From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <871rrdthmz.fsf@elephly.net> <87mua01sa1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87o8ugrt2r.fsf@elephly.net> <87imkn21k1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87h807snij.fsf@elephly.net> <87ftfr1cuk.fsf@kyleam.com> From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Comments on process template syntax In-reply-to: <87ftfr1cuk.fsf@kyleam.com> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 10:55:24 +0100 Message-ID: <875zgmsmlv.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Kyle Meyer Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org List-ID: Kyle Meyer 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 =E2=80=A6)). =E2=80=A6and if they do they can load up a replaceme= nt with (import (gwl sugar process)). I also think it=E2=80=99s 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