Re: Comments on process template syntax

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

Hi,

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:33, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> > Aside, the 'process' macro should be renamed as Kyle mentioned it.
> > Because it is confusing, IMHO.
>
> Yes, I’m considering a rename, but I’m not sure which is the best
> option.  We could either have (1) “define-process” (for value +
> definition) and “process” (for just the value), or we could have (2)
> “process” (for value + definition) and “make-process” (for just the
> value).

Just to be sure to well understand.

Option 1.

    define-process list-file-template (with filename)

will expand to:

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

and option 2.

     process list-file-template (with filename)

will expand to:

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


Right?


> I’m torn on this because option 1 seems correct, but option 2 results in
> less boilerplate as users need to bind processes to variables in order
> to reference them in a workflow definition.
>
> I’ll likely go with option 2.

Instead of 'make-process', why not 'processor'?


> We only need to decide whether the “process” macro (for value +
> definition) should also be available by default in Scheme workflows or
> if it should only be enabled by default in Wisp workflows.

You mean:

  (process list-template
     (with filename)
     (name ...)
     ...)

right?

I think, it is a good idea because it eases the learning process from
high-level Wisp to more Scheme plumbings.




Cheers,
simon