I am trying to do the following: separate a function that gets values from some user input from the function that uses it.
I have tried the following code for the proof of concept initially (that worked):
(defun initialiser (bindings)
(cl-loop for (var) in bindings do
(set var (read-from-minibuffer "Input value: "))))
That i have tested with:
(let ((name))
(initialiser '((name)))
(message "name is %S" name))
The idea was to pass bindings to the function that handles input in the form like ((name "Name") (address "Post address") (code "County code")) or something similar, and in there assign the input.
After testing above i have come up with the following macro to do things:
(defmacro initialise-and-execute (bindings initialiser &rest callback-actions)
(let ((unwrapped-bindings (map 'list (lambda (binding) (car binding)) bindings)))
`(let ,unwrapped-bindings
(,initialiser (quote ,bindings)
(lambda () ,#callback-actions)))))
However, in the "real" scenario the assignments must happen in callbacks, like:
(defun initialiser(bindings)
(cl-loop for (var) in bindings collect
(lambda () (set var (read-from-minibuffer "Input value: ")))
into callbacks
return callbacks))
This fails to work. Code i have used to test was:
(defvar callbacks nil)
(let ((name))
(setq callbacks (initialiser '((name)))))
(funcall (car callbacks))
Edit: changed the code the following way:
(defmacro initialise-and-execute (bindings initialiser &rest callback-actions)
(let ((unwrapped-bindings (map 'list (lambda (binding) (car binding)) bindings)))
`(lexical-let ,unwrapped-bindings
(,initialiser
(quote ,(map 'list
(lambda (binding) (list (cadr binding)
`(lambda (val) (setq ,(car binding) val))))
bindings))
(lambda () ,#callback-actions)))))
What it must do: generate number of lambdas that share the same lexical environment - one that uses captured variables and the rest that modify them.
However, what i get is, regrettably, something else. Symbols used in callback-actions do not resolve into the values set.
For completeness, here is how i tested it:
(defun init-values (bindings callback)
(loop for (desc setter) in bindings
for idx = 0 then (incf idx)
do (print (format "Setting %s" desc))
(funcall setter idx))
(funcall callback))
(initialise-and-execute
((name "Name")
(surname "Surname"))
init-values
(message "name is %S" name))
Here, lambdas were not generated in a loop and values in the context of a lexical binding were assigned with setq.
To set the function value, use fset, not set.
(defun initialiser(bindings)
(cl-loop for (var) in bindings collect
(lambda () (fset var (read-from-minibuffer "Input value: ")))
into callbacks
return callbacks))
There are possible issues:
in a LOOP the VAR is possibly assigned on each iteration, not bound (that's in Common Lisp). so your callbacks set all the same VAR value.
in a lexical bound Lisp (new in GNU Emacs Lisp) one can't set the variable values with SET
Examples:
ELISP> (mapcar #'funcall
(cl-loop for i in '(1 2 3 4)
collect (lambda () i)))
(4 4 4 4)
all closures have the same value of i
ELISP> (let ((a 'foobar))
(set 'a 42)
a)
foobar
SET had no effect on the local variable
In Common Lisp I might write something like:
(defun initializer (bindings)
(loop for (what setter) in bindings
for new-value = (progn
(format t "Enter ~a: " what)
(finish-output)
(read-line))
do (funcall setter new-value)))
(defmacro call-with-bindings (name-sym-list fn)
(let ((value-sym (gensym "v")))
`(,fn
(list ,#(loop for (name sym) in name-sym-list
collect `(list ,name ,`(lambda (,value-sym)
(setf ,sym ,value-sym))))))))
CL-USER > (let (name age)
(call-with-bindings (("name" name) ("age" age))
initializer)
(format t "name is ~S~%" name)
(values name age))
Enter name: Lara
Enter age: 42
name is "Lara"
"Lara"
"42"
Where we can look at the macro expansion:
CL-USER > (pprint (macroexpand-1
'(call-with-bindings (("name" name) ("age" age))
initializer)))
(INITIALIZER (LIST (LIST "name"
(LAMBDA (#:|v1669|)
(SETF NAME #:|v1669|)))
(LIST "age"
(LAMBDA (#:|v1669|)
(SETF AGE #:|v1669|)))))
After some experimenting, i have been able to do it. The key was realising that lexical-let apparently had some restrictions on how the lambda should be placed for them to have the same closure context. After i have managed to generate set of closures that referred to the same variables, the rest was easy.
Here is the final code:
(defmacro make-lamba-set (bindings &rest callback-actions)
"Make set of closures with shared context
BINDINGS are a list of form (SYMBOL NAME), where SYMBOL is not defined yet
CALLBACK-ACTIONS are forms that use symbols from bindings
Return created captures a as a list of forms:
(do-callback-actions (set-symbol NAME) ...)"
(let ((unwrapped-bindings (map 'list
(lambda (binding)
(car binding))
bindings)))
`(lexical-let ,unwrapped-bindings
(list (lambda () ,#callback-actions)
,#(map 'list
(lambda (binding)
`(list
(lambda (val)
(setq ,(car binding) val))
,(cadr binding)))
bindings)))))
(defmacro initialise-and-execute (bindings initialiser &rest callback-actions)
"BINGINGS have form of ((BINDING-SYMBOL PROMPT) ...)
INITIALISER somehow assigns values to all of BINDING-SYMBOL
then it calls CALLBACK-ACTIONS with values of BINDING-SYMBOL set"
`(let ((closure-parts (make-lamba-set ,bindings ,#callback-actions)))
(,initialiser (cdr closure-parts)
(car closure-parts))))
Here is how i tested it:
(defun init-values (bindings callback)
(loop for (setter desc) in bindings
for idx = 0 then (incf idx)
do (message "Setting %s" desc)
(funcall setter idx))
(funcall callback))
(initialise-and-execute ((name "Name")
(surname "Surname"))
init-values
(insert (format "Name is %S and surname is %S"
name
surname)))
That gave me expected output of:
Name is 0 and surname is 1
Related
I am writing a Common Lisp macro define-computation which defines functions in a specific way and marks them by adding a property :computation to the property list of the symbol of the defined function.
The define-computation is looking for forms which are funcalls of a function with the :computation property set and wrap them with a specific code.
When I work in the REPL my code below is working as expected and macroexpansion allows me to validate that the defined-computation is properly wrapped by supervise-computation:
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(define-computation c-2 ()
(c-1)
(format t "~&Compute something 2")))
(PROG1
(DEFUN C-2 ()
(DECLARE (OPTIMIZE (SAFETY 3) (SPACE 3)))
(SUPERVISE-COMPUTATION
(C-1))
(FORMAT T "~&Compute something 2"))
(EXPORT 'C-2)
(SETF (GET 'C-2 :COMPUTATION) T))
T
However when my code is organised in an ADSF system so that c-1 and c-2 are in a file and c-3 in another, I see that the code generated for c-2 is actually not wrapping c-1.
(PROG1
(DEFUN C-2 ()
(DECLARE (OPTIMIZE (SAFETY 3) (SPACE 3)))
(C-1)
(FORMAT T "~&Compute something 2"))
(EXPORT 'C-2)
(SETF (GET 'C-2 :COMPUTATION) T))
It seems to be true with SBCL and CCL64.
I am guessing this is caused by the interaction of macro expansion and loading/compiling logic but I am not well-versed enough in these aspects
of Lisp to explain and solve the undesired behaviour.
Given the code below, how can I organise it in an ADSF module so that C-1, and C-2 are defined in a file and C-3 in another, and so that the macro-expansion of C-2 features the form (SUPERVISE-COMPUTATION (C-1)) instead of just (C-1) when the system is loaded. (Again, evaluating the form below in the REPL will not display the problem.)
(defmacro supervise-computation (&body body-forms)
"Supervise the computation BODY-FORMS."
`(progn
(format t "~&---> Computation starts")
,#body-forms
(format t "~&---> Computation stops")))
(defun define-computation/wrap-computation-forms (body-forms)
"Walks through BODY-FORMS and wrap computation forms in a fixture."
(labels
((is-funcall-p (form)
(when (and (listp form) (not (null form)) (symbolp (first form)) (listp (rest form)))
(case (first form)
((funcall apply)
(second form))
(t (first form)))))
(is-computation-form-p (form)
(get (is-funcall-p form) :computation))
(wrap-computation-forms (form)
(cond
((is-computation-form-p form)
`(supervise-computation ,form))
((is-funcall-p form)
(cons (first form) (mapcar #'wrap-computation-forms (rest form))))
(t
form))))
(mapcar #'wrap-computation-forms body-forms)))
(defmacro define-computation (computation-name computation-args &body body)
`(prog1
(defun ,computation-name ,computation-args
(declare (optimize (safety 3) (space 3)))
,#(define-computation/wrap-computation-forms body))
(export (quote ,computation-name))
(setf (get (quote ,computation-name) :computation) t)))
(define-computation c-1 ()
(format t "~&Compute something 1"))
(define-computation c-2 ()
(c-1)
(format t "~&Compute something 2"))
(define-computation c-3 ()
(c-2)
(format t "~&Compute something 3"))
Sleeping over it and looking at other people's code (thank you anaphora) I could figure out a better way to write the macro is
(defmacro define-computation (computation-name computation-args &body body)
(setf (get computation-name :computation) t)
`(prog1
(defun ,computation-name ,computation-args
(declare (optimize (safety 3) (space 3)))
,#(define-computation/wrap-computation-forms body)
(export (quote ,computation-name))))
This ensures the property is set at macro evaluation time.
I am working my way through Practical Common Lisp. I got to the example where you define a deftest macro that works like defun with some added functionality. This got me thinking that it would be nice to be able to add a docstring. I have found that both of the following work, but is one of them more correct? Is there a "right" way to achieve the optional-docstring-like behaviour of defun?
(defmacro deftest (name parameters &body body)
(let ((docstring ""))
(when (stringp (car body)) (setf docstring (car body) body (cdr body)))
`(defun ,name ,parameters
,docstring
(let ((*test-name* (append *test-name* (list ',name))))
,#body))))
(defmacro deftest (name parameters &optional docstring &body body)
(when (not (stringp docstring)) (setf docstring ""))
`(defun ,name ,parameters
,docstring
(let ((*test-name* (append *test-name* (list ',name))))
,#body)))
In general you probably want to parse out both a possible docstring and any declarations from the body of the function, so you can put the declarations where they belong. I use something like this:
(defun parse-body (body)
(multiple-value-bind (docstring decls/forms)
(if (stringp (first body))
(values (first body) (rest body))
(values nil body))
(loop for remainder on decls/forms
while (and (not (null remainder))
(consp (first remainder))
(eql (car (first remainder)) 'declare))
collect (first remainder) into decls
finally (return (values docstring decls remainder)))))
And then your deftest would be
(defmacro deftest (name parameters &body body)
(multiple-value-bind (docstring decls forms) (parse-body body)
`(defun ,name ,parameters
,#(if docstring (list docstring) '())
,#decls
(let ((*test-name* (append *test-name* (list ',name))))
,#forms))))
I wish I could say that I have a standard parse-body function, but I don't: I just write a new one each time.
I have macro that I've written in 2010, it was for managing structures like in Common Lips using Alists (here is whole file including functions https://jcubic.pl/struct.txt).
(define-macro (defstruct name . fields)
"Macro implementing structures in guile based on assoc list."
(let ((names (map (lambda (symbol) (gensym)) fields))
(struct (gensym))
(field-arg (gensym)))
`(if (not (every-unique ',fields))
(error 'defstruct "Fields must be unique")
(begin
(define (,(make-name name) ,#names)
(map cons ',fields (list ,#names)))
,#(map (lambda (field)
`(define (,(make-getter name field) ,struct)
(cdr (assq ',field ,struct)))) fields)
,#(map (lambda (field)
`(define (,(make-setter name field) ,struct ,field-arg)
(assq-set! ,struct ',field ,field-arg)
,field-arg)) fields)
(define (,(make-predicate name) ,struct)
(and (struct? ,struct)
(let ((result #t))
(for-each (lambda (x y)
(if (not (eq? x y)) (set! result #f)))
',fields
(map car ,struct))
result)))))))
It was working fine. I've recently updated this macro for my LIPS in JavaScript (it's based on scheme) and when I call it, it was returning false and wanted to know if this is how it would work in guile. But it turns out it don't work in guile at all. It shows this error:
While compiling expression: ERROR: Syntax error: unknown location:
definition in expression context, where definitions are not allowed,
in form (define (make-point #{ g746}# #{ g747}#) (map cons (quote (x
y)) (list #{ g746}# #{ g747}#))
Why I've got this error and how to fix it, so it work in guile again? I was long ago I don't remember how I was testing this code but opening guile using load function or copy paste the code into interpreter all give same error.
I'm using guile 2.0.14 on GNU/Linux.
PS: I prefer to use lisp macros IMO they are superior to weird scheme hygienic macros.
It looks like modern guile scheme does not see the begin in the if as a valid option to start a new definition context. This is perhaps a bug or better alignment of the scheme spec donough. But the following example code shows the technique to fix your code for more recent guile (you might need to create define-values as it is a more recent addition to guile. P.S. using lisps macros in guile is a clludge and it will get you into trouble if you plan to scheme a lot, the macros is like the parens, if you get used to it will feel natural.
Here is the code,
(define-macro (defstruct name . fields)
"Macro implementing structures in guile based on assoc list."
(let* ((names (map (lambda (symbol) (gensym)) fields))
(struct (gensym))
(field-arg (gensym))
(sname (make-name name))
(predname (make-predicate name))
(getnames (map (lambda (f) (make-getter name f)) fields))
(setnames (map (lambda (f) (make-setter name f)) fields)))
`(define-values (,sname ,predname ,#getnames ,#setnames)
(if (not (every-unique ',fields))
(error 'defstruct "Fields must be unique")
(let ()
(define (,sname ,#names)
(map cons ',fields (list ,#names)))
,#(map (lambda (field)
`(define (,(make-getter name field) ,struct)
(cdr (assq ',field ,struct)))) fields)
,#(map (lambda (field)
`(define (,(make-setter name field) ,struct ,field-arg)
(assq-set! ,struct ',field ,field-arg)
,field-arg)) fields)
(define (,predname ,struct)
(and (struct? ,struct)
(let ((result #t))
(for-each (lambda (x y)
(if (not (eq? x y)) (set! result #f)))
',fields
(map car ,struct))
result)))
(values ,sname ,predname ,#getnames ,#setnames))))))
Here is a version of define-values (look at the code after #' to see what it does)
(define-syntax define-values
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ (f ...) code ...)
(with-syntax (((ff ...) (generate-temporaries #'(f ...))))
#'(begin
(define f #f)
...
(call-with-values (lambda () code ...)
(lambda (ff ...)
(set! f ff)
...))))))))
I'm trying to define a macro that'll take a struct's name, a key, and the name of a hash table in the struct and define functions to access and modify the value under the key in the hash.
(defmacro make-hash-accessor (struct-name key hash)
(let ((key-accessor (gensym))
(hash-accessor (gensym)))
`(let ((,key-accessor (accessor-name ,struct-name ,key))
(,hash-accessor (accessor-name ,struct-name ,hash)))
(setf (fdefinition ,key-accessor) ; reads
(lambda (instance)
(gethash ',key
(funcall ,hash-accessor instance))))
(setf (fdefinition '(setf ,key-accessor)) ; modifies
(lambda (instance to-value)
(setf (gethash ',key
(funcall ,hash-accessor instance))
to-value))))))
;; Returns the symbol that would be the name of an accessor for a struct's slot
(defmacro accessor-name (struct-name slot)
`(intern
(concatenate 'string (symbol-name ',struct-name) "-" (symbol-name ',slot))))
To test this I have:
(defstruct tester
(hash (make-hash-table)))
(defvar too (make-tester))
(setf (gethash 'x (tester-hash too)) 3)
When I run
(make-hash-accessor tester x hash)
then
(tester-x too)
it returns 3 T, as it should, but
(setf (tester-x too) 5)
gives the error:
The function (COMMON-LISP:SETF COMMON-LISP-USER::TESTER-X) is undefined.
[Condition of type UNDEFINED-FUNCTION]
(macroexpand-1 '(make-hash-accessor tester x hash)) expands to
(LET ((#:G690 (ACCESSOR-NAME TESTER X)) (#:G691 (ACCESSOR-NAME TESTER HASH)))
(SETF (FDEFINITION #:G690)
(LAMBDA (INSTANCE) (GETHASH 'X (FUNCALL #:G691 INSTANCE))))
(SETF (FDEFINITION '(SETF #:G690))
(LAMBDA (INSTANCE TO-VALUE)
(SETF (GETHASH 'X (FUNCALL #:G691 INSTANCE)) TO-VALUE))))
T
I'm using SBCL. What am I doing wrong?
You should use defun whenever possible.
Specifically, here instead of defmacro for accessor-name and instead of (setf fdefinition) for your accessors:
(defmacro define-hash-accessor (struct-name key hash)
(flet ((concat-symbols (s1 s2)
(intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name s1) "-" (symbol-name s2)))))
(let ((hash-key (concat-symbols struct-name key))
(get-hash (concat-symbols struct-name hash)))
`(progn
(defun ,hash-key (instance)
(gethash ',key (,get-hash instance)))
(defun (setf ,hash-key) (to-value instance)
(setf (gethash ',key (,get-hash instance)) to-value))
',hash-key))))
(defstruct tester
(hash (make-hash-table)))
(defvar too (make-tester))
(setf (gethash 'x (tester-hash too)) 3)
too
==> #S(TESTER :HASH #S(HASH-TABLE :TEST FASTHASH-EQL (X . 3)))
(define-hash-accessor tester x hash)
==> tester-x
(tester-x too)
==> 7; T
(setf (tester-x too) 5)
too
==> #S(TESTER :HASH #S(HASH-TABLE :TEST FASTHASH-EQL (X . 5)))
Note that I use a more conventional name for the macro: since it defines accessorts, it is common to name it define-... (cf. define-condition, defpackage).
make-... is usually used for functions returning objects (cf. make-package).
See also Is defun or setf preferred for creating function definitions in common lisp and why?
Remember, style is important, both in indentation and in naming variables, functions, and macros.
I would like to create a function that allows to:
(incf vara varb varc vard)
Instead of
(incf vara)
(incf varb)
(incf varc)
(incf vard)
What I do not understand is how to be able to send more arguments, how to define that in a function?
(defun inc (&rest arg)
(interactive)
(mapcar 'incf arg)
)
This increases the argument, but ofcourse does not save them back into the variables.
How to go about this?
If you want to be able to write this form as (my-incf a b c) without quoting the variable names a, b, and c, make it a macro rather than a function:
(defmacro incf+ (&rest vars)
`(progn
,#(mapcar (lambda (var) `(incf ,var)) vars)))
Check that it expands into the right code using macroexpand:
(macroexpand '(incf+ var1 var2 var3))
;; => (progn (incf var1) (incf var2) (incf var3))
Because variables in Emacs Lisp have dynamic scope by default, you can accomplish almost the same thing with a function which takes quoted variable names as arguments. But the macro version has the advantage that, since it expands into code in the place when it was called, it will work with lexically bound variables as well. symbol-value only works with dynamically bound variables.
You can test this by putting the following in a file and loading it (in Emacs 24 or higher):
;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
(defun incf+fun (&rest vars)
(mapc #'(lambda (var) (incf (symbol-value var))) vars))
(defun incf-macro-test ()
(let ((a 5) (b 7) (c 11))
(incf+ a b c)
(list a b c)))
(defun incf-function-test ()
(let ((a 5) (b 7) (c 11))
(incf+fun 'a 'b 'c)
(list a b c)))
Evaluating (incf-macro-test) will return (6 8 12), but (incf-function-test) will enter the debugger with a (void-variable a) error.
It should work:
(require 'cl)
(setq a 1)
(setq b 2)
(defun inc (&rest arg)
(interactive)
(mapc (lambda (x) (incf (symbol-value x))) arg))
(inc 'a 'b)
(message "%s %s" a b) => (2 3)
You have to quote each argument otherwise (inc a b) becomes (inc 1 2) before executing inc.