Re: Comments on process template syntax

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

>> In the Python case the “:” serves no real purpose as far as I can tell.
>
> Hum? The colon ':' serves as separator used by the parser, AFAIU.
> I mean the colon ':' is part of the Python grammar.
>
> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/grammar.html

Yeah, I just mean that it’s “noise”.  It doesn’t represent anything
(unlike the $ in Haskell).

> Aside, the 'process' macro should be renamed as Kyle mentioned it.
> Because it is confusing, IMHO.

Yes, I’m considering a rename, but I’m not sure which is the best
option.  We could either have (1) “define-process” (for value +
definition) and “process” (for just the value), or we could have (2)
“process” (for value + definition) and “make-process” (for just the
value).

I’m torn on this because option 1 seems correct, but option 2 results in
less boilerplate as users need to bind processes to variables in order
to reference them in a workflow definition.

I’ll likely go with option 2.

We only need to decide whether the “process” macro (for value +
definition) should also be available by default in Scheme workflows or
if it should only be enabled by default in Wisp workflows.

--
Ricardo