From: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Comments on process template syntax
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:16:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ftfr1cuk.fsf@kyleam.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h807snij.fsf@elephly.net>
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>> But then it's not just about syntactic sugar that helps the wisp end of
>> things. The changes are affecting how things have to be written at the
>> scheme level. While I understand your reasoning for offering the wisp
>> syntax as an alternative, it seems problematic to me if a desire to
>> improve readability of the wisp syntax requires changes to how things
>> are written on the scheme end.
>
> I suppose the correct way would be to rename “process:” to
> “define-process” and “workflow:” to “define-workflow” and to leave
> “process” and “workflow” unchanged. Because “process:” does define a
> variable that’s bound to a “process” value.
>
> I just find “define-process” and “define-workflow” really clunky :-/
Ha, I was actually thinking those sounded pretty good. Oh well :>
> 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.
Anyway, thinking about this more, I suppose the issue I raised about
renaming `process' shouldn't really be a concern (at this point in GWL's
development) and the s/process/make-process/, s/process:/process/
suggestion you made elsewhere in this thread sounds fine.
Thanks for thinking about how to make the Wisp syntax clearer here (and
for considering my objection).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-03 23:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-02 10:20 Comments on process template syntax Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-02 23:30 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-03 8:08 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-03 14:22 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-03 15:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-03 23:16 ` Kyle Meyer [this message]
2020-02-04 9:55 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-05 1:48 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-05 15:14 ` zimoun
2020-02-03 8:58 ` Roel Janssen
2020-02-03 12:07 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-03 12:56 ` Roel Janssen
2020-02-03 14:33 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-04 10:10 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-05 2:12 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-05 15:21 ` zimoun
2020-02-05 15:29 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-05 15:37 ` zimoun
2020-02-05 16:02 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-05 16:23 ` zimoun
2020-02-05 15:07 ` zimoun
2020-02-05 18:04 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-05 19:14 ` zimoun
2020-02-05 21:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-06 11:59 ` zimoun
2020-02-05 14:56 ` zimoun
2020-02-08 12:34 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-05 14:50 ` zimoun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.guixwl.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ftfr1cuk.fsf@kyleam.com \
--to=kyle@kyleam.com \
--cc=gwl-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=rekado@elephly.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).