Re: merging “processes” and “restrictions”

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Hi simon,

> I am not clear yet about how to manage the inputs/outputs
> (fixed in the definition of the process or fixed in the workflow)
[…]
> I am still failing to write a macro that inplements my "view":
>  - write the graph
>  - collect the inputs/outputs

This is interesting and it might be a solution to this conundrum.  If
the processes can declare their inputs without refering to other
processes then we have a solution: the graph can be built from the
inputs and outputs of the provided processes without having to specify
any dependencies manually.

We need a procedure that takes any number of processes as inputs and
matches inputs with outputs to generate an adjacency list of processes.
This shouldn’t be difficult.

> I pick the name `dataflow' for this not-yet-immplemented macro name.
>
> Well, instead of your graph name, I propose dataflow or stream or datastream.

I’d like this to be a short name if possible.  In fact, I’d prefer if it
was completely invisible like this:

   (workflow
    (name "simple")
    (processes
      ((eat "fruit") -> greet)
      ((eat "veges") -> greet)
      (sleep         -> (eat "fruit") (eat "veges"))
      (bye           -> sleep)))

Or like this assuming that all of the processes declare inputs and
outputs *somehow*:

  (workflow
   (name "simple")
   (processes
     (eat "fruit") (eat "veges") greet sleep bye))

I’ll play around with this today.

--
Ricardo