Re: merging “processes” and “restrictions”

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

Hi Ricardo,


On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 12:45, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
>
> > I am not clear yet about how to manage the inputs/outputs
> > (fixed in the definition of the process or fixed in the workflow)
> […]
> > I am still failing to write a macro that inplements my "view":
> >  - write the graph
> >  - collect the inputs/outputs
>
> This is interesting and it might be a solution to this conundrum.  If
> the processes can declare their inputs without refering to other
> processes then we have a solution: the graph can be built from the
> inputs and outputs of the provided processes without having to specify
> any dependencies manually.
>
> We need a procedure that takes any number of processes as inputs and
> matches inputs with outputs to generate an adjacency list of processes.

I agree even I am not sure to be fully clear. :-)
And your proposal with `let' is already better than the current duplication.

> This shouldn’t be difficult.

I trust you. :-)
I am not enough skilled in Scheme to success.


>
> > I pick the name `dataflow' for this not-yet-immplemented macro name.
> >
> > Well, instead of your graph name, I propose dataflow or stream or datastream.
>
> I’d like this to be a short name if possible.  In fact, I’d prefer if it
> was completely invisible like this:
>
>    (workflow
>     (name "simple")
>     (processes
>       ((eat "fruit") -> greet)
>       ((eat "veges") -> greet)
>       (sleep         -> (eat "fruit") (eat "veges"))
>       (bye           -> sleep)))

Is it possible invisible?

Or why not `->>' instead of your previous `graph'?


> Or like this assuming that all of the processes declare inputs and
> outputs *somehow*:
>
>   (workflow
>    (name "simple")
>    (processes
>      (eat "fruit") (eat "veges") greet sleep bye))

With this, I do not see how the graph could be deduced; without
specifying the inputs-outputs relationship and without specifying the
processes relationship.
I prefer the `->' version. :-)


Thank you for your attempt to improve. :-)


Cheers,
simon