I was thinking about a cond with a twist
(let ((a 0))
(let* ((result nil))
(tagbody
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b1 1)
(print "1")
(setf result b1)
(go finish)))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b2 2)
(print "2")
(setf result b2)
(go finish)))
(when T
(print "else")
(setf result a))
(format t "=== ~A~%" a)
finish)
result))
where when test-form is wrapped in let. On one hand this seems to fit into a problem I am working on, but also seems overcomplicated. Can it be simplified with a macro? What would be the best way to simplify it if I had lots of test-forms?
Part of the problem in trying to do it that way is restricting the let blocks to only one test-form and its body.
But I wonder if I am going down the wrong path. Playing with an imaginary variant of when-let suggests there is no benefit of going down this path.
Trying cond
The version using cond appears to be more compact.
(let ((a 3))
(let* ((b1 (+ 0 a))
(b2 (+ 0 a)))
(cond
((eq b1 1)
(print "1")
b1)
((eq b2 2)
(print "2")
b2)
(T (print "else")
a))))
All boils down to the variables defined in the let* which in real life example would be used to avoid calculating the same value twice and improve readability. What should I do?
I'd prefer to think more in terms of blocks and returning values from them, instead working with goto and variables. If one really needs separate let-bound variables and their own scope:
(prog ((a 0))
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b1 1)
(print "1")
(return b1)))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b2 2)
(print "2")
(return b2)))
(return
(progn
(print "else")
(return a))))
Somebody did now. I wanted it to be compatible with cond which raises a trouble: if you want the binding clauses to be like
(cond/binding
...
((var expr) <use var>)
...)
But you want to allow just general test clauses, then a function with one argument is ambiguous: should
(cond/binding
...
((car x) ...)
...)
call car or bind car? To make this work then you need to bind a useless variable in that case:
(cond/binding
...
((useless (car x)) <useless not used here>)
...)
And that means you either need to insert ignore or ignorable declarations all over the place, or live with compiler warnings.
So, well, I decided it would be better to go the other way: you have to say when you want to bind a variable. And you do that by a clause like:
(cond/binding
...
((bind var expr) <var is bound here>)
...)
And note that bind is magic in the syntax (so this means you can't call a function called bind, but that's OK as I already use bind as a keyword in other macros.
The macro also tries hard (well, hard given I basically just typed it in and it's had no testing) to actually behave like cond: returning multiple values, for instance.
So this:
(cond/binding
((f x y z) t)
((bind x 3) (print x) (values x t))
(t (values nil nil))
(1))
expands to
(block #:cond/binding
(when (f x y z)
(return-from #:cond/binding (progn t)))
(let ((x 3))
(when x
(return-from #:cond/binding
(progn (print x) (values x t)))))
(when t
(return-from #:cond/binding (progn (values nil nil))))
(let ((r 1))
(when r
(return-from #:cond/binding r))))
(where all the blocks are the same block).
So, here:
(defmacro cond/binding (&body clauses)
;; Like COND but it can bind variables. All clauses are (should be)
;; like COND, except that a clause of the form ((bind var <expr>)
;; ...) will bind a variable. Note that bind has to be literally
;; the symbol BIND: it's magic in the syntax.
(let ((bn (make-symbol "COND/BINDING")))
`(block ,bn
,#(mapcar
(lambda (clause)
(unless (consp clause)
(error "bad clause ~S" clause))
(case (length clause)
(1
`(let ((r ,(car clause)))
(when r (return-from ,bn r))))
(otherwise
(destructuring-bind (test/binding &body forms) clause
(typecase test/binding
(cons
(case (car test/binding)
((bind)
(unless (and (= (length test/binding) 3)
(symbolp (second test/binding)))
(error "bad binding clause ~S" test/binding))
(destructuring-bind (var expr) (rest test/binding)
`(let ((,var ,expr))
(when ,var
(return-from ,bn
(progn ,#forms))))))
(otherwise
`(when ,test/binding
(return-from ,bn
(progn ,#forms))))))
(t
`(when ,test/binding
(return-from ,bn
(progn ,#forms)))))))))
clauses))))
Caveat emptor.
If I understand you problem correctly, then you can use or and rely on the fact that when is evaluated to nil if the condition is not true, e.g.,
(defun example (a)
(or
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b1 1)
(print "1")
b1))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b2 2)
(print "2")
b2))
(progn
(print "else")
a)))
Using macrolet is the best solution so far. That allows me to bypass the limitations of when-let and not all bindins in the let form have to evaluate to true.
(let ((a 3))
(let ((result nil))
(macrolet ((ret-go (res)
`(progn
(setf result ,res)
(go finish))))
(tagbody
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b1 1)
(print "1")
(ret-go b1)))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b2 2)
(print "2")
(ret-go b2)))
(when T
(print "else")
(setf result a))
(format t "=== ~A~%" a)
finish)
result)))
Related
Emacs-lisp is default using call-by-value, but I'm trying use its symbol mechanism to simulate call-by-reference.
For example,
(setq lexical-binding nil)
(defun cbr (x)
(message "cbr (symbol-name x) %s" (symbol-name x))
(message "cbr (symbol-value x) %s" (symbol-value x))
(set x 2))
(let ((a 1))
(cbr 'a)
a)
;; cbr (symbol-name x) a
;; cbr (symbol-value x) 1
;; 2
It works well, because the result of let expression is 2, so it is indeed the call-by-reference behavior.
However, if I change the name from a to x:
(let ((x 1))
(cbr 'x)
x)
;; cbr (symbol-name x) x
;; cbr (symbol-value x) x
;; 1
Now it doesn't work as expected anymore.
Why?
Notice that it even can not get the correct symbol-name in cbr.
I think I have known what happen.
The second program returns 1, because the symbol x is captured by cbr's param x. When the body of cbr is evaluated, there are two bindings in the environment: one is the let binding x = 1, the other is x = x which is created by cbr's application. The symbol x in the (set x 2) uses the later one.
A workaround of this question is:
(let ((gen-x (gensym)))
(set gen-x 1)
(cbr gen-x)
(symbol-value gen-x))
;; cbr (symbol-name x) g36
;; cbr (symbol-value x) 1
;; 2
What should be clear from this is that relying on dynamic scope and symbol-value is a disaster: you need gensyms all over the place. Relying on dynamic scope for anything is generally a disaster, except in the specific, rare but extremely useful, case where you actually want dynamic scope.
But solving this problem trivial, even in elisp, with lexical scope. Here is one simple approach:
(defmacro ref (form)
;; Construct a reference to a form
(unless lexical-binding
(error "doomed"))
(let ((<setting> (gensym)))
`(lambda (&rest ,<setting>) ;hack for &optional (v nil vp)
(cond
((null ,<setting>)
,form)
((null (cdr ,<setting>))
(setf ,form (car ,<setting>)))
(t
(error "mutant"))))))
(defun ref-value (ref)
(funcall ref))
(defun set-ref-value (ref value)
;; should be (setf ref-value), but elisp
(funcall ref value))
And now, for instance, given:
(defun outer (v)
(let ((x 1))
(princ (format "x is first %s\n" x))
(inner (ref x) v)
(princ (format "and x is now %s\n" x))
x))
(defun inner (ref v)
(princ (format " ref is first %s\n" (ref-value ref)))
(set-ref-value ref v)
(princ (format " and ref is now %s\n" (ref-value ref))))
Then
ELISP> (outer 4)
x is first 1
ref is first 1
and ref is now 4
and x is now 4
4 (#o4, #x4, ?\C-d)
I'm writing a macro to generate codes used by another macro in Common Lisp. But I'm new at this and have difficulty in constructing a macro that takes in a list (bar1 bar2 ... barn) and produces the following codes by a loop.
`(foo
,#bar1
,#bar2
...
,#barn)
I wonder whether this can be achieved not involving implement-dependent words such as SB-IMPL::UNQUOTE-SPLICE in sbcl.
Maybe I didn't give a clear description about my problem. In fact I want to write a macro gen-case such that
(gen-case
(simple-array simple-vector)
('(dotimes ($1 $5)
(when (and (= (aref $4 $2 $1) 1) (zerop (aref $3 $1)))
$0))
'(dolist ($1 (aref $4 $2))
(when (zerop (aref $3 $1))
$0)))
objname body)
produces something like
`(case (car (type-of ,objname))
(simple-array
,#(progn
(setf temp
'(dotimes ($1 $5)
(when (and (= (aref $4 $2 $1) 1) (zerop (aref $3 $1)))
$0)))
(code-gen body)))
(simple-vector
,#(progn
(setf temp
'(dolist ($1 (aref $4 $2))
(when (zerop (aref $3 $1))
$0)))
(code-gen body))))
In general cases, the lists taken in by gen-case may contain more than two items.
I have tried
``(case (car (type-of ,,objname))
,',#(#|Some codes that produce target codes|#))
but the target codes are inserted to the quote block and thus throw an exception in the macro who calls the macro gen-case. Moreover, I have no way to insert ,# to the target codes as a straightforward insertion will cause a "comma not inside a backquote" exception.
The codes generated are part of another macro
(defmacro DSI-Layer ((obj-name tag-name) &body body)
"Data Structure Independent Layer."
(let ((temp))
(defun code-gen (c)
(if (atom c) c
(if (eq (car c) tag-name)
(let ((args (cadr c)) (codes (code-gen (cddr c))) (flag nil))
(defun gen-code (c)
(if (atom c) c
(if (eq (car c) *arg*)
(let ((n (cadr c)))
(if (zerop n) (progn (setf flag t) codes)
(nth (1- n) args)))
(let ((h (gen-code (car c))))
(if flag
(progn
(setf flag nil)
(append h (gen-code (cdr c))))
(cons h (gen-code (cdr c))))))))
(gen-code temp))
(cons (code-gen (car c)) (code-gen (cdr c))))))
`(case (car (type-of ,obj-name))
(simple-array
,#(progn
(setf temp
'(dotimes ($1 $5)
(when (and (= (aref $4 $2 $1) 1) (zerop (aref $3 $1)))
$0)))
(code-gen body)))
(simple-vector
,#(progn
(setf temp
'(dolist ($1 (aref $4 $2))
(when (zerop (aref $3 $1))
$0)))
(code-gen body))))))
and I've set up a read-macro
(defvar *arg* (make-symbol "ARG"))
(set-macro-character #\$
#'(lambda (stream char)
(declare (ignore char))
(list *arg* (read stream t nil t))))
The intention of DSI-Layer is to add a piece of code to determine the type of input parameters. For example, the codes
(defun BFS (G v)
(let* ((n (car (array-dimensions G)))
(visited (make-array n :initial-element 0))
(queue (list v))
(vl nil))
(incf (aref visited v))
(DSI-Layer (G next-vertex)
(do nil ((null queue) nil)
(setf v (pop queue)) (push v vl)
(next-vertex (i v visited G n)
(setf queue (nconc queue (list i)))
(incf (aref visited i)))))
vl))
will be converted to
(defun BFS (G v)
(let* ((n (car (array-dimensions G)))
(visited (make-array n :initial-element 0))
(queue (list v))
(vl nil))
(incf (aref visited v))
(case (car (type-of G))
(simple-array
(do nil ((null queue) nil)
(setf v (pop queue))
(push v vl)
(dotimes (i n)
(when (and (= (aref G v i) 1) (zerop (aref visited i)))
(setf queue (nconc queue (list i)))
(incf (aref visited i))))))
(simple-vector
(do nil ((null queue) nil)
(setf v (pop queue))
(push v vl)
(dolist (i (aref G v))
(when (zerop (aref visited i))
(setf queue (nconc queue (list i)))
(incf (aref visited i)))))))))
Now I just wonder that whether the DSI-Layer can be generated from another macro gen-case by passing the type names and corresponding code templates to it or not.
By the way, I don't think the specific meaning of generated codes matters in my problem. They are just treated as data.
Don't be tempted to use internal details of backquote. If you have the lists you want to append in distinct variables, simply append them:
`(foo
,#(append b1 b2 ... bn))
If you have a list of them in some single variable (for instance if they've come from an &rest or &body argument) then do something like
`(foo
,#(loop for b in bs
appending b))
I see your problem - you need it not for a function call
but for a macro-call with case.
One cannot use dynamically macros - in a safe way.
One has to use eval but it is not safe for scoping.
#tfb as well as me answered in this question for type-case
lengthily.
previous answer (wrong for this case)
No need for a macro.
`(foo
,#bar1
,#bar2
...
,#barn)
with evaluation of its result
by pure functions would be:
(apply foo (loop for bar in '(bar1 bar2 ... barn)
nconc bar))
nconc or nconcing instead of collect fuses lists together and is very useful in loop. - Ah I see my previous answerer used append btw appending - nconc nconcing however is the "destructive" form of "append". Since the local variable bar is destructed here which we don't need outside of the loop form, using the "destructive" form is safe here - and comes with a performance advantage (less elements are copied than when using append). That is why I wired my brain always to use nconc instead of append inside a loop.
Of course, if you want to get the code construct, one could do
`(foo ,#(loop for bar in list-of-lists
nconc bar))
Try it out:
`(foo ,#(loop for bar in '((1 2 3) (a b c) (:a :b :c)) nconc bar))
;; => (FOO 1 2 3 A B C :A :B :C)
The answers of all of you inspired me, and I came up with a solution to my problem. The macro
(defmacro Layer-Generator (obj-name tag-name callback body)
(let ((temp (gensym)) (code-gen (gensym)))
`(let ((,temp))
(defun ,code-gen (c)
(if (atom c) c
(if (eq (car c) ,tag-name)
(let ((args (cadr c)) (codes (,code-gen (cddr c))) (flag nil))
(defun gen-code (c)
(if (atom c) c
(if (eq (car c) *arg*)
(let ((n (cadr c)))
(if (zerop n) (progn (setf flag t) codes)
(nth (1- n) args)))
(let ((h (gen-code (car c))))
(if flag
(progn
(setf flag nil)
(append h (gen-code (cdr c))))
(cons h (gen-code (cdr c))))))))
(gen-code ,temp))
(cons (,code-gen (car c)) (,code-gen (cdr c))))))
(list 'case `(car (type-of ,,obj-name))
,#(let ((codes nil))
(dolist (item callback)
(push
`(cons ',(car item)
(progn
(setf ,temp ,(cadr item))
(,code-gen ,body)))
codes))
(nreverse codes))))))
produces codes which are not the same as DSI-Layer but produce codes coincident with what the latter produces. Because the codes
`(case (car (type-of ,obj-name))
(tag1
,#(#|codes1|#))
(tag2
,#(#|codes2|#))
...)
are equivalent to
(list 'case `(car (type-of ,obj-name))
(cons 'tag1 (#|codes1|#))
(cons 'tag2 (#|codes2|#))
...)
And now we can use a loop to generate it just as what the Layer-Generator does.
When I compile the following code, SBCL complains that g!-unit-value and g!-unit are undefined. I'm not sure how to debug this. As far as I can tell, flatten is failing.
When flatten reaches the unquoted part of defunits, it seems like the entire part is being treated as an atom. Does that sound correct?
The following uses code from the book Let over Lambda:
Paul Graham Utilities
(defun symb (&rest args)
(values (intern (apply #'mkstr args))))
(defun mkstr (&rest args)
(with-output-to-string (s)
(dolist (a args) (princ a s))))
(defun group (source n)
(if (zerop n) (error "zero length"))
(labels ((rec (source acc)
(let ((rest (nthcdr n source)))
(if (consp rest)
(rec rest (cons (subseq source 0 n) acc))
(nreverse (cons source acc))))))
(if source (rec source nil) nil)))
(defun flatten (x)
(labels ((rec (x acc)
(cond ((null x) acc)
((atom x) (cons x acc))
(t (rec (car x) (rec (cdr x) acc))))))
(rec x nil)))
Let Over Lambda Utilities - Chapter 3
(defmacro defmacro/g! (name args &rest body)
(let ((g!-symbols (remove-duplicates
(remove-if-not #'g!-symbol-p
(flatten body)))))
`(defmacro ,name ,args
(let ,(mapcar
(lambda (g!-symbol)
`(,g!-symbol (gensym ,(subseq
(symbol-name g!-symbol)
2))))
g!-symbols)
,#body))))
(defun g!-symbol-p (symbol-to-test)
(and (symbolp symbol-to-test)
(> (length (symbol-name symbol-to-test)) 2)
(string= (symbol-name symbol-to-test)
"G!"
:start1 0
:end1 2)))
(defmacro defmacro! (name args &rest body)
(let* ((o!-symbols (remove-if-not #'o!-symbol-p args))
(g!-symbols (mapcar #'o!-symbol-to-g!-symbol o!-symbols)))
`(defmacro/g! ,name ,args
`(let ,(mapcar #'list (list ,#g!-symbols) (list ,#o!-symbols))
,(progn ,#body)))))
(defun o!-symbol-p (symbol-to-test)
(and (symbolp symbol-to-test)
(> (length (symbol-name symbol-to-test)) 2)
(string= (symbol-name symbol-to-test)
"O!"
:start1 0
:end1 2)))
(defun o!-symbol-to-g!-symbol (o!-symbol)
(symb "G!" (subseq (symbol-name o!-symbol) 2)))
Let Over Lambda - Chapter 5
(defun defunits-chaining (u units prev)
(if (member u prev)
(error "~{ ~a~^ depends on~}"
(cons u prev)))
(let ((spec (find u units :key #'car)))
(if (null spec)
(error "Unknown unit ~a" u)
(let ((chain (second spec)))
(if (listp chain)
(* (car chain)
(defunits-chaining
(second chain)
units
(cons u prev)))
chain)))))
(defmacro! defunits (quantity base-unit &rest units)
`(defmacro ,(symb 'unit-of- quantity)
(,g!-unit-value ,g!-unit)
`(* ,,g!-unit-value
,(case ,g!-unit
((,base-unit) 1)
,#(mapcar (lambda (x)
`((,(car x))
,(defunits-chaining
(car x)
(cons
`(,base-unit 1)
(group units 2))
nil)))
(group units 2))))))
This is kind of tricky:
Problem: you assume that backquote/comma expressions are plain lists.
You need to ask yourself this question:
What is the representation of a backquote/comma expression?
Is it a list?
Actually the full representation is unspecified. See here: CLHS: Section 2.4.6.1 Notes about Backquote
We are using SBCL. See this:
* (setf *print-pretty* nil)
NIL
* '`(a ,b)
(SB-INT:QUASIQUOTE (A #S(SB-IMPL::COMMA :EXPR B :KIND 0)))
So a comma expression is represented by a structure of type SB-IMPL::COMMA. The SBCL developers thought that this representation helps when such backquote lists need to be printed by the pretty printer.
Since your flatten treats structures as atoms, it won't look inside...
But this is the specific representation of SBCL. Clozure CL does something else and LispWorks again does something else.
Clozure CL:
? '`(a ,b)
(LIST* 'A (LIST B))
LispWorks:
CL-USER 87 > '`(a ,b)
(SYSTEM::BQ-LIST (QUOTE A) B)
Debugging
Since you found out that somehow flatten was involved, the next debugging steps are:
First: trace the function flatten and see with which data it is called and what it returns.
Since we are not sure what the data actually is, one can INSPECT it.
A debugging example using SBCL:
* (defun flatten (x)
(inspect x)
(labels ((rec (x acc)
(cond ((null x) acc)
((atom x) (cons x acc))
(t (rec (car x) (rec (cdr x) acc))))))
(rec x nil)))
STYLE-WARNING: redefining COMMON-LISP-USER::FLATTEN in DEFUN
FLATTEN
Above calls INSPECT on the argument data. In Common Lisp, the Inspector usually is something where one can interactively inspect data structures.
As an example we are calling flatten with a backquote expression:
* (flatten '`(a ,b))
The object is a proper list of length 2.
0. 0: SB-INT:QUASIQUOTE
1. 1: (A ,B)
We are in the interactive Inspector. The commands now available:
> help
help for INSPECT:
Q, E - Quit the inspector.
<integer> - Inspect the numbered slot.
R - Redisplay current inspected object.
U - Move upward/backward to previous inspected object.
?, H, Help - Show this help.
<other> - Evaluate the input as an expression.
Within the inspector, the special variable SB-EXT:*INSPECTED* is bound
to the current inspected object, so that it can be referred to in
evaluated expressions.
So the command 1 walks into the data structure, here a list.
> 1
The object is a proper list of length 2.
0. 0: A
1. 1: ,B
Walk in further:
> 1
The object is a STRUCTURE-OBJECT of type SB-IMPL::COMMA.
0. EXPR: B
1. KIND: 0
Here the Inspector tells us that the object is a structure of a certain type. That's what we wanted to know.
We now leave the Inspector using the command q and the flatten function continues and returns a value:
> q
(SB-INT:QUASIQUOTE A ,B)
For anyone else who is trying to get defmacro! to work on SBCL, a temporary solution to this problem is to grope inside the unquote structure during the flatten procedure recursively flatten its contents:
(defun flatten (x)
(labels ((flatten-recursively (x flattening-list)
(cond ((null x) flattening-list)
((eq (type-of x) 'SB-IMPL::COMMA) (flatten-recursively (sb-impl::comma-expr x) flattening-list))
((atom x) (cons x flattening-list))
(t (flatten-recursively (car x) (flatten-recursively (cdr x) flattening-list))))))
(flatten-recursively x nil)))
But this is horribly platform dependant. If I find a better way, I'll post it.
In case anyone's still interested in this one, here are my three cents. My objection to the above modification of flatten is that it might be more naturally useful as it were originally, while the problem with representations of unquote is rather endemic to defmacro/g!. I came up with a not-too-pretty modification of defmacro/g! using features to decide what to do. Namely, when dealing with non-SBCL implementations (#-sbcl) we proceed as before, while in the case of SBCL (#+sbcl) we dig into the sb-impl::comma structure, use its expr attribute when necessary and use equalp in remove-duplicates, as we are now dealing with structures, not symbols. Here's the code:
(defmacro defmacro/g! (name args &rest body)
(let ((syms (remove-duplicates
(remove-if-not #-sbcl #'g!-symbol-p
#+sbcl #'(lambda (s)
(and (sb-impl::comma-p s)
(g!-symbol-p (sb-impl::comma-expr s))))
(flatten body))
:test #-sbcl #'eql #+sbcl #'equalp)))
`(defmacro ,name ,args
(let ,(mapcar
(lambda (s)
`(#-sbcl ,s #+sbcl ,(sb-impl::comma-expr s)
(gensym ,(subseq
#-sbcl
(symbol-name s)
#+sbcl
(symbol-name (sb-impl::comma-expr s))
2))))
syms)
,#body))))
It works with SBCL. I have yet to test it thoroughly on other implementations.
I'm new to lisp, and have been trying to learn Common Lisp by diving in and writing some code. I've read plenty of documentation on the subject, but it's taking a while to really sink in.
I have written a couple of macros (? and ??) for performing unit tests, but I'm having some difficulty. The code is at the end of the post, to avoid cluttering the actual question.
Here is an example of usage:
(??
(? "Arithmetic tests"
(? "Addition"
(= (+ 1 2) 3)
(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)
(= (+ -1 -3) -4))))
And an example of output:
[Arithmetic tests]
[Addition]
(PASS) '(= (+ 1 2) 3)'
(PASS) '(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)'
(PASS) '(= (+ -1 -3) -4)'
Results: 3 tests passed, 0 tests failed
Now, the existing code works. Unfortunately, the (? ...) macro is ugly, verbose, resistant to change - and I'm pretty sure also badly structured. For example, do I really have to use a list to store pieces of output code and then emit the contents at the end?
I'd like to modify the macro to permit description strings (or symbols) to optionally follow each test, whereupon it would replace the test literal in the output, thus:
(??
(? "Arithmetic tests"
(? "Addition"
(= (+ 1 2) 3) "Adding 1 and 2 results in 3"
(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)
(= (+ -1 -3) -4))))
Output:
[Arithmetic tests]
[Addition]
(PASS) Adding 1 and 2 results in 3
(PASS) '(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)'
(PASS) '(= (+ -1 -3) -4)'
But unfortunately I can't find a sensible place in the macro to insert this change. Depending on where I put it, I get errors like you're not inside a backquote expression, label is not defined or body-forms is not defined. I know what these errors mean, but I can't find a way to avoid them.
Also, I'll be wanting to handle exceptions in the test, and treat that as a failure. Currently, there is no exception handling code - the test result is merely tested against nil. Again, it is not clear how I should add this functionality.
I'm thinking that maybe this macro is over-complex, due to my inexperience in writing macros; and perhaps if I simplify it, modification will be easier. I don't really want to separate it out into several smaller macros without good reason; but maybe there's a terser way to write it?
Can anyone help me out here, please?
A complete code listing follows:
(defmacro with-gensyms ((&rest names) &body body)
`(let ,(loop for n in names collect `(,n (gensym)))
,#body))
(defmacro while (condition &body body)
`(loop while ,condition do (progn ,#body)))
(defun flatten (L)
"Converts a list to single level."
(if (null L)
nil
(if (atom (first L))
(cons (first L) (flatten (rest L)))
(append (flatten (first L)) (flatten (rest L))))))
(defun starts-with-p (str1 str2)
"Determine whether `str1` starts with `str2`"
(let ((p (search str2 str1)))
(and p (= 0 p))))
(defmacro pop-first-char (string)
`(with-gensyms (c)
(if (> (length ,string) 0)
(progn
(setf c (schar ,string 0))
(if (> (length ,string) 1)
(setf ,string (subseq ,string 1))
(setf ,string ""))))
c))
(defmacro pop-chars (string count)
`(with-gensyms (result)
(setf result ())
(dotimes (index ,count)
(push (pop-first-char ,string) result))
result))
(defun format-ansi-codes (text)
(let ((result ()))
(while (> (length text) 0)
(cond
((starts-with-p text "\\e")
(push (code-char #o33) result)
(pop-chars text 2)
)
((starts-with-p text "\\r")
(push (code-char 13) result)
(pop-chars text 2)
)
(t (push (pop-first-char text) result))
))
(setf result (nreverse result))
(coerce result 'string)))
(defun kv-lookup (values key)
"Like getf, but works with 'keys as well as :keys, in both the list and the supplied key"
(setf key (if (typep key 'cons) (nth 1 key) key))
(while values
(let ((k (pop values)) (v (pop values)))
(setf k (if (typep k 'cons) (nth 1 k) k))
(if (eql (symbol-name key) (symbol-name k))
(return v)))))
(defun make-ansi-escape (ansi-name)
(let ((ansi-codes '( :normal "\\e[00m" :white "\\e[1;37m" :light-grey "\\e[0;37m" :dark-grey "\\e[1;30m"
:red "\\e[0;31m" :light-red "\\e[1;31m" :green "\\e[0;32m" :blue "\\e[1;34m" :dark-blue "\\e[1;34m"
:cyan "\\e[1;36m" :magenta "\\e[1;35m" :yellow "\\e[0;33m"
:bg-dark-grey "\\e[100m"
:bold "\\e[1m" :underline "\\e[4m"
:start-of-line "\\r" :clear-line "\\e[2K" :move-up "\\e[1A")))
(format-ansi-codes (kv-lookup ansi-codes ansi-name))
))
(defun format-ansi-escaped-arg (out-stream arg)
(cond
((typep arg 'symbol) (format out-stream "~a" (make-ansi-escape arg)))
((typep arg 'string) (format out-stream arg))
(t (format out-stream "~a" arg))
))
(defun format-ansi-escaped (out-stream &rest args)
(while args
(let ((arg (pop args)))
(if (typep arg 'list)
(let ((first-arg (eval (first arg))))
(format out-stream first-arg (second arg))
)
(format-ansi-escaped-arg out-stream arg)
))
))
(defmacro while-pop ((var sequence &optional result-form) &rest forms)
(with-gensyms (seq)
`(let (,var)
(progn
(do () ((not ,sequence))
(setf ,var (pop ,sequence))
(progn ,#forms))
,result-form))))
(defun report-start (form)
(format t "( ) '~a'~%" form))
(defun report-result (result form)
(format-ansi-escaped t "(" (if result :green :red) `("~:[FAIL~;PASS~]" ,result) :normal `(") '~a'~%" ,form))
result)
(defmacro ? (name &body body-forms)
"Run any number of test forms, optionally nested within further (?) calls, and print the results of each test"
(with-gensyms (result indent indent-string)
(if (not body-forms)
:empty
(progn
(setf result () indent 0 indent-string " ")
(cond
((typep (first body-forms) 'integer)
(setf indent (pop body-forms))))
`(progn
(format t "~v#{~A~:*~}" ,indent ,indent-string)
(format-ansi-escaped t "[" :white ,name :normal "]~%")
(with-gensyms (test-results)
(setf test-results ())
,(while-pop (body-form body-forms `(progn ,#(nreverse result)))
(cond
( (EQL (first body-form) '?)
(push `(progn
(setf test-results (append test-results (? ',(nth 1 body-form) ,(1+ indent) ,#(nthcdr 2 body-form))))
(format t "~%")
test-results
) result)
)
(t
(push `(progn
(format t "~v#{~A~:*~}" ,(1+ indent) ,indent-string)
(report-start ',body-form)
(with-gensyms (result label)
(setf result ,body-form)
(format-ansi-escaped t :move-up :start-of-line :clear-line)
(format t "~v#{~A~:*~}" ,(1+ indent) ,indent-string)
(push (report-result result ',body-form) test-results)
test-results
)) result))))))))))
(defun ?? (&rest results)
"Run any number of tests, and print a summary afterward"
(setf results (flatten results))
(format-ansi-escaped t "~&" :white "Results: " :green `("~a test~:p passed" ,(count t results)) :normal ", "
(if (find NIL results) :red :normal) `("~a test~:p failed" ,(count NIL results))
:yellow `("~[~:;, ~:*~a test~:p not run~]" ,(count :skip results))
:brown `("~[~:;, ~:*~a empty test group~:p skipped~]" ,(count :empty results))
:normal "~%"))
For my part, the ? macro is rather technical and it's hard to follow the logic behind the formatting functions. So instead of tracking errors I'd like to suggest my own attempt, perhaps it'll be of use.
I think that actually your ?? doesn't want to evaluate anything, but rather to treat its body as individual tests or sections. If the body includes a list starting with ?, this list represents a section; other elements are test forms optionally followed by descriptions. So in my implementation ?? will be a macro, and ? will be just a symbol.
I start with wishful thinking. I suppose I can create individual tests using a function make-test-item and test sections using a function make-test-section (their implementation is unimportant for now), that I can display them using an auxiliary function display-test and compute results using the function results, which returns two values: the total number of tests and the number of passed ones. Then I'd like the code
(??
(? "Arithmetic tests"
(? "Addition"
(= (+ 1 2) 3) "Adding 1 and 2 results in 3"
(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)
(= (+ -1 -3) 4))
(? "Subtraction"
(= (- 1 2) 1)))
(= (sin 0) 0) "Sine of 0 equals 0")
to expand into something like
(let ((tests (list (make-test-section :header "Arithmetic tests"
:items (list (make-test-section :header "Addition"
:items (list (make-test-item :form '(= (+ 1 2) 3)
:description "Adding 1 and 2 results in 3"
:passp (= (+ 1 2) 3))
(make-test-item :form '(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)
:passp (= (+ 1 2 3) 6))
(make-test-item :form '(= (+ -1 -3) 4)
:passp (= (+ -1 -3) 4))))
(make-test-section :header "Subtraction"
:items (list (make-test-item :form '(= (- 1 2) 1)
:passp (= (- 1 2) 1))))))
(make-test-item :form '(= (sin 0) 0)
:passp (= (sin 0) 0)
:description "Sine of 0 equals 0"))))
(loop for test in tests
with total = 0
with passed = 0
do (display-test test 0 t)
do (multiple-value-bind (ttl p) (results test)
(incf total ttl)
(incf passed p))
finally (display-result total passed t)))
Here a list of tests is created; then we traverse it printing each test (0 denotes the zero level of indentation and t is as in format) and keeping track of the results, finally displaying the total results. I don't think explicit eval is needed here.
It may not be the most exquisite piece of code ever, but it seems manageable. I supply missing definitions below, they are rather trivial (and can be improved) and have nothing to do with macros.
Now we pass on to the macros. Consider both pieces of code as data, then we want a list processing function which would turn the first one into the second. A few auxiliary functions would come in handy.
The major task is to parse the body of ?? and generate the list of test to go inside the let.
(defun test-item-form (form description)
`(make-test-item :form ',form :description ,description :passp ,form))
(defun test-section-form (header items)
`(make-test-section :header ,header :items (list ,#items)))
(defun parse-test (forms)
(let (new-forms)
(loop
(when (null forms)
(return (nreverse new-forms)))
(let ((f (pop forms)))
(cond ((and (listp f) (eq (first f) '?))
(push (test-section-form (second f) (parse-test (nthcdr 2 f))) new-forms))
((stringp (first forms))
(push (test-item-form f (pop forms)) new-forms))
(t (push (test-item-form f nil) new-forms)))))))
Here parse-test essentially absorbs the syntax of ??. Each iteration consumes one or two forms and collects corresponding make-... forms. The functions can be easily tested in REPL (and, of course, I did test them while writing).
Now the macro becomes quite simple:
(defmacro ?? (&body body)
`(let ((tests (list ,#(parse-test body))))
(loop for test in tests
with total = 0
with passed = 0
do (display-test test 0 t)
do (multiple-value-bind (ttl p) (results test)
(incf total ttl)
(incf passed p))
finally (display-result total passed t))))
It captures a few symbols, both in the variable name space and in the function one (the expansion may contain make-test-item and make-test-section). A clean solution with gensyms would be cumbersome, so I'd suggest just moving all the definitions in a separate package and exporting only ?? and ?.
For completeness, here is an implementation of the test API. Actually, it's what I started coding with and proceeded until I made sure the big let-form works; then I passed on to the macro part. This implementation is fairly sloppy; in particular, it doesn't support terminal colours and display-test can't even output a section into a string.
(defstruct test-item form description passp)
(defstruct test-section header items)
(defun results (test)
(etypecase test
(test-item (if (test-item-passp test)
(values 1 1)
(values 1 0)))
(test-section (let ((items-count 0)
(passed-count 0))
(dolist (i (test-section-items test) (values items-count passed-count))
(multiple-value-bind (i p) (results i)
(incf items-count i)
(incf passed-count p)))))))
(defparameter *test-indent* 2)
(defun display-test-item (i level stream)
(format stream "~V,0T~:[(FAIL)~;(PASS)~] ~:['~S'~;~:*~A~]~%"
(* level *test-indent*)
(test-item-passp i)
(test-item-description i)
(test-item-form i)))
(defun display-test-section-header (s level stream)
(format stream "~V,0T[~A]~%"
(* level *test-indent*)
(test-section-header s)))
(defun display-test (test level stream)
(etypecase test
(test-item (display-test-item test level stream))
(test-section
(display-test-section-header test level stream)
(dolist (i (test-section-items test))
(display-test i (1+ level) stream)))))
(defun display-result (total passed stream)
(format stream "Results: ~D test~:P passed, ~D test~:P failed.~%" passed (- total passed)))
All the code is licenced under WTFPL.
The function "greaterthan", (< NUM1 NUM2), allows only for returning t/nil for comparing 2 values.
I would like to test (var1 > var2 < var3 < var4), is there any way to do that using only one function in lisp? If not, what is the best procedure?
The best procedure is not to bother: (and (< var2 var1) (< var2 var3) (< var3 var4)) is not harder to read that your ..>..<..<.. chain.
It makes sense to test for the ascending order:
(require 'cl)
(defun cl-< (&rest args)
(every '< args (cdr args))
These days I don't hesitate to (require 'cl) anymore, but if you do,
here is another variant:
(defun cl-< (arg &rest more-args)
(or (null more-args)
(and (< arg (first more-args))
(apply #'cl-< more-args))))
The following is a macro implementation for variadic <
(defmacro << (x y &rest args)
(if args
(if (or (symbolp y)
(numberp y))
`(and (< ,x ,y) (<< ,y ,#args))
(let ((ys (make-symbol "y")))
`(let (,ys)
(and (< ,x (setq ,ys ,y))
(<< ,ys ,#args)))))
`(< ,x ,y)))
for simple cases just expands to (and ...) chains
(<< x y z) ==> (and (< x y) (< y z))
where the expression is not a number and not a symbol expands to a more complex form to avoid multiple evaluations in presence of side effects
(<< (f x) (g y) (h z)) ==> (let ((gy)) (and (< (f x) (setq gy (g y)))
(< gy (h z))))
for example
(setq foo (list))
nil
(defun call (x) (push x foo) x)
call
(<< (call 1) (call 2) (call 5) (call 4) (call 0))
nil
foo
(4 5 2 1)
every function has been called once, except for 0 that didn't need to be called because of short circuiting (I'm not 100% sure if short circuiting is a really good idea or not... #'< in Common Lisp is a regular function with all arguments all evaluated exactly once in left-to-right order without short circuiting).
(defun << (arg1 arg2 arg3 arg4)
(when (and (< arg1 arg2) (< arg2 arg3) (< arg3 arg4)))
)
(<< 1 2 3 4)
Probably possible to extend with any amount of arguments, but such a general form would seem useful.
(defmacro << (&rest args)
(let ((first (car args))
(min (gensym))
(max (gensym))
(forms '(t)) iterator)
(setq args (reverse (cdr args))
iterator args)
`(let ((,min ,first) ,max)
,(or
(while iterator
(push `(setq ,min ,max) forms)
(push `(< ,min ,max) forms)
(push `(setq ,max ,(car iterator)) forms)
(setq iterator (cdr iterator))) `(and ,#forms)))))
(macroexpand '(<< 10 20 30 (+ 30 3) (* 10 4)))
(let ((G99730 10) G99731)
(and (setq G99731 20)
(< G99730 G99731)
(setq G99730 G99731)
(setq G99731 30)
(< G99730 G99731)
(setq G99730 G99731)
(setq G99731 (+ 30 3))
(< G99730 G99731)
(setq G99730 G99731)
(setq G99731 (* 10 4))
(< G99730 G99731)
(setq G99730 G99731) t))
This is the idea similar to 6502's, but it may create less code, in a less trivial situation, but it will create more code in a trivial situation.