I would like to get the name of the file where a particular function or macro definition was last written, for various documentation & testing purposes?
I have posted an answer that works well from me, after the help of PJB on #CommonLisp (IRC.LIBERA.CHAT), but will accept any answers which provide a portable solution that does not depend on SWANK or provides additional detail on how to achieve the same in other IDEs like LispWorks, ACL, etc.
If what you seek is a portable solution – one that is written in portable CL – then the answer to that is to define wrappers for defining forms and then use the wrappers.
(defvar *flocs* (make-hash-table :test #'equal))
(defgeneric function-location (f/name)
(:method ((name t))
(values (gethash name *flocs* nil) t))
(:method ((f function))
(multiple-value-bind (le cp nm) (function-lambda-expression f)
(declare (ignore le cp))
(if nm
(function-location nm)
(values nil nil)))))
(defmacro define-function (f args &body doc/decls/forms)
(when (or *load-pathname* *compile-file-pathname*)
;; Prefer *load-pathname*
(setf (gethash f *flocs*) (or *load-pathname* *compile-file-pathname*)))
`(defun ,f ,args ,#doc/decls/forms))
In real life you'd call define-function defun of course, and similarly with define-variable etc, and then construct a conduit package for CL which exported all the CL symbols while replacing the defining forms with these ones.
If what you seek is a portable solution in the sense that it exports some standard interface but has varying implementation-dependent backends, then probably looking at what SLY or SWANK do is a good start. In the case of LW you would want the backend to use DSPECs which are how it deals with location information:
> (dspec:dspec-definition-locations '(defun foo))
(((defun foo) :listener))
> (dspec:dspec-definition-locations '(defun needs))
(((defmacro needs)
#P"..."))
> (defclass foo () ())
#<standard-class foo 402000B763>
> (dspec:name-definition-locations dspec:*dspec-classes* 'foo)
(((defclass foo) :listener) ((defun foo) :listener))
PJB on #CommonLisp (IRC.LIBERA.CHAT) greatly assisted and provided the below answer (which I have paraphrased so any mistakes are on my end):
Firstly, CL is a lisp-2 (actually, lisp-∞) and thus there may not be a single definition attached to a symbol. For example, which foo is being referred to in the below?
(deftype foo () (member foo))
(defvar foo 'foo)
(defun foo () foo)
In addition, as an example, symbols may be defined in the REPL (no associated filename), so this is not a straightforward question that can be answered without making assumptions on the intent.
Now, when the behaviour of M-. is satisfactory for your requirements, you could look in slime/swank what the implementation specific API is to do it.
This should point you to swank:find-definition-for-emacs, which may be what you are after:
(swank:find-definitions-for-emacs "foo") #| -->
(("#'foo"
(:location (:file "/private/tmp/foo.lisp")
(:position 50)
(:snippet "(defun foo () foo)")))
("(type foo)"
(:location (:file "/private/tmp/foo.lisp")
(:position 1)
(:snippet "(deftype foo () '(member foo))")))
("(variable foo)"
(:location (:file "/private/tmp/foo.lisp")
(:position 32)
(:snippet "(defvar foo 'foo)"))))
Make sure to load swank as a dependency in your .asd files if you want to rely on the above.
EDIT: I also found the below very useful (and swank has a similar file for most implementations, so just go through each to see their equivalents):
https://github.com/slime/slime/blob/68c58c0194ff03cd147fcec99f0ee90ba9178875/swank/sbcl.lisp#L811
The function call (sb-introspect:find-definition-sources-by-name name type) (name is a symbol, type is a keyword, e.g. :function - refer above link) returns the file in which a definition is stored, assuming you are using SBCL. More (SBCL) details also in:
https://github.com/sbcl/sbcl/blob/master/contrib/sb-introspect/introspect.lisp
Related
In one variant of Common Lisp (I think it was CMUCL, but I might be wrong—I can't find it any more) there was a function that was (I think) called function-lambda-expression. If it got a procedure, it would print out the lambda expression that had generated it. Example:
(let ((my-thunk (lambda () (+ 1 2))))
(write my-thunk)
(write (function-lambda-expression my-thunk)))
This would print out something like:
#<PROCEDURE>
(LAMBDA () (+ 1 2))
It was terribly useful for debugging and exploring the language.
I'm looking for a function like this in Racket. I've looked through the Racket Documentation but I can't find anything like it. (I wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked it, however.) Is there an equivalent in Racket?
No. Racket's lambda produces a closure that does not remember its S-expression (or syntax object) form. It does typically remember its name (or its abbreviated source location, if no name can be inferred), and that's often enough to help with debugging. (See object-name.)
You can build your own variant of lambda that has this feature, using Racket's applicable structures and a simple macro. Here's a basic example:
#lang racket
(struct exp-closure (f exp)
#:property prop:procedure (struct-field-index f))
(define-syntax-rule (exp-lambda formals . body)
(exp-closure (lambda formals . body)
(quote (exp-lambda formals . body))))
(let ([my-thunk (exp-lambda () (+ 1 2))])
(printf "fun is ~v\n" my-thunk)
(printf "exp is ~v\n" (exp-closure-exp my-thunk))
(printf "result is ~v\n" (my-thunk)))
This produces
fun is #<procedure:...tmp/lambda.rkt:11:19>
exp is '(exp-lambda () (+ 1 2))
result is 3
A better version of this macro might propagate the source location of the macro use to the lambda expression it creates, or the inferred name (see syntax-local-infer-name), or both.
In this post, I ask tangentially why when I declare in SBCL
(defun a (&rest x)
x)
and then check what the function cell holds
(describe 'a)
COMMON-LISP-USER::A
[symbol]
A names a compiled function:
Lambda-list: (&REST X)
Derived type: (FUNCTION * (VALUES LIST &OPTIONAL))
Source form:
(LAMBDA (&REST X) (BLOCK A X))
I see this particular breakdown of the original function. Could someone explain what this output means? I'm especially confused by the last line
Source form:
(LAMBDA (&REST X) (BLOCK A X))
This is mysterious because for some reason not clear to me Lisp has transformed the original function into a lambda expression. It would also be nice to know the details of how a function broken down like this is then called. This example is SBCL. In Elisp
(symbol-function 'a)
gives
(lambda (&rest x) x)
again, bizarre. As I said in the other post, this is easier to understand in Scheme -- but that created confusion in the answers. So once more I ask, Why has Lisp taken a normal function declaration and seemingly stored it as a lambda expression?
I'm still a bit unclear what you are confused about, but here is an attempt to explain it. I will stick to CL (and mostly to ANSI CL), because elisp has a lot of historical oddities which just make things hard to understand (there is an appendix on elisp). Pre-ANSI CL was also a lot less clear on various things.
I'll try to explain things by writing a macro which is a simple version of defun: I'll call this defun/simple, and an example of its use will be
(defun/simple foo (x)
(+ x x))
So what I need to do is to work out what the expansion of this macro should be, so that it does something broadly equivalent (but simpler than) defun.
The function namespace & fdefinition
First of all I assume you are comfortable with the idea that, in CL (and elisp) the namespace of functions is different than the namespace of variable bindings: both languages are lisp-2s. So in a form like (f x), f is looked up in the namespace of function bindings, while x is looked up in the namespace of variable bindings. This means that forms like
(let ((sin 0.0))
(sin sin))
are fine in CL or elisp, while in Scheme they would be an error, as 0.0 is not a function, because Scheme is a lisp-1.
So we need some way of accessing that namespace, and in CL the most general way of doing that is fdefinition: (fdefinition <function name>) gets the function definition of <function name>, where <function name> is something which names a function, which for our purposes will be a symbol.
fdefinition is what CL calls an accessor: this means that the setf macro knows what to do with it, so that we can mutate the function binding of a symbol by (setf (fdefinition ...) ...). (This is not true: what we can access and mutate with fdefinition is the top-level function binding of a symbol, we can't access or mutate lexical function bindings, and CL provides no way to do this, but this does not matter here.)
So this tells us what our macro expansion needs to look like: we want to set the (top-level) definition of the name to some function object. The expansion of the macro should be like this:
(defun/simple foo (x)
x)
should expand to something involving
(setf (fdefinition 'foo) <form which makes a function>)
So we can write this bit of the macro now:
(defmacro defun/simple (name arglist &body forms)
`(progn
(setf (fdefinition ',name)
,(make-function-form name arglist forms))
',name))
This is the complete definition of this macro. It uses progn in its expansion so that the result of expanding it is the name of the function being defined, which is the same as defun: the expansion does all its real work by side-effect.
But defun/simple relies on a helper function, called make-function-form, which I haven't defined yet, so you can't actually use it yet.
Function forms
So now we need to write make-function-form. This function is called at macroexpansion time: it's job is not to make a function: it's to return a bit of source code which will make a function, which I'm calling a 'function form'.
So, what do function forms look like in CL? Well, there's really only one such form in portable CL (this might be wrong, but I think it is true), which is a form constructed using the special operator function. So we're going to need to return some form which looks like (function ...). Well, what can ... be? There are two cases for function.
(function <name>) denotes the function named by <name> in the current lexical environment. So (function car) is the function we call when we say (car x).
(function (lambda ...)) denotes a function specified by (lambda ...): a lambda expression.
The second of these is the only (caveats as above) way we can construct a form which denotes a new function. So make-function-form is going to need to return this second variety of function form.
So we can write an initial version of make-function-form:
(defun make-function-form (name arglist forms)
(declare (ignore name))
`(function (lambda ,arglist ,#forms)))
And this is enough for defun/simple to work:
> (defun/simple plus/2 (a b)
(+ a b))
plus/2
> (plus/2 1 2)
3
But it's not quite right yet: one of the things that functions defined by defun can do is return from themselves: they know their own name and can use return-from to return from it:
> (defun silly (x)
(return-from silly 3)
(explode-the-world x))
silly
> (silly 'yes)
3
defun/simple can't do this, yet. To do this, make-function-form needs to insert a suitable block around the body of the function:
(defun make-function-form (name arglist forms)
`(function (lambda ,arglist
(block ,name
,#forms))))
And now:
> (defun/simple silly (x)
(return-from silly 3)
(explode-the-world x))
silly
> (silly 'yes)
3
And all is well.
This is the final definition of defun/simple and its auxiliary function.
Looking at the expansion of defun/simple
We can do this with macroexpand in the usual way:
> (macroexpand '(defun/simple foo (x) x))
(progn
(setf (fdefinition 'foo)
#'(lambda (x)
(block foo
x)))
'foo)
t
The only thing that's confusing here is that, because (function ...) is common in source code, there's syntactic sugar for it which is #'...: this is the same reason that quote has special syntax.
It's worth looking at the macroexpansion of real defun forms: they usually have a bunch of implementation-specific stuff in them, but you can find the same thing there. Here's an example from LW:
> (macroexpand '(defun foo (x) x))
(compiler-let ((dspec::*location* '(:inside (defun foo) :listener)))
(compiler::top-level-form-name (defun foo)
(dspec:install-defun 'foo
(dspec:location)
#'(lambda (x)
(declare (system::source-level
#<eq Hash Table{0} 42101FCD5B>))
(declare (lambda-name foo))
x))))
t
Well, there's a lot of extra stuff in here, and LW obviously has some trick around this (declare (lambda-name ...)) form which lets return-from work without an explicit block. But you can see that basically the same thing is going on.
Conclusion: how you make functions
In conclusion: a macro like defun, or any other function-defining form, needs to expand to a form which, when evaluated, will construct a function. CL offers exactly one such form: (function (lambda ...)): that's how you make functions in CL. So something like defun necessarily has to expand to something like this. (To be precise: any portable version of defun: implementations are somewhat free to do implementation-magic & may do so. However they are not free to add a new special operator.)
What you are seeing when you call describe is that, after SBCL has compiled your function, it's remembered what the source form was, and the source form was exactly the one you would have got from the defun/simple macro given here.
Notes
lambda as a macro
In ANSI CL, lambda is defined as a macro whose expansion is a suitable (function (lambda ...)) form:
> (macroexpand '(lambda (x) x))
#'(lambda (x) x)
t
> (car (macroexpand '(lambda (x) x)))
function
This means that you don't have to write (function (lambda ...)) yourself: you can rely on the macro definition of lambda doing it for you. Historically, lambda wasn't always a macro in CL: I can't find my copy of CLtL1, but I'm pretty certain it was not defined as one there. I'm reasonably sure that the macro definition of lambda arrived so that it was possible to write ISLisp-compatible programs on top of CL. It has to be in the language because lambda is in the CL package and so users can't portably define macros for it (although quite often they did define such a macro, or at least I did). I have not relied on this macro definition above.
defun/simple does not purport to be a proper clone of defun: its only purpose is to show how such a macro can be written. In particular it doesn't deal with declarations properly, I think: they need to be lifted out of the block & are not.
Elisp
Elisp is much more horrible than CL. In particular, in CL there is a well-defined function type, which is disjoint from lists:
> (typep '(lambda ()) 'function)
nil
> (typep '(lambda ()) 'list)
t
> (typep (function (lambda ())) 'function)
t
> (typep (function (lambda ())) 'list)
nil
(Note in particular that (function (lambda ())) is a function, not a list: function is doing its job of making a function.)
In elisp, however, an interpreted function is just a list whose car is lambda (caveat: if lexical binding is on this is not the case: it's then a list whose car is closure). So in elisp (without lexical binding):
ELISP> (function (lambda (x) x))
(lambda (x)
x)
And
ELISP> (defun foo (x) x)
foo
ELISP> (symbol-function 'foo)
(lambda (x)
x)
The elisp intepreter then just interprets this list, in just the way you could yourself. function in elisp is almost the same thing as quote.
But function isn't quite the same as quote in elisp: the byte-compiler knows that, when it comes across a form like (function (lambda ...)) that this is a function form, and it should byte-compile the body. So, we can look at the expansion of defun in elisp:
ELISP> (macroexpand '(defun foo (x) x))
(defalias 'foo
#'(lambda (x)
x))
(It turns out that defalias is the primitive thing now.)
But if I put this definition in a file, which I byte compile and load, then:
ELISP> (symbol-function 'foo)
#[(x)
"\207"
[x]
1]
And you can explore this a bit further: if you put this in a file:
(fset 'foo '(lambda (x) x))
and then byte compile and load that, then
ELISP> (symbol-function 'foo)
(lambda (x)
x)
So the byte compiler didn't do anything with foo because it didn't get the hint that it should. But foo is still a fine function:
ELISP> (foo 1)
1 (#o1, #x1, ?\C-a)
It just isn't compiled. This is also why, if writing elisp code with anonymous functions in it, you should use function (or equivalently #'). (And finally, of course, (function ...) does the right thing if lexical scoping is on.)
Other ways of making functions in CL
Finally, I've said above that function & specifically (function (lambda ...)) is the only primitive way to make new functions in CL. I'm not completely sure that's true, especially given CLOS (almost any CLOS will have some kind of class instances of which are functions but which can be subclassed). But it does not matter: it is a way and that's sufficient.
DEFUN is a defining macro. Macros transform code.
In Common Lisp:
(defun foo (a)
(+ a 42))
Above is a definition form, but it will be transformed by DEFUN into some other code.
The effect is similar to
(setf (symbol-function 'foo)
(lambda (a)
(block foo
(+ a 42))))
Above sets the function cell of the symbol FOO to a function. The BLOCK construct is added by SBCL, since in Common Lisp named functions defined by DEFUN create a BLOCK with the same name as the function name. This block name can then be used by RETURN-FROM to enable a non-local return from a specific function.
Additionally DEFUN does implementation specific things. Implementations also record development information: the source code, the location of the definition, etc.
Scheme has DEFINE:
(define (foo a)
(+ a 10))
This will set FOO to a function object.
I'd like to learn more about lisp macros and I want to create a simple implementation of the defun macro.
I'm also interested in lisp's source code in all the implementations.
This is a tricky question, because of bootstrapping: defun does a lot of things (iow, calls a lot of functions), but to define those functions one needs a working defun. Thus there are three(3!) definitions of defun in clisp/src/init.lisp: at lines
228
1789
1946
The very basic definition of defun could be this:
(defmacro defun (fname lambda-list &rest body)
`(setf (fdefinition ',fname)
(lambda ,lambda-list
(block ,fname ,#body))))
In fact, this is the first definition of defun in CLISP (line 228), except that there is no defmacro and no backquote at that moment yet, so the actual code looks a lot uglier.
See also Is defun or setf preferred for creating function definitions in common lisp and why? where I discuss macroexpansions of defuns.
You can easily check how your particular CL implementation, implemented defun by running
(macroexpand '(defun add2 (x) (+ x 2)))
On SBCL it expands to:
(PROGN
(EVAL-WHEN (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) (SB-C:%COMPILER-DEFUN 'ADD2 NIL T))
(SB-IMPL::%DEFUN 'ADD2
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA ADD2
(X)
(BLOCK ADD2 (+ X 2)))
(SB-C:SOURCE-LOCATION)))
T
To see the particular source code that implemented the I would use (on Emacs) the M-. key binding and then I will write defun and hit enter. Then Emacs will get to the source code:
(sb!xc:defmacro defun (&environment env name lambda-list &body body)
#!+sb-doc
"Define a function at top level."
[...]
I am not going to paste the whole macro as it is rather long. If you are not on Emacs, you can try searching in the repos as most implementations are open source.
BTW defun is not so special. You can implement much of it with setf-inf a symbol-function to a lambda. E.g.:
(setf (symbol-function 'ADD3) #'(lambda (x) (+ x 3)))
; => #<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (X)) {1006E94EBB}>
(add3 4)
; => 7
I'm trying to define a new language in racket, let's call it wibble. Wibble will allow modules to be loaded so it has to translate it's forms to Racket require forms. But I'm having trouble getting require to work when used in a language extension. I eventually tracked down my problems to the following strange behaviour.
Here's my reader which redefines read and read-syntax
=== wibble/lang/reader.rkt ===
#lang racket/base
(provide (rename-out (wibble-read read) (wibble-read-syntax read-syntax)))
(define (wibble-read in)
(wibble-read-syntax #f in))
(define (wibble-read-syntax src in)
#`(module #,(module-name src) wibble/lang
#,#(read-all src in)))
(define (module-name src)
(if (path? src)
(let-values (((base name dir?) (split-path src)))
(string->symbol (path->string (path-replace-suffix name #""))))
'anonymous-module))
(define (read-all src in)
(let loop ((all '()))
(let ((obj (read-syntax src in)))
(if (eof-object? obj)
(reverse all)
(loop (cons obj all))))))
and here's my much simplified language module, this introduces (require racket/base) into each wibble module
=== wibble/lang.rkt ===
#lang racket/base
(require (for-syntax racket/base))
(provide (rename-out (wibble-module-begin #%module-begin)) #%app #%datum #%top)
(define-syntax wibble-module-begin
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ x ...) #`(#%module-begin (require #,(datum->syntax stx 'racket/base)) x ...)))))
With the above code then this wibble code 'works', i.e. there are no errors
#lang wibble
(cons 1 2)
(cons 3 4)
but the following
#lang wibble
(cons 1 2)
gives error message cons: unbound identifier in module in: cons
Really I'm just looking for an explanation as to what going on. I'm sure the difference is related to this from the racket docs (Racket Reference 3.1)
If a single form is provided, then it is partially expanded in a
module-begin context. If the expansion leads to #%plain-module-begin,
then the body of the #%plain-module-begin is the body of the module.
If partial expansion leads to any other primitive form, then the form
is wrapped with #%module-begin using the lexical context of the module
body; this identifier must be bound by the initial module-path import,
and its expansion must produce a #%plain-module-begin to supply the
module body. Finally, if multiple forms are provided, they are wrapped
with #%module-begin, as in the case where a single form does not
expand to #%plain-module-begin.
but even with that I don't understand why having a single form makes any difference, it's seems to be somthing to do with the timing of partial expansion but I'm not really sure. Nor do I understand why Racket treats a single form as a special case.
Incidentally I can fix the problem with a slight modification to my reader
(define (wibble-read-syntax src in)
#`(module #,(module-name src) wibble/lang
#,#(read-all src in) (void)))
Hard-coding a (void) form means I always have more than one form and eveything works.
Sorry for the long post, I'm just looking for some understanding of how this stuff works.
Alright, I think that I've figured it out.
Your intuition is correct in that the problem lies within the timing of the partial expansion of the single-form module body. Inside of your reader.rkt file, you produce a (module ...) form. As the quoted excerpt from your question states, the forms ... portion of this is then treated specially, since there is only one. Let's take a look at an excerpt from the documentation on partial expansion:
As a special case, when expansion would otherwise add an #%app, #%datum, or #%top identifier to an expression, and when the binding turns out to be the primitive #%app, #%datum, or #%top form, then expansion stops without adding the identifier.
I am almost certain that the partial expansion which occurs at this point does something to the cons identifier. This is the one part that I remain unsure of... my gut tells me that what's happening is that the partial expansion is attempting to find the binding for the cons identifier (since it is the first part of the parentheses, the identifier could be bound to a macro which should be expanded, so that needs to be checked) but is unable to, so it throws a tantrum. Note that even if cons has no phase 1 (syntax-expansion time) binding, the macro expander still expects there to be a phase 0 (runtime) binding for the identifier (among other things, this helps the expander remain hygienic). Because all of this partial expansion happens to the body of your (module ...) form (which is done before your (#%module-begin ...) form where you inject the (#%require ...) form), cons has no binding during the expansion, so the expansion, I believe, fails.
Nevertheless, a naive fix for your problem is to rewrite wibble-read-syntax as follows:
(define (wibble-read-syntax src in)
(let* ((read-in (read-all src in))
(in-stx (and (pair? read-in) (car read-in))))
#`(module #,(module-name src) wibble/lang
(require #,(datum->syntax in-stx 'racket/base))
#,#read-in))
You can then remove the (#%require ...) form from your (#%module-begin ...) macro.
That's not, in my opinion, the best way to fix the issue, however. As a matter of cleanliness, hard-coding in a require form like you've done in wibble/lang.rkt would make Eli Barzilay and co. cry. A much simpler way to do what you are trying to do is by updating your lang.rkt file to something like so:
=== wibble/lang.rkt ===
#lang racket/base
(require (for-syntax racket/base))
(provide (rename-out (wibble-module-begin #%module-begin))
(except-out (all-from-out racket/base) #%module-begin #%app #%datum #%top)
#%app #%datum #%top)
(define-syntax wibble-module-begin
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ x ...) #`(#%module-begin x ...)))))
Writing in this convention removes the need for any hard-coded (require ...) forms and prevents subtle bugs like the one you've unearthed from occuring. If you are confused why this works, remember that you've already provided the #%module-begin identifier using this file, which is subsequently bound in all #lang wibble files. In principle, there is no limit on what identifiers you can bind in this fashion. If you would like some further reading, here's a shameless self-advertisement for a blog post I wrote a little while back on the subject.
I hope I've helped.
The problem is with the require (though I'm not sure I 100% understand all the behavior).
(require X) imports bindings from X with the lexical context of #'X. #'X here has the context of stx, which is the entire #'(module-begin x ...), which is not the context you want. You want the context of one of the cons expressions, i.e., one of the #'xs.
Something like this should work:
(define-syntax wibble-module-begin
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_) #'(#%module-begin)]
[(m x y ...)
#`(#%module-begin
(require #,(datum->syntax #'x 'racket/base))
x y ...)])))
Though, as #belph warned, there's probably a more idiomatic way to accomplish what you want.
The behavior of your original program, and as you intuited, likely has to do with module's different treatment of single and multi sub-forms, but I think the "working" case might be an accident and could be a bug in the racket compiler.
The Lisp forum thread Define macro alias? has an example of creating function alias using a form such as
(setf (symbol-function 'zero?) #'zerop)
This works fine, making zero? a valid predicate. Is it possible to parametrize this form without resorting to macros? I'd like to be able to call the following and have it create function?:
(define-predicate-alias 'functionp)`
My take was approximately:
(defun defalias (old new)
(setf (symbol-function (make-symbol new))
(symbol-function old)))
(defun define-predicate-alias (predicate-function-name)
(let ((alias (format nil "~A?" (string-right-trim "-pP" predicate-function-name))))
(defalias predicate-function-name alias)))
(define-predicate-alias 'zerop)
(zero? '())
This fails when trying to call zero? saying
The function COMMON-LISP-USER::ZERO? is undefined.
make-symbol creates an uninterned symbol. That's why zero? is undefined.
Replace your (make-symbol new) with e.g. (intern new *package*). (Or you may want to think more carefully in which package to intern your new symbol.)
Your code makes a symbol, via MAKE-SYMBOL, but you don't put it into a package.
Use the function INTERN to add a symbol to a package.
To expand on Lars' answer, choose the right package. In this case the default might be to use the same package from the aliased function:
About style:
Anything that begins with DEF should actually be a macro. If you have a function, don't use a name beginning with "DEF". If you look at the Common Lisp language, all those are macro. For example: With those defining forms, one would typically expect that they have a side-effect during compilation of files: the compiler gets informed about them. A function can't.
If I put something like this in a file
(define-predicate-alias zerop)
(zero? '())
and then compile the file, I would expect to not see any warnings about an undefined ZERO?. Thus a macro needs to expand (define-predicate-alias 'zerop) into something which makes the new ZERO? known into the compile-time environment.
I would also make the new name the first argument.
Thus use something like MAKE-PREDICATE-ALIAS instead of DEFINE-PREDICATE-ALIAS, for the function.
There are already some answers that explain how you can do this, but I'd point out:
Naming conventions, P, and -P
Common Lisp has a naming convention that is mostly adhered to (there are exceptions, even in the standard library), that if a type name is multiple words (contains a -), then its predicate is named with -P suffix, whereas if it doesn't, the suffix is just P. So we'd have keyboardp and lcd-monitor-p. It's good then, that you're using (string-right-trim "-pP" predicate-function-name)), but since the …P and …-P names in the standard, and those generated by, e.g., defstruct, will be using P, not p, you might just use (string-right-trim "-P" predicate-function-name)). Of course, even this has the possible issues with some names (e.g., pop), but I guess that just comes with the territory.
Symbol names, format, and *print-case*
More importantly, using format to create symbol names for subsequent interning is dangerous, because format doesn't always print a symbol's name with the characters in the same case that they actually appear in its name. E.g.,
(let ((*print-case* :downcase))
(list (intern (symbol-name 'foo))
(intern (format nil "~A" 'foo))))
;=> (FOO |foo|) ; first symbol has name "FOO", second has name "foo"
You may be better off using string concatenation and extracting symbol names directly. This means you could write code like (this is slightly different use case, since the other questions already explain how you can do what you're trying to do):
(defmacro defpredicate (symbol)
(flet ((predicate-name (symbol)
(let* ((name (symbol-name symbol))
(suffix (if (find #\- name) "-P" "P")))
(intern (concatenate 'string name suffix)))))
`(defun ,(predicate-name symbol) (x)
(typep x ',symbol)))) ; however you're checking the type
(macroexpand-1 '(defpredicate zero))
;=> (DEFUN ZEROP (X) (TYPEP X 'ZERO))
(macroexpand-1 '(defpredicate lcd-monitor))
;=> (DEFUN LCD-MONITOR-P (X) (TYPEP X 'LCD-MONITOR))