I am trying to learn Common Lisp with the book Common Lisp: A gentle introduction to Symbolic Computation. In addition, I am using SBCL, Emacs, and Slime.
In the last chapter, on Macros, the author presents examples to re-write the built-in incf macro. He teaches the concept with two different approaches: using back-quote notation and without it. Such as:
(defmacro list-notation-my-incf (x)
(list 'setq x (list '+ x 1)))
(defmacro backquote-notation-my-incf (x)
`(setq ,x (+ ,x 1)))
Later, the author introduces another example:
In the example below, TWO-FROM-ONE is a macro that takes a function
name and another object as arguments; it expands into a call to the
function with two arguments, both of which are the quoted object.
He only uses back-quote character to do it:
(defmacro two-from-one (func object)
`(,func ',object ',object))
And it works as expected:
CL-USER> (two-from-one cons stack-overflow)
(STACK-OVERFLOW . STACK-OVERFLOW)
Using slime-macroexpad-1, I have:
(CONS 'STACK-OVERFLOW 'STACK-OVERFLOW)
As an exercise that I created for myself, I tried doing the same, but avoiding the back-quote notation. Unfortunately, I could not make it work:
(defmacro list-two-from-one (func object)
(list func (quote object) (quote object)))
Slime throws the error:
The variable OBJECT is unbound.
[Condition of type UNBOUND-VARIABLE]
Doing a macro expansion, I see:
(CONS OBJECT OBJECT)
If I try a different approach, it seems to be closer, but it does not work either:
(defmacro list-two-from-one (func object)
(list func object object))
Throws the error:
The variable STACK-OVERFLOW is unbound.
[Condition of type UNBOUND-VARIABLE]
And, finally, the macro expansion indicates:
(CONS STACK-OVERFLOW STACK-OVERFLOW)
I feel stuck. How do I successfully re-write the macro without using back-quote notation?
Thanks.
What you are looking for is something like
(defmacro list-two-from-one (func object)
(list func (list 'quote object) (list 'quote object)))
basically, the body of a macro should return the code, that, when evaluated, produces the desired result.
I.e., the macro body should produce (CONS 'STACK-OVERFLOW 'STACK-OVERFLOW).
Since 'a is the same as (quote a), you want your macro to produce
(CONS (QUOTE STACK-OVERFLOW) (QUOTE STACK-OVERFLOW))
which is what my defmacro above returns.
Your macro should expand to:
CL-USER 10 > (macroexpand '(two-from-one2 cons stack-overflow))
(CONS (QUOTE STACK-OVERFLOW) (QUOTE STACK-OVERFLOW))
So create lists with quote like this:
(defmacro two-from-one2 (func object)
(list func (list 'quote object) (list 'quote object)))
Test:
CL-USER 9 > (two-from-one2 cons stack-overflow)
(STACK-OVERFLOW . STACK-OVERFLOW)
Related
I'm trying to write a macro that will let me streamline the definition of multiple top-level variables in one single expression.
The idea was to make it work similar to how let works:
(defparameters ((*foo* 42)
(*bar* 31)
(*baz* 99)))
I tried using the following, but it doesn't seem to do anything.
(defmacro defparameters (exprs)
(dolist (expr exprs)
(let ((name (car expr))
(exp (cadr expr)))
`(defparameter ,name ,exp))))
I've tried using macroexpand but it doesn't seem to expand at all.
What am I doing wrong? and how can I fix it?
The return value of a dolist is given by its optional third argument, so your macro returns the default of nil.
Macros only return one form, so when you have multiple things, such as your series of defparameters, you need to wrap them all in some form and return that. progn will be suitable here. For Example:
(defmacro defparameters (exprs)
`(progn ,#(loop for (name exp) in exprs
collect `(defparameter ,name ,exp))))
In Python, I am able to use yield to build up a list without having to define a temporary variable:
def get_chars_skipping_bar(word):
while word:
# Imperative logic which can't be
# replaced with a for loop.
if word[:3] == 'bar':
word = word[3:]
else:
yield foo[0]
foo = foo[1:]
In elisp, I can't see any way of doing this, either built-in or using any pre-existing libraries. I'm forced to manually build a up a list and call nreverse on it. Since this is a common pattern, I've written my own macro:
(require 'dash)
(require 'cl)
(defun replace-calls (form x func)
"Replace all calls to X (a symbol) in FORM,
calling FUNC to generate the replacement."
(--map
(cond
((consp it)
(if (eq (car it) x)
(funcall func it)
(replace-calls it x func)))
(:else it))
form))
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield foo).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to yield."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results (list)))
,#(replace-calls body 'yield
(lambda (form) `(push ,(second form) ,results)))
(nreverse ,results))))
Example usage:
(setq foo "barbazbarbarbiz")
(with-results
(while (not (s-equals? "" foo))
;; Imperative logic which can't be replaced with cl-loop's across.
(if (s-starts-with? "bar" foo)
(setq foo (substring foo 3))
(progn
(yield (substring foo 0 1))
(setq foo (substring foo 1))))))
There must be a better way of doing this, or an existing solution, somewhere in elisp, cl.el, or a library.
The Python function is actually a generator. In ANSI Common Lisp, we would usually reach for a lexical closure to simulate a generator, or else us a library to define generators directly, like Pygen. Maybe these approaches can be ported to Emacs Lisp.
AFAIK, people just use push+nreverse like you do. If you want to define your macro in a more robust way (e.g. so it doesn't misfire on something like (memq sym '(yield stop next))) you could do it as:
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield EXP).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to `yield'."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results '()))
(cl-macrolet ((yield (exp) `(push ,exp ,results)))
,#body)
(nreverse ,results))))
Maybe something like this:
(setq foo "barbaz")
(cl-loop for i from 0 to (1- (length foo))
collect (string (aref foo i)))
In any case, there's nothing wrong with push and nreverse.
Lisp is different from Python. yield is not used. I also see the use of coroutine-like constructs for this as a mistake. It's the equivalent of the come-from construct. Suddenly routines have multiple context dependent entry points.
In Lisp use functions/closures instead.
In Common Lisp, the LOOP macro allows efficient mappings over vectors. The following code can be abstracted to some mapping function, if preferred:
CL-USER 17 > (defun chars-without-substring (string substring)
(loop with i = 0
while (< i (length string))
when (and (>= (- (length string) i) (length substring))
(string= substring string
:start2 i
:end2 (+ i (length substring))))
do (incf i (length substring))
else
collect (prog1 (char string i) (incf i))))
CHARS-WITHOUT-SUBSTRING
CL-USER 18 > (chars-without-substring "barbazbarbarbiz" "bar")
(#\b #\a #\z #\b #\i #\z)
I have various functions and I want to call each function with the same value. For instance,
I have these functions:
(defun OP1 (arg) ( + 1 arg) )
(defun OP2 (arg) ( + 2 arg) )
(defun OP3 (arg) ( + 3 arg) )
And a list containing the name of each function:
(defconstant *OPERATORS* '(OP1 OP2 OP3))
So far, I'm trying:
(defun TEST (argument) (dolist (n *OPERATORS*) (n argument) ) )
I've tried using eval, mapcar, and apply, but these haven't worked.
This is just a simplified example; the program that I'm writing has eight functions that are needed to expand nodes in a search tree, but for the moment, this example should suffice.
Other answers have provided some idiomatic solutions with mapcar. One pointed out that you might want a list of functions (which *operators* isn't) instead of a list of symbols (which *operators* is), but it's OK in Common Lisp to funcall a symbol. It's probably more common to use some kind of mapping construction (e.g., mapcar) for this, but since you've provided code using dolist, I think it's worth looking at how you can do this iteratively, too. Let's cover the (probably more idiomatic) solution with mapping first, though.
Mapping
You have a fixed argument, argument, and you want to be able to take a function function and call it with that `argument. We can abstract this as a function:
(lambda (function)
(funcall function argument))
Now, we want to call this function with each of the operations that you've defined. This is simple to do with mapcar:
(defun test (argument)
(mapcar (lambda (function)
(funcall function argument))
*operators*))
Instead of operators, you could also write '(op1 op2 op3) or (list 'op1 'op2 'op3), which are lists of symbols, or (list #'op1 #'op2 #'op3) which is a list of functions. All of these work because funcall takes a function designator as its first argument, and a function designator is
an object that denotes a function and that is one of: a symbol (denoting the function named by that symbol in the global environment), or a function (denoting itself).
Iteratively
You can do this using dolist. The [documentation for actually shows that dolist has a few more tricks up its sleeve. The full syntax is from the documentation
dolist (var list-form [result-form]) declaration* {tag | statement}*
We don't need to worry about declarations here, and we won't be using any tags, but notice that optional result-form. You can specify a form to produce the value that dolist returns; you don't have to accept its default nil. The common idiom for collecting values into a list in an iterative loop is to push each value into a new list, and then return the reverse of that list. Since the new list doesn't share structure with anything else, we usually reverse it destructively using nreverse. Your loop would become
(defun test (argument)
(let ((results '()))
(dolist (op *operators* (nreverse results))
(push (funcall op argument) results))))
Stylistically, I don't like that let that just introduces a single value, and would probably use an &aux variable in the function (but this is a matter of taste, not correctness):
(defun test (argument &aux (results '()))
(dolist (op *operators* (nreverse results))
(push (funcall op argument) results)))
You could also conveniently use loop for this:
(defun test2 (argument)
(loop for op in *operators*
collect (funcall op argument)))
You can also do somewhat succinctly, but perhaps less readably, using do:
(defun test3a (argument)
(do ((results '() (list* (funcall (first operators) argument) results))
(operators *operators* (rest operators)))
((endp operators) (nreverse results))))
This says that on the first iteration, results and operators are initialized with '() and *operators*, respectively. The loop terminates when operators is the empty list, and whenever it terminates, the return value is (nreverse results). On successive iterations, results is a assigned new value, (list* (funcall (first operators) argument) results), which is just like pushing the next value onto results, and operators is updated to (rest operators).
FUNCALL works with symbols.
From the department of silly tricks.
(defconstant *operators* '(op1 op2 o3))
(defun test (&rest arg)
(setf (cdr arg) arg)
(mapcar #'funcall *operators* arg))
There's a library, which is almost mandatory in any anywhat complex project: Alexandria. It has many useful functions, and there's also something that would make your code prettier / less verbose and more conscious.
Say, you wanted to call a number of functions with the same value. Here's how you'd do it:
(ql:quickload "alexandria")
(use-package :alexandria)
(defun example-rcurry (value)
"Calls `listp', `string' and `numberp' with VALUE and returns
a list of results"
(let ((predicates '(listp stringp numberp)))
(mapcar (rcurry #'funcall value) predicates)))
(example-rcurry 42) ;; (NIL NIL T)
(example-rcurry "42") ;; (NIL T NIL)
(defun example-compose (value)
"Calls `complexp' with the result of calling `sqrt'
with the result of calling `parse-integer' on VALUE"
(let ((predicates '(complexp sqrt parse-integer)))
(funcall (apply #'compose predicates) value)))
(example-compose "0") ;; NIL
(example-compose "-1") ;; T
Functions rcurry and compose are from Alexandria package.
I'm reading Peter Norvig's Paradigms of AI. In chapter 6.2, the author uses code like below (not the original code, I picked out the troubling part):
Code Snippet:
(progv '(op arg) '(1+ 1)
(eval '(op arg)))
As the author's original intent, this code should return 2, but in sbcl 1.1.1, the interpreter is apparently not looking up op in the environment, throwing out op: undefined function.
Is this implementation specific? Since the code must have been tested on some other lisp.
p.s Original code
You probably mean
(progv '(op arg) '(1+ 1)
(eval '(funcall op arg)))
Edit(2013-08-21):
PAIP was written in pre-ANSI-Common-Lisp era, so it's possible the code
there contains a few noncompliances wrt the standard. We can make
the examples work with the following revision:
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
"Test an arbitrary expression involving variables.
The pattern looks like ((?if code) . rest)."
(and (eval (reduce (lambda (code binding)
(destructuring-bind (var . val) binding
(subst val var code)))
bindings :initial-value (second (first pattern))))
(pat-match (rest pattern) input bindings)))
;; CL-USER> (pat-match '(?x ?op ?y is ?z (?if (eql (?op ?x ?y) ?z))) '(3 + 4 is 7))
;; ((?Z . 7) (?Y . 4) (?OP . +) (?X . 3) (T . T))
;; CL-USER> (pat-match '(?x ?op ?y (?if (?op ?x ?y))) '(3 > 4))
;; NIL
Elements in first positions are not looked up as values, but as functions and there is no concept of dynamic binding in the function namespace.
I'd say after a quick look that the original code was designed to evaluate in a context like
(progv '(x y) '(12 34)
(eval '(> (+ x y) 99)))
i.e. evaluating a formula providing substitution for variables, not for function names.
The other answers so far are right, in that the actual form being evaluated is not the variables being bound by progv (simply (op arg)), but none have mentioned what is being evaluated. In fact, the comments in the code you linked to provide a (very) short explanation (this is the only code in that file that uses progv):
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
"Test an arbitrary expression involving variables.
The pattern looks like ((?if code) . rest)."
;; *** fix, rjf 10/1/92 (used to eval binding values)
(and (progv (mapcar #'car bindings)
(mapcar #'cdr bindings)
(eval (second (first pattern))))
(pat-match (rest pattern) input bindings)))
The idea is that a call to match-if gets called like
(match-if '((?if code) . rest) input ((v1 val1) (v2 val2) ...))
and eval is called with (second (first pattern)), which the value of code. However, eval is called within the progv that binds v1, v2, &c., to the corresponding val1, val2, &c., so that if any of those variables appear free in code, then they are bound when code is evaluated.
Problem
The problem that I see here is that, by the code we can't tell if the value is to be saved as the variable's symbol-value or symbol-function. Thus when you put a + as a value to some corresponding variable, say v, then it'll always be saved as the symbol-value of var, not it's symbol-function.
Therefore when you'll try to use it as, say (v 1 2) , it won't work. Because there is no function named v in the functions' namespace(see this).
So, what to do?
A probable solution can be explicit checking for the value that is to be bound to a variable. If the value is a function, then it should be bound to the variable's function value. This checking can be done via fboundp.
So, we can make a macro functioner and a modified version of match-if. functioner checks if the value is a function, and sets it aptly. match-if does the dynamic local bindings, and allows other code in the scope of the bound variables.
(defmacro functioner (var val)
`(if (and (symbolp ',val)
(fboundp ',val))
(setf (symbol-function ',var) #',val)
(setf ,var ,val)))
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
(eval `(and (let ,(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (list (car x))) bindings)
(declare (special ,# (mapcar #'car bindings)))
(loop for i in ',bindings
do (eval `(functioner ,(first i) ,(rest i))))
(eval (second (first ',pattern))))
(pat-match (rest ',pattern) ',input ',bindings))))
I'm trying to write a macro in Lisp that re-implements let using itself. This is a trivial exercise which has no practical purpose; however after giving a response to a related question, I realized I should probably learn more about macros. They're touted as one of the great things about Lisp, but I rarely use them.
Anyway, here's what I tried first:
(defmacro mylet (args &rest exp) `(let ,args (dolist (x ,exp) x)))
but when I try something like:
(mylet ((a 5) (b 2)) (print (+ a b)))
this throws up an error:
#1=(PRINT (+ A B)) is not a symbol or lambda expression in the form (#1#) .
args (a and b) are set properly, but the print statement doesn't work. I think it's because I'm using two levels of indirection-- referring to a variable that I've created within the macro. But I can't seem to figure out how to fix it! Any ideas?
Your macro expands to:
(LET ((A 5) (B 2))
(DOLIST (X ((PRINT (+ A B)))) X))
which is invalid because ((PRINT (+ A B))) is not a valid expression. There is also an issue that using an interned symbol in macro expansion can lead to variable capture, but that is not directly relevant (read more in PCL).
Using DOLIST here is unnecessary, and compilcated to get right (you would have to convert all subforms to anonymous function in order to stick them in a list, funcall them in sequence and then store the final result in order to conform to PROGN behaviour). You can just use PROGN, or, since LET includes an implicit PROGN, just splice the body using the ,# feature of backquote mechanism:
(defmacro mylet (args &body exp) `(let ,args ,(cons 'progn exp)))
(defmacro mylet (args &body exp) `(let ,args ,#exp))