I recently picked up an old book on lisp and I'm trying to learn lisp using emacs. I am using both the ielm mode and interactive-mode, but I ran into this problem of keywords not being define. I am following the book's example but sometimes I would get a
*** eval error *** Symbol's function definition is void: -the keyword-
The keywords such as: DEFINE, TIMES, DIFFERENCES, ADD1, ect would not work. While other keywords such as: SQRT, MAX, MIN, ect would work.
I am a complete beginner in emacs so I don't quit understand what is wrong.
There are several dialects of lisp, e.g. Common Lisp, Scheme, Emacs Lisp, etc.
Functions, variables or keywords that are available in one dialect may not be in another one.
As Rainer said, the dialect from your book is probably not in use anymore and you shouldn't learn it. Pick a more recent one and buy a book or find documentation online. If you are new to Lisp, it is probably a good idea to start with Scheme which is a major dialect of Lisp and it relatively simple.
Last thing: Emacs is an editor, you can use it to program in any Lisp dialect. Now, Emacs itself is (mainly) written in Emacs Lisp which is a Lisp dialect that was specially designed for Emacs. It is only useful to know it if you want to modify or customize Emacs.
Your book is probably very old and uses a Lisp dialect which no longer is in use.
You may want to get a slightly newer version of that book.
See: http://people.csail.mit.edu/phw/Books/#AI for old Common Lisp (from the 80s) code for the book.
You'd probably be better of with a book discussing Emacs Lisp (one is bundled with Emacs itself, type C-h i m Emacs Intro RET to access it).
Btw, this books looks ancient and I guess it describes a non-standard Lisp dialect. Consider reading something like Practical Common Lisp or Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs instead.
I use Emacs everyday as it is the standard editor for Erlang.
I decided as my New Years Resolution to learn to programme eLisp. I decided that writing a book about eLisp was the best way to learn.
I have make pretty good progress:
Learn eLisp For Emacs
The strategic structure of the book is
getting started/basics
more advanced eLisp
writing a minor mode
writing a major mode
I have got through the basics (ie the first of these 4 points), covering:
evaluating expressions
debugging
adding menu items/toolbars
loading your own emacs files
etc, etc
If you are writing a book about a programming language you usually start by knowing the language well - well I don't - so my major problem now is a completeness problem:
How do I know that I have covered all the features that an Emacs programmer should have mastered?
How do I ensure that there aren't gaps in the content?
So I thought I would address these by asking the community here. My question is What Is Missing From My Table Of Contents? (in particular what should the more advanced eLisp Section contain).
Now that's an interesting way to learn a language...
I think you've probably skipped a bunch of the fundamentals in the getting started/basics section. If you've not already read it, I recommend reading "An Introduction To Programming In Emacs Lisp" (at gnu.org), which covers what I'd expect to see in the "basics" portion. I won't bother cut/paste the table of contents.
As far as knowing when you've written a complete book... Well, once you've re-written the Emacs Lisp manual in "how to" form, you know you're done. Alternatively, if you've written a book that can be used to answer/interpret all of the elisp and emacs questions, then you've probably got decent coverage.
What advanced features could you write about? There's advice, process communication, non-ASCII text, syntax tables, abbrevs, text properties, byte compilation, display tables, images, and a bunch more in the manual.
Note: The proper capitalization of elisp is either all lowercase, or possibly an uppercase E. The GNU documentation doesn't use "elisp" very much at all (mostly as a directory name, all lowercase), it prefers "Emacs Lisp."
Note: In the current version of your book, you treat global variables negatively. It's probably worth reading the RMS paper to gain some insight into the design decisions made, specifically on global variables as well as dynamic binding (the latter which you've yet to cover, which is a key (basic) concept which you've already gotten wrong in your book).
Instead of asking the community here, why not use what the community already offers? Review all the questions tagged "elisp" and see where they fit it your book. A survey of what people actually want to understand could be some of the best information you will get.
"I have read both the GNU manuals - but they are not so much use if you don't know Lisp/elisp."
Tip: Emacs is not much use if you don't know Lisp.
Not really true, of course, but you get the idea. This one is really true:
Tip: Emacs is much, much, much, much more useful if you know Lisp. Not to mention more fun.
Wrt what to learn:
symbols (they are simple objects, with properties -- not just identifiers)
lists -- cons cells, list structure (including modification/sharing)
evaluation
function application
regexps
text/overlay/string properties (values can be any Lisp entities)
buffers and windows
I'd suggest you'll take a look what the two Info manuals included with Emacs Emacs Lisp Intro "An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp" and Elisp "The Emacs Lisp Reference Manual" already have to offer and then decide what you would like to add to or do differently than those.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
I'm getting the Lisp language easily enough, but I'm having trouble groking the mechanics of development. One of my issues is dealing with Emacs. I have no experience with it and find it generally confusing with hard to find/figure out commands.
Specific questions:
I get the REPL, but I don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
-I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I
need to change a function I have to
retype the defun and make changes
(tedious and error prone). How can I
do this better?
-How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program?
I'm used to the C model where you have
code files that you can review, edit
and recompile. I know lisp has
something similar (via the load
function), but how does one get a
function I just defined and tested
into a file to be saved? I'm hoping
there's a better method than my
current select+copy+paste.
Load SLIME. Enter code in your .lisp file, and then run slime-eval-buffer to load all your code into Lisp. Then, for a specific function you are hacking on C-e, C-j to redefine it in your running Lisp.
-How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
Yes. (trace 'my-function) - or some variant on that - and when my-function is called, it will break into the debugger.
-As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a
(defun ...). It's not until I try to
use it that I find out it's not valid.
Is there any way to get errors sooner
(i.e. compile the code)?
To some degree, that is a characteristic of dynamic languages (Python, Perl, Ruby, Lisp, etc.). Try SBCL for better error-checking.
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Emacs is the free IDE for Lisp. Allegro has a free edition I believe; I've never tried it though..
-Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Nah, Scheme is not as pragmatic a language.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/Web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
One can also use the LispWorks Personal Edition for learning Lisp. It has some limitations and the full product is commercial, but it is quite a bit easier to use.
I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
The REPL has a history. With keyboard commands you can get back prior input and change it. Other than that just edit a Lisp file and compile code from there. In Lisp you can compile/eval individual expressions and definitions. Typical IDEs like SLIME, LispWorks or Allegro CL allow you to run code also from normal Lisp text windows - additionally to executing expressions in the REPLA (aka Listener).
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
Copy and paste in one thing. But the correct way is to work from a text file in an editor window. One can compile/load expressions, the editor buffer or the associated file.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
See STEP, TRACE and related. SLIME, LispWorks and Allegro CL have lots of additional features.
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
For many cases one uses a compiler. The compiler will find a range of errors and also will note when something is unusual (for example a function does not exist or a variable has not been defined).
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
LispWorks, Allegro CL are the best under Windows. There are some alternatives like Corman Lisp (I don't know it is maintained right now) or even Ufasoft Lisp.
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Not really.
It doesn't sound like you're really using SLIME, or at least not in the way it was intended to be used. ("have to retype the defun", "the C model where you have code files")
I recommend watching some SLIME screencasts (or, even better, watching a Lisp programmer use SLIME for a few minutes, if you have one handy). The SLIME webpage has a couple.
It sounds like you'd really enjoy the DrRacket IDE. Racket is closer to Scheme than to Common Lisp, but you could dip your toes into the Lisp family without the speed bump of the Emacs style of development.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've read The Nature of Lisp. The only thing I really got out of that was "code is data." But without defining what these terms mean and why they are usually thought to be separate, I gain no insight. My initial reaction to "code is data" is, so what?
The old fashioned view: 'it' is interactive computation with symbolic expressions.
Lisp enables easy representation of all kinds of expressions:
english sentence
(the man saw the moon)
math
(2 * x ** 3 + 4 * x ** 2 - 3 * x + 3)
rules
(<- (likes Kim ?x) (likes ?x Lee) (likes ?x Kim))
and also Lisp itself
(mapcar (function sqr) (quote (1 2 3 4 5)))
and many many many more.
Lisp now allows to write programs that compute with such expressions:
(translate (quote (the man saw the moon)) (quote german))
(solve (quote (2 * x ** 3 + 4 * x ** 2 - 3 * x + 3)) (quote (x . 3)))
(show-all (quote (<- (likes Kim ?x) (likes ?x Lee) (likes ?x Kim))))
(eval (quote (mapcar (function sqr) (quote (1 2 3 4 5)))))
Interactive means that programming is a dialog with Lisp. You enter an expression and Lisp computes the side effects (for example output) and the value.
So your programming session is like 'talking' with the Lisp system. You work with it until you get the right answers.
What are these expressions? They are sentences in some language. They are part descriptions of turbines. They are theorems describing a floating point engine of an AMD processor. They are computer algebra expressions in physics. They are descriptions of circuits. They are rules in a game. They are descriptions of behavior of actors in games. They are rules in a medical diagnosis system.
Lisp allows you to write down facts, rules, formulas as symbolic expressions. It allows you to write programs that work with these expressions. You can compute the value of a formula. But you can equally easy write programs that compute new formulas from formulas (symbolic math: integrate, derive, ...). That was Lisp designed for.
As a side effect Lisp programs are represented as such expressions too. Then there is also a Lisp program that evaluates or compiles other Lisp programs. So the very idea of Lisp, the computation with symbolic expressions, has been applied to Lisp itself. Lisp programs are symbolic expressions and the computation is a Lisp expression.
Alan Kay (of Smalltalk fame) calls the original definition of Lisp evaluation in Lisp the Maxwell's equations of programming.
Write Lisp code. The only way to really 'get' Lisp (or any language, for that matter) is to roll up your sleeves and implement some things in it. Like anything else, you can read all you want, but if you want to really get a firm grasp on what's going on, you've got to step outside the theoretical and start working with the practical.
The way you "get" any language is by trying to write some code in it.
About the "data is code" thing, in most languages there is a clear separation between the code that gets executed, and the data that is processed.
For example, the following simple C-like function:
void foo(int i){
int j;
if (i % 42 == 0){
bar(i-2);
}
for (j = 0; j < i; ++j){
baz();
}
}
the actual control flow is determined once, statically, while writing the code. The function bar isn't going to change, and the if statement at the beginning of the function isn't going to disappear. This code is not data, it can not be manipulated by the program.
All that can be manipulated is the initial value of i. And on the other hand, that value can not be executed the way code can. You can call the function foo, but you can't call the variable i. So i is data, but it is not code.
Lisp does not have this distinction. The program code is data that can be manipulated too. Your code can, at runtime, take the function foo, and perhaps add another if statement, perhaps change the condition in the for-loop, perhaps replace the call to baz with another function call. All your code is data that can be inspected and manipulated as simply as the above function can inspect and manipulate the integer i.
I would highly recommend Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, which actually uses scheme, but that is a dialect of lisp. It will help you "get" lisp by having you do many different exercises and goes on to show some of the ways that lisp is so usefull.
I think you have to have more empathy for compiler writers to understand how fundamental the code is data thing is. I'll admit, I've never taken a compilers course, but converting any sufficiently high-level language into machine code is a hard problem, and LISP, in many ways, resembles an intermediate step in this process. In the same way that C is "close to the metal", LISP is close to the compiler.
This worked for me:
Read "The Little Schemer". It's the shortest path to get you thinking in Lisp mode (minus the macros). As a bonus, it's relatively short/fun/inexpensive.
Find a good book/tutorial to get you started with macros. I found chapter 8 of "The Scheme
Programming Language" to be a good starting point for Scheme.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/BTLS/
http://www.scheme.com/tspl3/syntax.html
By watching legendary Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs?
In Common Lisp, "code is data" boils down to this. When you write, for example:
(add 1 2)
your Lisp system will parse that text and generate a list with three elements: the symbol ADD, and the numbers 1 and 2. So now they're data. You can do whatever you want with them, replace elements, insert other stuff, etc.
The fun part is that you can pass this data on to the compiler and, because you can manipulate these data structures using Lisp itself, this means you can write programs that write other programs. This is not as complicated as it sounds, and Lispers do it all the time using macros. So, just get a book about Lisp, and try it out.
Okay, I'm going to take a crack at this. I'm new to Lisp myself, just having arrived from the world of python. I haven't experienced that sudden moment of enlightenment that all the old Lispers talk about, but I'll tell you what I am seeing so far.
First, look at this random bit of python code:
def is_palindrome(st):
l = len(st)/2
return True if st[:l] == st[:-l-1:-1] else False
Now look at this:
"""
def is_palindrome(st):
l = len(st)/2
return True if st[:l] == st[:-l-1:-1] else False
"""
What do you, as a programmer, see? The code is identical, FYI.
If you are like me, you'll tend to think of the first as active code. It consists of a number of syntactic elements.
The second, despite its similarity, is a single syntactic item. It's a string. You interact with it as a single entity. To deal with it as code - to handle it comfortably along its syntactic boundaries - you will have to do some parsing. To execute it, you need to invoke an interpreter. It's not the same thing at all as the first.
So when we do code generation in most languages what are we dealing with? Strings. When I generate HTML or SQL with python I use python strings as the interface between the two languages. Even if I generate python with python, strings are the tool.*
Doesn't the thought of that just... make you want to dance with joy? There's always this grotesque mismatch between that which you are working with and that which you are working on. I sensed that the first time that I generated SQL with perl. Differences in escaping. Differences in formatting: think about trying to get a generated html document to look tidy. Stuff isn't easy to reuse. Etc.
To solve the problem we serially create templating libraries. Scads of them. Why so many? My guess is that they're never quite satisfactory. By the time they start getting powerful enough they've turned into monstrosities. Granted, some of them - such as SQLAlchemy and Genshi in the python world - are very beautiful and admirable monstrosities. Let's... um... avoid mention of PHP.
Because strings make an awkward interface between the worked-on language and the worked-with, we create a third language - templates - to avoid them. ** This also tends to be a little awkward.
Now let's look at a block of quoted Lisp code:
'(loop for i from 1 to 8 do (print i))
What do you see? As a new Lisp coder, I've caught myself looking at that as a string. It isn't. It is inactive Lisp code. You are looking at a bunch of lists and symbols. Try to evaluate it after turning one of the parentheses around. The language won't let you do it: syntax is enforced.
Using quasiquote, we can shoehorn our own values into this inactive Lisp code:
`(loop for i from 1 to ,whatever do (print i))
Note the nature of the shoehorning: one item has been replaced with another. We aren't formatting our value into a string. We're sliding it into a slot in the code. It's all neat and tidy.
In fact if you want to directly edit the text of the code, you are in for a hassle. For example if you are inserting a name <varname> into the code, and you also want to use <varname>-tmp in the same code you can't do it directly like you can with a template string: "%s-tmp = %s". You have to extract the name into a string, rewrite the string, then turn it into a symbol again and finally insert.
If you want to grasp the essence of Lisp, I think that you might gain more by ignoring defmacro and gensyms and all that window dressing for the moment. Spend some time exploring the potential of the quasiquote, including the ,# thing. It's pretty accessible. Defmacro itself only provides an easy way to execute the result of quasiquotes. ***
What you should notice is that the hermetic string/template barrier between the worked-on and the worked-with is all but eliminated in Lisp. As you use it, you'll find that your sense of two distinct layers - active and passive - tends to dissipate. Functions call macros which call macros or functions which have functions (or macros!) passed in with their arguments. It's kind of a big soup - a little shocking for the newcomer. That said, I don't find that the distinction between macros and functions is as seamless as some Lisp people say. Mostly it's ok, but every so often as I wander in the soup I find myself bumping up against the ghost of that old barrier - and it really creeps me out!
I'll get over it, I'm sure. No matter. The convenience pays for the scare.
Now that's Lisp working on Lisp. What about working on other languages? I'm not quite there yet, personally, but I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel. You know how Lisp people keep going on about S-expressions being the same thing as a parse tree? I think the idea is to parse the foreign language into S-expressions, work on them in the amazing comfort of the Lisp environment, then send them back to native code. In theory, every language out there could be turned into S-expressions, or even executable lisp code. You're not working in a first language combined with a third language to produce code in a second language. It is all - while you are working on it - Lisp, and you can generate it all with quasiquotes.
Have a look at this (borrowed from PCL):
(define-html-macro :mp3-browser-page ((&key title (header title)) &body body)
`(:html
(:head
(:title ,title)
(:link :rel "stylesheet" :type "text/css" :href "mp3-browser.css"))
(:body
(standard-header)
(when ,header (html (:h1 :class "title" ,header)))
,#body
(standard-footer))))
Looks like an S-expression version of HTML, doesn't it? I have a feeling that Lisp works just fine as its own templating library.
I've started to wonder about an S-expression version of python. Would it qualify as a Lisp? It certainly wouldn't be Common Lisp. Maybe it would be nicer - for python programmers at least. Hey, and what about P-expressions?
* Python now has something called AST, which I haven't explored. Also a person could use python lists to represent other languages. Relative to Lisp, I suspect that both are a bit of a hack.
** SQLAlchemy is kind of an exception. It's done a nice job of turning SQL directly into python. That said, it appears to have involved significant effort.
*** Take it from a newbie. I'm sure I'm glossing over something here. Also, I realize that quasiquote is not the only way to generate code for macros. It's certainly a nice one, though.
Data is code is an interesting paradigm that supports treating a data structure as a command. Treating data in this way allows you to process and manipulate the structure in various ways - e.g. traversal - by evaluating it. Moreover, the 'data is code' paradigm obviates the need in many cases to develop custom parsers for data structures; the language parser itself can be used to parse the structures.
The first step is forgetting everything you have learned with all the C and Pascal-like languages. Empty your mind. This is the hardest step.
Then, take a good introduction to programming that uses Lisp. Don't try to correlate what you see with anything that you know beforehand (when you catch yourself doing that, repeat step 1). I liked Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (uses Scheme), Practical Common Lisp, Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming, Casting Spels in Lisp, among others. Be sure to write out the examples. Also try the exercises, but limit yourself to the constructs you have learned in that book. If you find yourself trying to find, for example, some function to set a variable or some statement that resembles a for loop, repeat step 1, then revisit the chapters before to find out how it is done in Lisp.
Read and understand the legendary page 13 of the Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual
According to Alan Kay, at least.
One of the reasons that some university computer science programs use Lisp for their intro courses is that it's generally true that a novice can learn functional, procedural, or object-oriented programming more or less equally well. However, it's much harder for someone who already thinks in procedural statements to begin thinking like a functional programmer than to do the inverse.
When I tried to pick up Lisp, I did it "with a C accent." set! amd begin were my friends and constant companions. It is surprisingly easy to write Lisp code without ever writing any functional code, which isn't the point.
You may notice that I'm not answering your question, which is true. I merely wanted to let you know that it's awfully hard to get your mind thinking in a functional style, and it'll be an exciting practice that will make you a stronger programmer in the long run.
Kampai!
P.S. Also, you'll finally understand that "my other car is a cdr" bumper sticker.
To truly grok lisp, you need to write it.
Learn to love car, cdr, and cons. Don't iterate when you can recurse. Start out writing some simple programs (factorial, list reversal, dictionary lookup), and work your way up to more complex ones (sorting sets of items, pattern matching).
On the code is data and data is code thing, I wouldn't worry about it at this point. You'll understand it eventually, and its not critical to learning lisp.
I would suggest checking out some of the newer variants of Lisp like Arc or Clojure. They clean up the syntax a little and are smaller and thus easier to understand than Common Lisp. Clojure would be my choice. It is written on the JVM and so you don't have the issues with various platform implementations and library support that exist with some Lisp implementations like SBCL.
Read On Lisp and Paradigms in Artificial Intelligence Programming. Both of these have excellent coverage of Lisp macros - which really make the code is data concept real.
Also, when writing Lisp, don't iterate when you can recurse or map (learn to love mapcar).
it's important to see that data is code AND code is data. This feeds the eval/apply loop. Recursion is also fun.
(This link is broken:
![Eval/Apply][1]
[1]: http://ely.ath.cx/~piranha/random_images/lolcode-eval_apply-2.jpg
)
I'd suggest that is a horrible introduction to the language. There are better places to start and better people/articles/books than the one you cited.
Are you a programmer? What language(s)?
To help you with your question more background might be helpful.
About the whole "code is data" thing:
Isn't that due to the "von Neumann architecture"? If code and data were located in physically separate memory locations, the bits in the data memory could not be executed whereas the bits in the program memory could not be interpreted as anything but instructions to the CPU.
Do I understand this correctly?
I think to learn anything you have to have a purpose for it, such as a simple project.
For Lisp, a good simple project is a symbolic differentiator, so for example
(diff 'x 'x) -> 1
(diff 'a 'x) -> 0
(diff `(+ ,xx ,yy) 'x) where xx and yy are subexpressions
-> `(+ ,(diff xx 'x),(diff yy 'x))
etc. etc.
and then you need a simplifier, such as
(simp `(+ ,x 0)) -> x
(simp `(* ,x 0)) -> 0
etc. etc.
so if you start with a math expression, you can eval it to get its value, and you can eval its derivative to get its derivative.
I hope this illustrates what can happen when program code manipulates program code.
As Marvin Minsky observed, computer math is always worried about accuracy and roundoff error, right? Well, this is either exactly right or completely wrong!
You can get LISP in many ways, the most common is by using Emacs or working next to somebody who has developed LISP already.
Sadly, once you get LISP, it's hard to get rid of it, antibiotics won't work.
BTW: I also recommend The Adventures of a Pythonista in Schemeland.
This may be helpful: http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/fp.html (isn't about LISP but about functional programming as a paradigm)
The way I think about it is that the best part of "code is data" is the face that function are, well, functionally no different than another variable. The fact that you can write code that writes code is one of the single most powerful (and often overlooked) features of Lisp. Functions can accept other functions as parameters, and even return functions as a result.
This lets one code at a much higher level of abstraction than, say, Java. It makes many tasks elegant and concise, and therefore, makes the code easier to modify, maintain, and read, or at least in theory.
I would say that the only way to truly "get" Lisp is to spend a lot of time with it -- once you get the hang of it, you'll wish you had some of the features of Lisp in your other programming languages.