Re: Comments on process template syntax

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:

>> It would be possible to use the very same macro name and simply rename
>> things when (gwl sugar) is imported, and perhaps to import (gwl sugar)
>> only by default when the workflow is written in Wisp.  Currently (gwl
>> sugar) is always imported in the evaluation environment of any workflow.
>>
>> Does this sound better?
>
> Hmm, I'm worried that using the same name could be the source of
> confusion.

It should not cause confusion because the sugary syntax is used to
replace the lower level syntax.  When using Wisp the syntax is made a
little slimmer so that no definitions are required.  The audience for
whom Wisp support is provided probably prefers simpler syntax, whereas
those who are okay with S-expressions would not mind to use (define this
(process …)).  …and if they do they can load up a replacement with
(import (gwl sugar process)).

I also think it’s a good idea generally to break up the (gwl sugar)
module, so that Scheme users can pick those syntactic features that they
want with more granularity (and without having to select individual
definitions from a single (gwl sugar) module).

--
Ricardo