Re: Comments on process template syntax

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:48, Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> wrote:
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
>
> > Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > It should not cause confusion because the sugary syntax is used to
> > replace the lower level syntax.  When using Wisp the syntax is made a
> > little slimmer so that no definitions are required.  The audience for
> > whom Wisp support is provided probably prefers simpler syntax, whereas
> > those who are okay with S-expressions would not mind to use (define this
> > (process …)).  …and if they do they can load up a replacement with
> > (import (gwl sugar process)).
>
> Perhaps.  I still have the feeling that sharing the same name is risking
> confusion.  In particular, the fact that how 'process' should be used
> depends on an import could make it harder for (1) those trying to learn
> the workflow language by looking at and comparing Scheme examples from
> various sources and (2) those trying to understand how Wisp maps to
> Scheme.

I agree with Kyle.

The first step from Wisp to Scheme should be only learn where to place
the parenthesis, IMHO.


All the best,
simon