[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on process template syntax
From: |
Kyle Meyer |
Subject: |
Re: Comments on process template syntax |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 14:22:22 +0000 |
Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
> Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> (FWIW, I intend to rename the “process:” macro to just “process” to
>>> remove confusing syntactic noise, so anything about the first line may
>>> be changed.)
>>
>> Hmm, but wouldn't that conflict with the `process' constructor defined
>> in gwl/processes.scm?
>
> Yes, that would need to be renamed as well.
But then it's not just about syntactic sugar that helps the wisp end of
things. The changes are affecting how things have to be written at the
scheme level. While I understand your reasoning for offering the wisp
syntax as an alternative, it seems problematic to me if a desire to
improve readability of the wisp syntax requires changes to how things
are written on the scheme end.
- Comments on process template syntax, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/02/02
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Kyle Meyer, 2020/02/02
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/02/03
- Re: Comments on process template syntax,
Kyle Meyer <=
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/02/03
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Kyle Meyer, 2020/02/03
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/02/04
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Kyle Meyer, 2020/02/04
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, zimoun, 2020/02/05
Re: Comments on process template syntax, Roel Janssen, 2020/02/03