Re: Comments on process template syntax

[Kyle Meyer]

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 also think it’s a good idea generally to break up the (gwl sugar)
> module, so that Scheme users can pick those syntactic features that they
> want with more granularity (and without having to select individual
> definitions from a single (gwl sugar) module).

Yes, sounds like a good idea to me too.