From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle Meyer Subject: Re: Comments on process template syntax In-Reply-To: <87o8ugrt2r.fsf@elephly.net> References: <871rrdthmz.fsf@elephly.net> <87mua01sa1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87o8ugrt2r.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 14:22:22 +0000 Message-ID: <87imkn21k1.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: > >>> (FWIW, I intend to rename the =E2=80=9Cprocess:=E2=80=9D macro to just = =E2=80=9Cprocess=E2=80=9D 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.