From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle Meyer Subject: Re: Comments on process template syntax In-Reply-To: <87h807snij.fsf@elephly.net> References: <871rrdthmz.fsf@elephly.net> <87mua01sa1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87o8ugrt2r.fsf@elephly.net> <87imkn21k1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87h807snij.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 23:16:03 +0000 Message-ID: <87ftfr1cuk.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org List-ID: Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Kyle Meyer 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 =E2=80=9Cprocess:=E2=80=9D to > =E2=80=9Cdefine-process=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cworkflow:=E2=80=9D to =E2= =80=9Cdefine-workflow=E2=80=9D and to leave > =E2=80=9Cprocess=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cworkflow=E2=80=9D unchanged. Beca= use =E2=80=9Cprocess:=E2=80=9D does define a > variable that=E2=80=99s bound to a =E2=80=9Cprocess=E2=80=9D value. > > I just find =E2=80=9Cdefine-process=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cdefine-workflow= =E2=80=9D 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).