From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44957) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gygeF-0005BW-Pw for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:36:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gygeF-00072Q-13 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:36:07 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]:35075) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gygeE-0006xz-Ln for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:36:06 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id z13so8097999qki.2 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:35:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87lg2atsxx.fsf@elephly.net> <87mumj0xzq.fsf@elephly.net> In-Reply-To: <87mumj0xzq.fsf@elephly.net> From: zimoun Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 18:35:46 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: variable interpolation in code snippets List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "gwl-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 09:12, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > > I thought about adding support for selectors, but I don=E2=80=99t know if= I > should. Maybe it would be better to allow for named inputs instead, > which would result in process-local bindings. `data-inputs` is often a list, say the genome (genome.fa) and the sequences (R1.fq and R2.fq); then the procedure uses each as e.g. my-tool -i genome.fa -1 R1.fq -2 R2.fq Personnally, I find the Snakemake notation clear: input: genome =3D genome.fa seqA =3D R1.fq seqB =3D R2.fq shell: my-tool -i {input.genome} -1 {input.seqA} -2 {input.seqB} Well, I do not know which will be the best design. process-local bindings with a "big let"? procedure-local binding with let? read macro with which "syntax"? etc. > This would probably require changes to the records macro that we took > from Guix. I=E2=80=99d prefer that over implementing a small language in= a > reader macro. Hum? ok... I am not sure to see what should be the final result? In any case, the string interpolation already improves a lot compared to the string-append. :-) All the best -- simon