Re: Comments on process template syntax

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
>
>> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>>
>>>> (FWIW, I intend to rename the “process:” macro to just “process” to
>>>> remove confusing syntactic noise, so anything about the first line may
>>>> be changed.)
>>>
>>> Hmm, but wouldn't that conflict with the `process' constructor defined
>>> in gwl/processes.scm?
>>
>> Yes, that would need to be renamed as well.
>
> 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 :-/

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?

--
Ricardo