Re: Comments on process template syntax

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

Hi Kyle,

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 17:02, Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> wrote:

> The macro works on the Scheme representation; it doesn't influence the
> Wisp to Scheme conversion.  Any of those three Wisp variants would be
> converted to the equivalent of
>
>     (process list-file-template (with filename) ...)

Maybe I miss a point. :-)

Here [1] Ricardo described the goal: at the end of the process there
is something like you write.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel/2020-02/msg00016.html


The question is: what should be the "nice" syntax using the "Wisp
reader"? Do I misread something?

Maybe the confusion comes from that the same term is used for the
constructor and for the macro:

    process-the-macro list-file-template (with filename)

will expand to:

    (define-public list-file-template
      (lambda (filename)
        (process-the-constructor
         ...)))


I agree with you and you mentioned the confusion here [2], quoting you ;-)

<<
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.
>>

[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel/2020-02/msg00019.html


All the best,
simon