-ID: <878slh10pf.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain To: zimoun Cc: Ricardo Wurmus , gwl-devel@gnu.org List-ID: zimoun writes: > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 16:29, Kyle Meyer wrote: >> Those are just different ways you can write the same thing in Wisp: > > I agree. > > (aside the fact that I personally do not like the colon ':') > > But the macrology sugar will not expand as Wisp does, if I have > understood correctly, i.e., the expansion will be > >> (process list-file-template (filename)) > > The 'with' is sugar to specify the arguments and avoid all the > ambiguous examples. The macro works on the Scheme representation; it doesn't influence the Wisp to Scheme conversion. Any of those three Wisp variants would be converted to the equivalent of (process list-file-template (with filename) ...) where `process' above is a macro from sugar.scm (currently named `process:'). And then the macro would expand that into something like (define-public list-file-template (lambda (filename) (process ; <- process constructor from processes.scm, not sugar macro ...)))