I am interested in creating an emacs extension that delegates the work to an external program.
I have my logic as a library, however, written in Common Lisp. If I can directly call the CL library from Elisp, that would be simpler for me; otherwise, I can use a client/server architecture.
I have looked into emacs LSP implementation, but I couldn't find a simple entry on how to do it.
You could build a binary of your CL app and call it from the Elisp side. It seems to suit you fine, so here are more pointers:
How to build a Common Lisp executable
short answer: see https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/scripting.html
Building a binary is done by calling sb-ext:save-lisp-and-die from the terminal (and not from a running image). Note that this function name changes on the different implementations.
ASDF has a directive that allows to do it declaratively, and portably (for all implementations). You add 3 lines in your .asd file and you mention what is your program's entry point. For example:
;; myprogram.asd
:build-operation "program-op" ;; leave this as is.
:build-pathname "myprogram"
:entry-point "myprogram::main" ;; up to you to write main.
Now, call (asdf:make :myprogram).
See a more complete example in the Cookboo.
Call it from Elisp
See https://wikemacs.org/wiki/Emacs_Lisp_Cookbook#Processes
This returns the output as a string:
(shell-command-to-string "seq 8 12 | sort")
Full documentation: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Synchronous-Processes.html
Other approaches
Other approaches are discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/kce20l/what_is_the_best_way_to_call_common_lisp_inside/
For example, one could start a lisp process with Slime and execute CL code with slime-eval.
Related
In C, if I want to see a function that how to work, I open the library which provides the function and analyze the code. How can be implementations of the lisp functions seen? For example, intersection function
You can also look at the source code of lisp functions.
For example, the source files for CLISP, one Common Lisp implementation, are available here: http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/src-files.html
If you want to examine the implementation of functions related to lists, you can look at the file: http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/src/list.d
The usual answer is "M-."
Assuming you have a properly configured IDE, and the source code of the function, clicking on its name and pressing M-. (that's Meta, or Alt or Option or Escape, and dot/period; or whatever key your IDE uses) should reveal its definition (or, for a generic function, definitions, plural; including any compiler macros that might optimize out some cases). Sometimes it's on a right-click or other mouse menu or toolbar.
If the source isn't available, you can often see the actual compiled form by evaluating (disassemble 'function)
Most IDE's, including perennial favourite Emacs+Slime, have other Inspection operations on the menu as well.
In a non-IDE environment, most compilers have reflection tools of their own (compiler-dependant) which are usually also mapped by the Swank library that Slime uses; one might find useful function in that package.
And this really should be documented in your IDE's manual.
I should postscript this that:
You really shouldn't care about the implementation of the core library functions; their contractual behavior is very well documented in the CLHS standard, which is available online and eg, Quicklisp has an utility to link it to Slime (C-c C-d h on a symbol in the COMMON-LISP package); for all well-written Lisp libraries, there should be documentation attached to functions, variables, classes, etc. accessible via the documentation function in the REPL or the IDE's menus and Inspection windows.
Core library functions are often highly optimized and far more complex than most user-level code should want to be, and often call down into compiler-specific "guts" that one should avoid doing in application code.
So I was writing my own function and I called it make-list and I got this from debugger:
The function MAKE-LIST is predefined in Clozure CL.
[Condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR]
Restarts:
0: [CONTINUE] Replace the definition of MAKE-LIST.
Fine, but what if I had accidentally chosen option 0?? Would my compiler be broken and forever have the wrong definition of an internal function, as I would have replaced it?
Only your currently running image would be broken, in which case you can restart CCL to restore it.
The only way to do permanent damage is to save the image, and chose to overwrite the original image file.
Many Lisp systems are written in Lisp themselves.
Clozure CL is such an example. Clozure CL is written in Clozure CL (with some C and assembler). Clozure CL can compile itself.
Thus many/most Common Lisp functions in Clozure CL are written in Clozure CL. So it needs some kind of a switch, where it allows to define or redefine built-in functionality. So there is definitely a way to edit the implementation's source code and change things. It would be best that your definitions are 'correct', so that the functioning of the Lisp system is not compromised. Keep in mind that redefinitions typically do not have an effect on inlined functions or on already expanded macros.
Now, if we as typical programmers use Clozure CL, some packages are protected and redefining the symbols are not allowed and an error is signaled. But you can continue and then change internal functions. As always in many Common Lisp, they are wide open for changes, but this comes with the responsibility for you as the programmer to do the right thing.
If you change a Lisp-internal function, there a some ways to leave permanent damage:
saving an image and using that later
using it to recompile CCL itself or parts of it
you could compile a file and somehow the generated code could be different than with the original compiler
you could compile a file and somehow the generated code includes an inlined version of the changed Lisp function
if one loads such a file, it could be automatically via some init file, it contains the changes and the changed code will be a part of the then currently running Lisp.
When learning a new programming language, "read source code" is a common advice received by the experts. However, with such a huge system like emacs, build over decades by many people, it is not so easy for the beginner to figure out which libraries are the best examples of idiomatic Elisp progamming. Therefore I would like to get some recommendations with regards to the following criteria:
idiomatic elisp programming style
adherence to emacs programming guidelines
clever use of the cl-package in accordance to emacs guidelines
clever use of eieio-package
exemplary organisation of a single .el file library
exemplary organisation of a multi-file/multi-package library
any criteria you consider important
Giving the reasons why you recommend certain libraries for auto-didactic studies would certainly be informative to beginners in Emacs lisp programming.
As Trey said, use the elisp from Emacs itself to learn. I usually do one of two things:
1) If I'm trying to find out how to use a specific function, I'll bring up a dired window and do:
% g foobar
where foobar is the name of the function I'm interested in learning how to use. That will mark all of the files that use foobar and then I go and search through them to see how to call it, in what context it's being called, etc.
2) If I'm trying to figure out how to do something, and I know a mode that does something similar, I'll go look at that mode's source code to see how they do it. If you don't know where to start, but you know how to execute what it is you want to do, a handy thing to do is to look it up by key-binding. For example, in a dired buffer, do the following:
C-h k % g
and that will bring up:
% g runs the command dired-mark-files-containing-regexp, which is an
% interactive compiled Lisp function in `dired.el'.
It is bound to % g, <menu-bar> <regexp> <mark-cont>.
(dired-mark-files-containing-regexp regexp &optional marker-char)
Mark all files with contents containing regexp for use in later
commands. A prefix argument means to unmark them instead.
`.' and `..' are never marked.
Clicking on dired.el in the above text (in an emacs buffer) will open up the source code and take you right to that function definition. It's a great way to learn by example.
Don't forget the elisp debugger as a way to see exactly what's going on and following along as the code executes step-by-step. You can mark the code for debugging using edebug-defun and then invoke it as usual, at which point emacs will step you through the code.
The source code I'd recommend would be that of Emacs itself. Start off with the simple stuff (pun intended), and look at other files as you are wont.
M-x find-library simple RET
I think it's self-explanatory as to why Emacs' own lisp code is a good example of Emacs lisp.
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.
I've been wanting to teach myself Lisp for a while. However, all the interpreters of which I've heard involve some flavor of emacs.
Are there any command line interpreters, such that I could type this into the command line:
lispinterpret sourcefile.lisp
just like I can run perl or python.
While I'd also like to become more familiar with Emacs (if only not to be frustrated when I work with somebody who uses Emacs), I'd rather decouple learning Emacs from learning Lisp.
Edit: I actually want to follow SICP which uses Scheme, so an answer about Scheme would be more useful. I'm just not that familiar with the differences.
You could also try DrScheme, which whilst not exactly a standalone interpreter, isn't emacs :)
It's basically a simple IDE that has an area to type in code that can be executed as a file, and then another area that is the running interpreter that you can interact with.
(Also, find the UC Berkeley CS61A podcasts and listen to them, as well as reading SICP)
It looks like Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL) also caters to what you want:
http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Shebang-Scripts
SBCL is both top rate and open source.
Checkout CLISP wiki-link that ie. was used by Paul Graham
Direct link
I often write lisp shell scripts which start with this line:
#!/usr/bin/clisp
Then you don't even need to type "lispinterpret" on the command-line. Just mark the script executable and run it directly.
Most scheme interpreters that I am familiar with can be run from the command line. (Much of the list below is extracted from the comparative table at Alexey Radul's Scheme Implementation Choices page. There is a more extensive list at schemewiki but that page does not immediately provide command-line invocation syntax.)
Here's how you run a number of implementations at the command line:
Chez Scheme: scheme, petite
MIT Scheme: mit-scheme
Scheme 48: scheme48
RScheme: rs
Racket: racket (But I recommend trying the DrRacket IDE, especially for beginners.)
Guile: guile
Bigloo: bigloo
Chicken: csi
Gambit: gsi
Gauche: gosh
IronScheme: IronScheme.Console
Kawa: kawa, java kawa.repl
Larceny: larceny
SCM: scm
If you are looking for Scheme to work with the SICP, take a look at MIT/GNU Scheme
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/scheme/
http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/index.html
The most widely used IDE for Common Lisp, particularly in the free software subset of the community, is in fact SLIME, which runs on Emacs. You can use whatever CL compiler you prefer and invoke Lisp source files the way you describe, but if you do that, you won't be taking advantage of many of Lisps dynamic features that are so incredibly useful while developing your application.
I suggest you take a look at this SLIME demonstration video to see what I mean, even though it might be a bit outdated at this point.
If the problem is that you (think you) don't like Emacs, I seriously suggest you try to learn it. Seriously. No, really, I mean that. However, there are alternatives, such as the IDEs provided by commercial Lisp implementations such as Allegro and Lispworks (free trials available), or an Eclipse plug-in called Cusp.
Did you try Allegro CL from http://www.franz.com/?
#Nathan: I've upmodded the Common Lisp links, because you asked about Lisp (especially with reference to Emacs Lisp). However, Common Lisp is very different from Scheme. A program written for one is unlikely to run on the other.
As you mentioned, SICP is for learning Scheme, not Lisp (or at least, not Common Lisp and not Emacs Lisp). There are some overlap in principles, however you can't simply cut and paste code from SICP and expect it to run on any Common Lisp or Emacs Lisp system. :-)
No "interpreter" requires emacs.
Also, emacs can run elisp in a headless manner.
It seems like scheme shell is suitable for your purpose.
Take a look at http://www.scsh.net/index.html
Another good dialect of lisp is cmucl. They used to love to brag about being the "fastest" lisp.