[Top][All Lists]

[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 20:14:24 +0100

Hi Ricardo

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> wrote:

> > Does it make sense to expand "process: proc arg" as "process : proc arg"?
> > Well, disallow the colon ':' in all the name (symbol) and then expand.
> This is not easily accomplished because “:” is a valid character in a
> symbol.  So I’d have to replace the reader to disallow “:” in symbols.
> That’s a very big intervention.

It was just an idea. :-)

> > Because this space is a drawback of Wisp, I mean at least to me.
> > Especially coming from Python where the standard is to have "def
> > proc(arg):" and not "def proc(arg) :".
> I see what you mean.  The “:” on its own is just the Wisp way of saying
> “wrap the rest of this line in parentheses”.  In Haskell that’s “$”.  In
> both cases it’s separate from any identifiers.

The dollar '$' appears to me a better choice than the colon ':'.
Because the colon is used in plain English and often used elsewhere
without space (YAML, python, etc.). It is about habits.
Well, that's another story. :-)

> In the Python case the “:” serves no real purpose as far as I can tell.

Hum? The colon ':' serves as separator used by the parser, AFAIU.
I mean the colon ':' is part of the Python grammar.

Well, that's another story again. ;-)

> >>     process list-file-template (filename)
> >
> > I find this one the clearer.
> Unfortunately, this one is not possible due to ambiguity in the process
> macro as I explained in an earlier email.  We can avoid this ambiguity
> by adding “with” as extra syntax:

Sorry I unqueued my emails in order. :-)

>   process list-file-template (with filename)
> It’s not perfect, but I don’t see another way that would be any clearer.

I am fine with the 'with' keyword.

>   process list-file-template with this that anything whatever

As I said elsewhere, I am not bothered by the previous syntax.

And I find equivalently nice the both using 'with'; without or with parenthesis.

> I honestly can’t tell which of the options is better.  It’s like saying
> the word “table” 50 times in a row and wondering what these odd sounds
> really mean…


Aside, the 'process' macro should be renamed as Kyle mentioned it.
Because it is confusing, IMHO.

Thank you for all these new inputs on GWL.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]