[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on process template syntax
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: Comments on process template syntax |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:14:45 +0100 |
Hi,
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:48, Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > It should not cause confusion because the sugary syntax is used to
> > replace the lower level syntax. When using Wisp the syntax is made a
> > little slimmer so that no definitions are required. The audience for
> > whom Wisp support is provided probably prefers simpler syntax, whereas
> > those who are okay with S-expressions would not mind to use (define this
> > (process …)). …and if they do they can load up a replacement with
> > (import (gwl sugar process)).
>
> Perhaps. I still have the feeling that sharing the same name is risking
> confusion. In particular, the fact that how 'process' should be used
> depends on an import could make it harder for (1) those trying to learn
> the workflow language by looking at and comparing Scheme examples from
> various sources and (2) those trying to understand how Wisp maps to
> Scheme.
I agree with Kyle.
The first step from Wisp to Scheme should be only learn where to place
the parenthesis, IMHO.
All the best,
simon
- 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, 2020/02/03
- 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 <=
Re: Comments on process template syntax, Roel Janssen, 2020/02/03
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/02/03
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Roel Janssen, 2020/02/03
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Ricardo Wurmus, 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, Kyle Meyer, 2020/02/05
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, zimoun, 2020/02/05
- Re: Comments on process template syntax, Kyle Meyer, 2020/02/05