Re: Comments on process template syntax

[Kyle Meyer]

zimoun <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 16:29, Kyle Meyer <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Those are just different ways you can write the same thing in Wisp:
>
> I agree.
>
> (aside the fact that I personally do not like the colon ':')
>
> But the macrology sugar will not expand as Wisp does, if I have
> understood correctly, i.e., the expansion will be
>
>>   (process list-file-template (filename))
>
> The 'with' is sugar to specify the arguments and avoid all the
> ambiguous examples.

The macro works on the Scheme representation; it doesn't influence the
Wisp to Scheme conversion.  Any of those three Wisp variants would be
converted to the equivalent of

    (process list-file-template (with filename) ...)

where `process' above is a macro from sugar.scm (currently named
`process:').  And then the macro would expand that into something like

   (define-public list-file-template
     (lambda (filename)
       (process  ; <- process constructor from processes.scm, not sugar macro
        ...)))