Re: Comments on process template syntax

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

Hi Ricardo,

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 13:08, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> I still think that the syntax is sub-optimal.  We support Wisp to
> make the Lispiness a little easier to swallow for the skeptics.  But
> the procedure case does not benefit much from Wisp — it would look worse
> if we expressed it in the Wisp way:
>
>     process : list-file-template filename
>
> Note the space between “process” and the remainder.  It would be wrong
> to remove the space after “process”.  That’s a pitfall stemming from a
> familiarity with YAML that I’d rather avoid.  (That’s why I want to
> rename “process:” and “workflow:”.)

Does it make sense to expand "process: proc arg" as "process : proc arg"?
Well, disallow the colon ':' in all the name (symbol) and then expand.

Because this space is a drawback of Wisp, I mean at least to me.
Especially coming from Python where the standard is to have "def
proc(arg):" and not "def proc(arg) :".


> The only reason why I know how to use “:” is because I know that I want
> the remainder to be wrapped in parentheses…  People who only know the
> sugary syntax would not have that knowledge and it would just seem like
> an arbitrary thing.

Yes exactly.
To place the Wisp sugary syntax, each time I am going back to Scheme,
think where are the opening/closing parenthesis and then adapt the
sugar.


>     process list-file-template : filename

I would be tempted to write without the space.

     process list-file-template: filename


>     process list-file-template (filename)

I find this one the clearer.



All the best,
simon