From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59373)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1izMKE-0002GZ-Ul
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:10:48 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1izMKD-0002VD-MW
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:10:46 -0500
Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21183)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1izMKD-0002Lh-95
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:10:45 -0500
References: <871rrasdsl.fsf@elephly.net>
 <CAJ3okZ01=3w7Jj_1_A_T2DAy3fgzuVpXBDYK4hdySwbZcCbp=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: objections to short syntax for code snippets?
In-reply-to: <CAJ3okZ01=3w7Jj_1_A_T2DAy3fgzuVpXBDYK4hdySwbZcCbp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:10:36 +0100
Message-ID: <87eev9qdcj.fsf@elephly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <gwl-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/gwl-devel>,
 <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:gwl-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-devel>,
 <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "gwl-devel" <gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org


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

>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> process run-sh
>>   inputs
>>     . "a"
>>     . mine: "b"
>>     . "c"
>>     . yours: "d"
>>   # {
>>     echo "This is mine: {{inputs:mine}}, and this is yours: {{inputs:you=
rs}}."
>>   }
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>
> This is cool!
>
> Aside your question, I am thinking if WISP could be adapted to use
> dash '-' instead of dot '.' in the field 'inputs'.

Tricky!  The =E2=80=9C.=E2=80=9D in Wisp just means =E2=80=9Ccontinue the p=
revious line=E2=80=9D.  In
this example it just looks really similar to a dash that=E2=80=99s used in =
YAML
to mark individual list items.

We don=E2=80=99t need any of these dots.  We could also just write this all=
 on
one line (or any number of broken lines):

    process run-sh
      inputs "a"
        . mine: "b" "c" yours:
        . "d"
      # {
        echo "This is mine: {{inputs:mine}}, and this is yours: {{inputs:yo=
urs}}."
      }

This is equivalent, no difference whatsoever.

So my use of the dot is very suggestive, but there=E2=80=99s no way we can =
turn
it into a dash.

That said =E2=80=A6 macrology can be used to assign the dash special meanin=
g (or
no meaning at all), but I=E2=80=99m not convinced that this would be a good
idea.  Lists are easier in Lisp compared to YAML =E2=80=94 and thanks to wh=
at I
call =E2=80=9Cimplicit lists=E2=80=9D for the =E2=80=9Cinputs=E2=80=9D and =
=E2=80=9Coutputs=E2=80=9D fields you don=E2=80=99t
even need to start them with =E2=80=9Clist=E2=80=9D.  It seems futile to tr=
y to make
lists more complicated by requiring that items begin with a dash.

--
Ricardo