I'm interested in knowing what &allow-other-keys is supposed to do. I'm getting shockingly few references to it and no real definitions when I consult all documentation I can get my hands on. Best I can figure out is that it's effectively an error handling bit of code that you can put after &key to suppress the checking of key arguments when the macro is being called. For reference, this is where I found it:
(defmacro macro-name ((passed-variable
&rest open-args
&key &allow-other-keys)
&body body)
...)
&allow-other-keys is well documented: it suppresses Keyword Argument Checking.
In your example, it makes (macro-name (foo :bar 1) ...) an acceptable invocation of macro-name.
Although I think sds's answer is the right one, it's worth perhaps giving an example what is probably the canonical use-case for &allow-other-keys:
(defun open-unsigned-byte (f &rest kws &key &allow-other-keys)
(apply #'open f :element-type 'unsigned-byte kws))
This function wants to let open have whatever keyword arguments it takes, possibly including non-standard ones, but wants to make sure that the element-type is unsigned-byte, and that all the additional arguments passed to open are keyword arguments. This works because in the case of duplicated keyword arguments (which are legal) the leftmost one wins.
Related
In Lisp, a function's arguments are evaluated first before entering the function body. Macro arguments stay not evaluated.
But sometimes, one wants to inject code pieces stored in variables into a macro. This means evaluating the argument for the macro first, and then apply the macro-of-choice on this evaluated result.
One has to resort to
(eval `(macro ,arg))
To achieve this - but eval does not behave correctly in different environments.
The best thing would be, if one could do:
(apply macro (list arg))
or
(funcall macro arg)
But since the macro is not a function this doesn't work.
Is it possible to achieve something like this? - To circumvent that problem oder to make the macro available in the functions namespace?
Or am I missing some other ways to solve such problems?
I came to this question while trying to answer How to produce HTML from a list. but also in Generate TYPECASE with macro in common lisp, Evaluate arguments passed to a macro that generates functions in lisp, and How to convert a list to code/lambda in scheme?. But I always thought while answering them it would be good to have an apply or funcall-like function which can take macros.
It is not clear what you are trying to do, although it is almost certain that you are confused about something. In particular if you are calling eval inside macroexpansions then in almost all cases you are doing something both seriously wrong and seriously dangerous. I can't ever think of a case where I've wanted macros which expand to things including eval and I have written Lisp for a very very long time.
That being said, here is how you call the function associated with a macro, and why it is very seldom what you want to do.
Macros are simply functions whose domain and range is source code: they are compilers from a language to another language. It is perfectly possible to call the function associated with a macro, but what that function will return is source code, and what you will then need to do with that source code is evaluate it. If you want a function which deals with run-time data which is not source code, then you need that function, and you can't turn a macro into that function by some magic trick which seems to be what you want to do: that magic trick does not, and can not, exist.
So for instance if I have a macro
(defmacro with-x (&body forms)
`(let ((x 1))
,#forms))
Then I can call its macro function on a bit of source code:
> (funcall (macro-function 'with-x)
'(with-x (print "foo")) nil)
(let ((x 1)) (print "foo"))
But the result of this is another bit of source code: I need to compile or evaluate it, and nothing I can do will get around this.
Indeed in (almost?) all cases this is just the same as macroexpand-1):
> (macroexpand-1 '(with-x (print "foo")))
(let ((x 1)) (print "foo"))
t
And you can probably write macroexpand-1 in terms of macro-function:
(defun macroexpand-1/equivalent (form &optional (env nil))
(if (and (consp form)
(symbolp (first form))
(macro-function (first form)))
(values (funcall (macro-function (first form)) form env)
t)
(values form nil)))
So, if the result of calling a macro is source code, what do you do with that source code to get a result which is not source code? Well, you must evaluate it. And then, well, since the evaluator expands macros for you anyway, you might as well just write something like
(defun evaluate-with-x (code)
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda ()
(with-x ,#code)))))
So you didn't need to call the macro's function in any case. And this is not the magic trick which turns macros into functions dealing with data which is not source code: it is a terrible horror which is entirely made of exploding parts.
A concrete example: CL-WHO
It looks like this question might have its origins in this one and the underlying problem there is that that's not what CL-WHO does. In particular it is a confusion to think that something like CL-WHO is a tool for taking some kind of list and turning it into HTML. It's not: it's a tool for taking the source code of a language which is built on CL but includes a way of expressing HTML output mingled with CL code, and compiles it into CL code which will do the same thing. It happens to be the case that CL source code is expressed as lists & symbols, but CL-WHO isn't really about that: it's a compiler from, if you like, 'the CL-WHO language' to CL.
So, let's try the trick we tried above and see why it's a disaster:
(defun form->html/insane (form)
(funcall
(compile nil `(lambda ()
(with-html-output-to-string (,(make-symbol "O"))
,#form)))))
And you might, if you did not look at this too closely, think that this function does in fact do the magic trick:
> (form->html/insane '(:p ((:a :href "foo") "the foo")))
"<p></p><a href='foo'>the foo</a>"
But it doesn't. What happens if we call form->html/insane on this perfectly innocuous list:
(:p (uiop/run-program:run-program "rm -rf $HOME" :output t))
Hint: don't call form->html/insane on this list if you don't have very good backups.
CL-WHO is an implementation of a programming language which is a strict superset of CL: if you try to turn it into a function to turn lists into HTML you end up with something involving the same nuclear weapon you tinker with every time you call eval, except that nuclear weapon is hidden inside a locked cupboard where you can't see it. But it doesn't care about that: if you set it off it will still reduce everything within a few miles to radioactive ash and rubble.
So if you want a tool which will turn lists – lists which aren't source code – into HTML then write that tool. CL-WHO might have the guts of such a tool in its implemenentation, but you can't use it as it is.
And this is the same problem you face whenever you are trying to abuse macros this way: the result of calling a macro's function is Lisp source code, and to evaluate that source code you need eval or an equivalent of eval. And eval is not only not a terrible solution to almost any problem: it's also a nuclear weapon. There are, perhaps problems for which nuclear weapons are good solutions, but they are few and far between.
AND and OR are macros and since macros aren't first class in scheme/racket they cannot be passed as arguments to other functions. A partial solution is to use and-map or or-map. Is it possible to write a function that would take arbitrary macro and turn it into a function so that it can be passed as an argument to another function? Are there any languages that have first class macros?
In general, no. Consider that let is (or could be) implemented as a macro on top of lambda:
(let ((x 1))
(foo x))
could be a macro that expands to
((lambda (x) (foo x)) 1)
Now, what would it look like to convert let to a function? Clearly it is nonsense. What would its inputs be? Its return value?
Many macros will be like this. In fact, any macro that could be routinely turned into a function without losing any functionality is a bad macro! Such a macro should have been a function to begin with.
I agree with #amalloy. If something is written as a macro, it probably does something that functions can't do (e.g., introduce bindings, change evaluation order). So automatically converting arbitrary macro into a function is a really bad idea even if it is possible.
Is it possible to write a function that would take arbitrary macro and turn it into a function so that it can be passed as an argument to another function?
No, but it is somewhat doable to write a macro that would take some macro and turn it into a function.
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax racket/list))
(define-syntax (->proc stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ mac #:arity arity)
(with-syntax ([(args ...) (generate-temporaries (range (syntax-e #'arity)))])
#'(λ (args ...) (mac args ...)))]))
((->proc and #:arity 2) 42 12)
(apply (->proc and #:arity 2) '(#f 12))
((->proc and #:arity 2) #f (error 'not-short-circuit))
You might also be interested in identifier macro, which allows us to use an identifier as a macro in some context and function in another context. This could be used to create a first class and/or which short-circuits when it's used as a macro, but could be passed as a function value in non-transformer position.
On the topic of first class macro, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fexpr. It's known to be a bad idea.
Not in the way you probably expect
To see why, here is a way of thinking about macros: A macro is a function which takes a bit of source code and turns it into another bit of source code: the expansion of the macro. In other words a macro is a function whose domain and range are source code.
Once the source code is fully expanded, then it's fed to either an evaluator or a compiler. Let's assume it's fed to a compiler because it makes the question easier to answer: a compiler itself is simply a function whose domain is source code and whose range is some sequence of instructions for a machine (which may or may not be a real machine) to execute. Those instructions might include things like 'call this function on these arguments'.
So, what you are asking is: can the 'this function' in 'call this function on these arguments' be some kind of macro? Well, yes, it could be, but whatever source code it is going to transform certainly can not be the source code of the program you are executing, because that is gone: all that's left is the sequence of instructions that was the return value of the compiler.
So you might say: OK, let's say we disallow compilers: can we do it now? Well, leaving aside that 'disallowing compilers' is kind of a serious limitation, this was, in fact, something that very old dialects of Lisp sort-of did, using a construct called a FEXPR, as mentioned in another answer. It's important to realise that FEXPRs existed because people had not yet invented macros. Pretty soon, people did invent macros, and although FEXPRs and macros coexisted for a while – mostly because people had written code which used FEXPRs which they wanted to keep running, and because writing macros was a serious pain before things like backquote existed – FEXPRs died out. And they died out because they were semantically horrible: even by the standards of 1960s Lisps they were semantically horrible.
Here's one small example of why FEXPRs are so horrible: Let's say I write this function in a language with FEXPRs:
(define (foo f g x)
(apply f (g x)))
Now: what happens when I call foo? In particular, what happens if f might be a FEXPR?. Well, the answer is that I can't compile foo at all: I have to wait until run-time and make some on-the-fly decision about what to do.
Of course this isn't what these old Lisps with FEXPRs probably did: they would just silently have assumed that f was a normal function (which they would have called an EXPR) and compiled accordingly (and yes, even very old Lisps had compilers). If you passed something which was a FEXPR you just lost: either the thing detected that, or more likely it fall over horribly or gave you some junk answer.
And this kind of horribleness is why macros were invented: macros provide a semantically sane approach to processing Lisp code which allows (eventually, this took a long time to actually happen) minor details like compilation being possible at all, code having reasonable semantics and compiled code having the same semantics as interpreted code. These are features people like in their languages, it turns out.
Incidentally, in both Racket and Common Lisp, macros are explicitly functions. In Racket they are functions which operate on special 'syntax' objects because that's how you get hygiene, but in Common Lisp, which is much less hygienic, they're just functions which operate on CL source code, where the source code is simply made up of lists, symbols &c.
Here's an example of this in Racket:
> (define foo (syntax-rules ()
[(_ x) x]))
> foo
#<procedure:foo>
OK, foo is now just an ordinary function. But it's a function whose domain & range are Racket source code: it expects a syntax object as an argument and returns another one:
> (foo 1)
; ?: bad syntax
; in: 1
; [,bt for context]
This is because 1 is not a syntax object.
> (foo #'(x 1))
#<syntax:readline-input:5:10 1>
> (syntax-e (foo #'(x 1)))
1
And in CL this is even easier to see: Here's a macro definition:
(defmacro foo (form) form)
And now I can get hold of the macro's function and call it on some CL source code:
> (macro-function 'foo)
#<Function foo 4060000B6C>
> (funcall (macro-function 'foo) '(x 1) nil)
1
In both Racket and CL, macros are, in fact, first-class (or, in the case of Racket: almost first-class, I think): they are functions which operate on source code, which itself is first-class: you can write Racket and CL programs which construct and manipulate source code in arbitrary ways: that's what macros are in these languages.
In the case of Racket I have said 'almost first-class', because I can't see a way, in Racket, to retrieve the function which sits behind a macro defined with define-syntax &c.
I've created something like this in Scheme, it's macro that return lambda that use eval to execute the macro:
(define-macro (macron m)
(let ((x (gensym)))
`(lambda (,x)
(eval `(,',m ,#,x)))))
Example usage:
;; normal eval
(define x (map (lambda (x)
(eval `(lambda ,#x)))
'(((x) (display x)) ((y) (+ y y)))))
;; using macron macro
(define x (map (macron lambda)
'(((x) (display x)) ((y) (+ y y)))))
and x in both cases is list of two functions.
another example:
(define-macro (+++ . args)
`(+ ,#args))
((macron +++) '(1 2 3))
Reading this question got me thinking about what constitutes a valid car of an expression. Obviously, symbols and lambdas can be "called" using the usual syntax. According to the hyperspec,
function name n. 1. (in an environment) A symbol or a list (setf symbol) that is the name of a function in that environment. 2. A symbol or a list (setf symbol).
So, theoretically, (setf some-name) is a function name. I decided to give it a try.
(defun (setf try-this) ()
(format t "Don't name your functions like this, kids :)"))
((setf try-this))
(funcall '(setf try-this))
(setf (try-this))
GNU CLISP, SBCL, and ABCL will all let me define this function. However, SBCL and ABCL won't let me call it using any of the syntaxes shown in the snippet. CLISP, on the other hand, will run the first two but still errs on the third.
I'm curious about which compiler is behaving correctly. Since SBCL and ABCL agree, I would hazard a guess that a correct implementation should reject that code. As a second question, how would I call my incredibly-contrived not-useful function from the code snippet, since the things I tried above aren't working portably. Or, perhaps more usefully,
A SETF function has to take at least one argument, which is the new value to be stored in the place. It can take additional arguments as well, these will be filled in from arguments in the place expression in the call to SETF.
When you use SETF, it has to have an even number of arguments: every place you're assigning to needs a value to be assigned.
So it should be:
(defun (setf try-this) (new-value)
(format t "You tried to store ~S~%" new-value))
(setf (try-this) 3)
(funcall #'(setf try-this) 'foo)
You can't use
((setf try-this) 'bar)
because the car of a form does not contain a function name. It can only be a symbol or a lambda expression (although implementations may allow other formats as extensions).
*Note: Despite having frequented StackOverflow for a long time, this is the first question that I have posted myself. Apologies if it's a bit verbose. Constructive criticism appreciated.
When I define a struct in Common Lisp using defstruct, a predicate function is automatically generated that tests whether its argument is of the type defined by the defstruct. Eg:
(defstruct book
title
author)
(let ((huck-finn (make-book :title "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" :author "Mark Twain")))
(book-p huck-finn))
=> True
However, when defining a class using defclass, such functions are seemingly not generated by default (is there a way to specify this?), so I'm trying to add this functionality myself, because I'd like a) for this syntax to be consistent between structs and classes, b) to have an abbreviation of (typep obj 'classname), which I need to write very often and is visually noisy,
and c) as a programming exercise, since I'm still relatively new to Lisp.
I could write a macro that defines a predicate function given the name of a class:
(defclass book ()
((title :initarg :title
:accessor title)
(author :initarg :author
:accessor author)))
;This...
(defmacro gen-predicate (classname)
...)
;...should expand to this...
(defun book-p (obj)
(typep obj 'book))
;...when called like this:
(gen-predicate 'book)
The name that I need to pass to defun must be of the form 'classname-p. Here's where I have difficulty. To create such a symbol, I could use the "symb" function from Paul Graham's On Lisp (p. 58). When it is run on the REPL:
(symb 'book '-p)
=> BOOK-P
My gen-predicate macro looks like this so far:
(defmacro gen-predicate (classname)
`(defun ,(symb classname '-p) (obj)
(typep obj ,classname)))
(macroexpand `(gen-predicate 'book))
=>
(PROGN
(EVAL-WHEN (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) (SB-C:%COMPILER-DEFUN '|'BOOK-P| 'NIL T))
(SB-IMPL::%DEFUN '|'BOOK-P|
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA |'BOOK-P|
(OBJ)
(BLOCK |'BOOK-P| (TYPEP OBJ 'BOOK)))
NIL 'NIL (SB-C:SOURCE-LOCATION)))
T
It would seem that the symbol created by (symb 'book '-p) is actually considered |'BOOK-P| by the implementation (SBCL), not BOOK-P. Sure enough, this now works:
(let ((huck-finn (make-instance 'book)))
(|'BOOK-P| huck-finn))
=> True
Why is the symbol created by symb interned as |'BOOK-P|? In On Lisp (same page as above) Graham says: "Any string can be the print-name of a symbol, even a string containing lowercase letters or macro characters like parentheses. When a symbol's name contains such oddities, it is printed within vertical bars." No such oddities exist in this case, do they? And am I correct in thinking that the "print-name" of a symbol is what is actually displayed on the standard output when the symbol is printed, and is, in the case of such oddities, distinct from the form of the symbol itself?
To be able to write function-defining macros like gen-predicate - whose defined functions are named based on the arguments passed to the macro - seems to me like something that Lisp hackers have probably been doing for ages. User Kaz says here (Merging symbols in common lisp) that the "mashing-up" of symbols can often be avoided, but that would defeat the purpose of this macro.
Finally, assuming I could get gen-predicate to work how I want, what would be the best way of ensuring that it be called for each new class as they are defined? Much in the same way as initialize-instance can be customized to perform certain actions upon instantiation of a class, is there a generic function called by defclass that can perform actions upon definition of a class?
Thank you.
That's a usual problem: what gets passed to a Macro?
Compare calls like this:
(symb 'book '-p)
and
(symb ''book '-p)
Your macro form is this:
(gen-predicate 'book)
GEN-PREDICATE is a macro. classname is a parameter for this macro.
Now what is the value of classname inside the macro during code expansion? Is it book or 'book?
Actually it is the latter, because you wrote (gen-predicate 'book). Remember: macros see source code and the argument source gets passed to the macro function - not the value. The argument is 'book. Thus this gets passed. (QUOTE BOOK) is the same, only printed differently. So it is a two element list. The first element is the symbol QUOTE and the second element is the symbol BOOK.
Thus the macro now calls the function SYMB with the argument value (QUOTE BOOK) or, shorter, 'BOOK.
If you want to generate the predicate without the quote character, you need to write:
(gen-predicate book)
Alternatively you can also change the macro:
(symb classname '-p)
would be:
(symbol (if (and (consp classname)
(eq (first classname) 'quote))
(second classname)
classname))
Compare
We write
(defun foo () 'bar)
and not
(defun 'foo () 'bar) ; note the quoted FOO
DEFUN is a macro and the first argument is the function name. It's a similar problem then...
Second part of the question
I don't really know any good answer to that. I can't remember any easy way to run code (for example to define a function) after a class definition.
Maybe use the MOP, but that's ugly.
write a custom macro DEFINE-CLASS which does what you want: expands into DEFCLASS and the DEFUN.
iterate over all symbols in a package, find the classes and define the corresponding predicates
To address the second part of the question, classes are themselves objects, thanks to the MOP, so it might be possible to write an :after method on initialize-instance specialized on STANDARD-CLASS. But you should check the MOP to see whether defining such a method is allowed or not.
If it's possible, then yes, you can run code in response to the creation of a class; however, since you don't know the name of the class being created until runtime, you cannot spell it textually in the source, so you cannot use your macro (unless you use eval). You'd rather use something like
(let ((classname (class-name class)))
(compile (generate-my-predicate-symbol classname)
(lambda (x) (typep x classname))))
I think Rainer's suggestion to write your own DEFINE-CLASS macro is the way to go, I mean, the way a seasoned Lisper most likely would do it, if there aren't any other considerations at play. But I'm not really a seasoned Lisper, so I might be wrong ;)
What is the best practice for selectively passing evaluated arguments to a macro form?
To elaborate: The usefulness of macros lies in its ability to receives unevaluated parameter, unlike the default evaluation rule for function forms. However, there is a legitimate use cases for evaluating macro arguments.
Consider a contrived example:
(defparameter *func-body* '((print i) (+ i 1)))
Suppose it would be nice that *func-body* could serve as the body of a macro our-defun that is defined as:
(defmacro our-defun (fun args &body body)
`(defun ,fun ,args ,#body))
So after (our-defun foo (i) (+ 1 i)), we could say (foo 1) to get 2. However, if we use (our-defun foo (i) *func-body*), the result of (foo 1) will be ((PRINT I) (+ I 1)) (i.e., the value of *func-body*). It would be nice if we can force the evaluation of *func-body* as an argument to the macro our-defun.
Currently, I can think of a technique of using compile and funcall to do this, as in
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () (our-defun foo (i) ,#*func-body*))))
after which (our-defun 1) will print out 1 and return 2, as intended. I can think of case of making this work with eval, but I would rather stay away from eval due to its peculiarity in scoping.
This leads to my question at the begining, is there a more straightforward or native way to do this?
P.S.,
A not-so-contrived example is in the function (UPDATE-HOOK), which uses two library macros (ADD-HOOK) and (REMOVE-HOOK) and needs to evaluate its parameters. The (funcall (compile nil `(lambda () ...))) technique above is used here.
(defun update-hook (hook hook-name &optional code)
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () (remove-hook ,hook ',hook-name))))
(unless (null code)
(compile hook-name `(lambda () ,#code))
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () (add-hook ,hook ',hook-name))))))
That's slightly confused. A macro does not receive unevaluated parameters.
A macro gets source code and creates source code from that. Remember also that source code in Lisp is actually provided as data. The macro creates code, which evaluates some forms and some not.
Macros need to work in a compiling system. Before runtime. During compile time. All the macro sees is source code and then it creates source code from that. Think of macros as code transformations, not about evaluating arguments or not.
It would be nice if we can force the evaluation of *func-body* as an argument to the macro our-defun
That is not very clean. In a compiled system, you would need to make sure that *func-body* actually has a useful binding and that it can be resolved at COMPILE TIME.
If you have a macro like DEFUN, it makes sense to have the source code static. If you want to insert some source code into a form, then it could make sense to do that at read time:
(defun foo (i) #.`(,#*foo*))
But that's code I usually would want to avoid.
two library macros (ADD-HOOK) and (REMOVE-HOOK) and needs to evaluate its parameters.
Why should ADD-HOOK and REMOVE-HOOK be macros? If you don't have a real reason, they simply should be functions. Already since they make reuse difficult.
If you want to make ADD-HOOK and REMOVE-HOOK macros for some reason, then UPDATE-HOOK usually should be a macro, too.
The list you are giving to your macro has the form
(Quote (...))
So the list you actually want is the CADR of the list you get.