From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <871rrdthmz.fsf@elephly.net> <87mua01sa1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87o8ugrt2r.fsf@elephly.net> <87imkn21k1.fsf@kyleam.com> <87h807snij.fsf@elephly.net> <87ftfr1cuk.fsf@kyleam.com> <875zgmsmlv.fsf@elephly.net> <874kw54xed.fsf@kyleam.com> In-Reply-To: <874kw54xed.fsf@kyleam.com> From: zimoun Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:14:45 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Comments on process template syntax Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Kyle Meyer Cc: Ricardo Wurmus , gwl-devel@gnu.org List-ID: Hi, On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:48, Kyle Meyer wrote: > > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > > > Kyle Meyer writes: > > > >>> It would be possible to use the very same macro name and simply renam= e > >>> 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 workfl= ow. > >>> > >>> 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 thi= s > > (process =E2=80=A6)). =E2=80=A6and if they do they can load up a repla= cement 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