Re: Comments on process template syntax

[Kyle Meyer]

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:

> Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.
>
> I suppose the correct way would be to rename “process:” to
> “define-process” and “workflow:” to “define-workflow” and to leave
> “process” and “workflow” unchanged.  Because “process:” does define a
> variable that’s bound to a “process” value.
>
> I just find “define-process” and “define-workflow” really clunky :-/

Ha, I was actually thinking those sounded pretty good.  Oh well :>

> It would be possible to use the very same macro name and simply rename
> things when (gwl sugar) is imported, and perhaps to import (gwl sugar)
> only by default when the workflow is written in Wisp.  Currently (gwl
> sugar) is always imported in the evaluation environment of any workflow.
>
> Does this sound better?

Hmm, I'm worried that using the same name could be the source of
confusion.

Anyway, thinking about this more, I suppose the issue I raised about
renaming `process' shouldn't really be a concern (at this point in GWL's
development) and the s/process/make-process/, s/process:/process/
suggestion you made elsewhere in this thread sounds fine.

Thanks for thinking about how to make the Wisp syntax clearer here (and
for considering my objection).