I'm reading a file char by char and constructing a list which is consist of list of letters of words. I did that but when it comes to testing it prints out NIL. Also outside of test function when i print out list, it prints nicely. What is the problem here? Is there any other meaning of LET keyword?
This is my read fucntion:
(defun read-and-parse (filename)
(with-open-file (s filename)
(let (words)
(let (letter)
(loop for c = (read-char s nil)
while c
do(when (char/= c #\Space)
(if (char/= c #\Newline) (push c letter)))
do(when (or (char= c #\Space) (char= c #\Newline) )
(push (reverse letter) words)
(setf letter '())))
(reverse words)
))))
This is test function:
(defun test_on_test_data ()
(let (doc (read-and-parse "document2.txt"))
(print doc)
))
This is input text:
hello
this is a test
You're not using let properly. The syntax is:
(let ((var1 val1)
(var2 val2)
...)
body)
If the initial value of the variable is NIL, you can abbreviate (varN nil) as just varN.
You wrote:
(let (doc
(read-and-parse "document2.txt"))
(print doc))
Based on the above, this is using the abbreviation, and it's equivalent to:
(let ((doc nil)
(read-and-parse "document2.txt"))
(print doc))
Now you can see that this binds doc to NIL, and binds the variable read-and-parse to "document2.txt". It never calls the function. The correct syntax is:
(let ((doc (read-and-parse "document2.txt")))
(print doc))
Barmar's answer is the right one. For interest, here is a version of read-and-parse which makes possibly-more-idiomatic use of loop, and also abstracts out the 'is the character white' decision since this is something which is really not usefully possible in portable CL as the standard character repertoire is absurdly poor (there's no tab for instance!). I'm sure there is some library available via Quicklisp which deals with this better than the below.
I think this is fairly readable: there's an outer loop which collects words, and an inner loop which collects characters into a word, skipping over whitespace until it finds the next word. Both use loop's collect feature to collect lists forwards. On the other hand, I feel kind of bad every time I use loop (I know there are alternatives).
By default this collects the words as lists of characters: if you tell it to it will collect them as strings.
(defun char-white-p (c)
;; Is a character white? The fallback for this is horrid, since
;; tab &c are not a standard characters. There must be a portability
;; library with a function which does this.
#+LispWorks (lw:whitespace-char-p c)
#+CCL (ccl:whitespacep c) ;?
#-(or LispWorks CCL)
(member char (load-time-value
(mapcan (lambda (n)
(let ((c (name-char n)))
(and c (list c))))
'("Space" "Newline" "Page" "Tab" "Return" "Linefeed"
;; and I am not sure about the following, but, well
"Backspace" "Rubout")))))
(defun read-and-parse (filename &key (as-strings nil))
"Parse a file into a list of words, splitting on whitespace.
By default the words are returned as lists of characters. If
AS-STRINGS is T then they are coerced to strings"
(with-open-file (s filename)
(loop for maybe-word = (loop with collecting = nil
for c = (read-char s nil)
;; carry on until we hit EOF, or we
;; hit whitespace while collecting a
;; word
until (or (not c) ;EOF
(and collecting (char-white-p c)))
;; if we're not collecting and we see
;; a non-white character, then we're
;; now collecting
when (and (not collecting) (not (char-white-p c)))
do (setf collecting t)
when collecting
collect c)
while (not (null maybe-word))
collect (if as-strings
(coerce maybe-word 'string)
maybe-word))))
Related
I am supposed to write a program that gets simple user input as a string and the code supposed to writes back a response (name, are you a person etc.) The program suppose to terminate when word 'bye' is typed. The code is below:
(defun x()
(setq words "empty")
(loop while (string/= words "BYE")
(setq words (read-delimited-list #\~)
(write-line words)
(format t "ROBBIE%: Hello, who are you?")
(case (string-include "I'm" words)
(format t "ROBBIE%: Nice to see you, how are you?")
((string-include "Hi" words)
(format t "ROBBIE%: How are you?")
(or (string-include "fine" words) (string-include "person" words))
(format t "ROBBIE%: No I'm a computer")))
(format t "BYE"))
(x)
However, when I compile this on program 2 errors pop up:
Line2:3 warning: undefined variable: COMMON-LISP-USER:: WORDS
Line3:3 error: during macroexpansion of (LOOP WHILE (STRING/= WORDS "BYE") ...). Use BREAK-ON-SIGNALS to intercept.
I've done programming in python but this is extremely complicated lang for me and I need some help understanding why this isn't working? Any advice is greatly appreciated!
When you do this:
(defun x ()
(setf words "foo"))
then words is not defined. It references some global variable, and if that doesn't exist, it will create it, but possibly with some strange behaviour regarding scope and extent. This is not portable code.
In order to introduce a local variable, use let:
(defun x ()
(let ((words "foo"))
;; words is is scope here
)
;; but not here
)
Loop (in the more usual »extended« form) uses loop keywords for all its clauses. There is no implicit body. In order to do something, you might use do, which allows multiple forms to follow:
(defun x ()
(let ((words "foo"))
(loop while (string/= words "bye")
do (setf words (read-line …))
(format …))))
Case uses compile-time values to compare using eql:
(case something
(:foo (do-a-foo))
((:bar :baz) (do-a-bell))
(t (moooh)))
This doesn't work with strings, because strings are not eql unless they are the same object (i. e. they are eq). In your case, you want a cond:
(cond ((string-include-p words "Whatever")
…)
((string-include-p words "yo man")
…))
For interaction with the user, you'd maybe want to use the bidirectional *query-io* stream:
(format *query-io* "Who am I?")
and
(read-line *query-io*)
Read-line gives you strings, and seems much better suited to your task than read-delimited-list, which has other use cases.
Let me focus on aspects of your code not already covered by other solutions.
Loop
Here is your loop structure:
(let ((words "empty"))
(loop
while (string/= words "BYE")
do
(progn
(setq words (read-line)))))
First of all, after do you don't need (progn ...). You could write equally:
(let ((words "empty"))
(loop
while (string/= words "BYE")
do (setq words (read-line))))
Having to initialize words to some arbitrary value (called sometime a sentinel value) is a code smell (not always a bad thing, but there might be better alternatives). Here you can simplify the loop by using a for clause.
(loop
for words = (read-line)
while (string/= words "BYE")
do ...)
Also, you may want to use until with a string= test, this might be more readable:
(loop
for words = (read-line)
until (string= words "BYE")
do ...)
Search
You can test for string inclusion with SEARCH. Here is a little commented snippet of code to showcase how string manipulation function could work:
(defun test-I-am (input)
(let ((start (search "I'am" input)))
(when start
;; we found an occurrence at position start
;; let's find the next space character
(let ((space (position #\space input :start start)))
(when space
;; we found a space character, the name starts just after
(format nil "Hello ~a!" (subseq input (1+ space))))))))
With this simple algorithm, here is a test (e.g. in your REPL):
> (test-i-am "I'am tired")
"Hello tired!"
Replace read-delimited-list with read-line, case with cond and balance some parentheses. Here is working solution, including some function for string-inclusion:
(defun string-include (string1 string2)
(let* ((string1 (string string1)) (length1 (length string1)))
(if (zerop length1)
nil
(labels ((sub (s)
(cond
((> length1 (length s)) nil)
((string= string1 s :end2 (length string1)) string1)
(t (sub (subseq s 1))))))
(sub (string string2))))))
(defun x ()
(let ((words "empty"))
(format t "ROBBIE%: Hello, who are you?~%")
(loop while (string/= words "BYE") do
(progn
(finish-output)
(setq words (read-line))
(cond ((string-include "I'm" words)
(format t "ROBBIE%: Nice to see you, how are you?~%"))
((string-include "Hi" words)
(format t "ROBBIE%: How are you?~%"))
((or (string-include "fine" words)
(string-include "person" words))
(format t "ROBBIE%: No I'm a computer~%")))))
(format t "BYE")))
Then you just call it:
(x)
I am working on problem to get the occurence of Prime in a list in lisp.
Input:
Write a function (OccurencesOfPrimes < list >) which counts the number of primes in a (possibly nested) list.
Output: Example: (OccurencesOfPrimes (((1)(2))(5)(3)((8)3)) returns 4.
I am using the below code but getting the error like:
(
defun OccurencesOfPrimes (list)
(loop for i from 2 to 100
do ( setq isPrime t)
(loop for j from 2 to i
never (zerop (mod i j))
(setq isPrime f)
(break)
)
)
(if (setq isPrime t)
(append list i)
)
)
)
LOOP: illegal syntax near (SETQ ISPRIME F) in
(LOOP FOR J FROM 2 TO I NEVER (ZEROP (MOD I J)) (SETQ ISPRIME F) (BREAK)
)
Any help.
It is important to keep the format consistent with the expected conventions of the language. It helps when reading the code (in particular with other programmers), and can help you see errors.
Also, you should use an editor which, at the minimum, keep tracks of parentheses. In Emacs, when you put the cursor in the first opening parenthesis, the matching parenthesis is highlighted. You can spot that you have one additional parenthesis that serves no purpose.
(
defun OccurencesOfPrimes (list)
(loop for i from 2 to 100
do ( setq isPrime t)
(loop for j from 2 to i
never (zerop (mod i j))
(setq isPrime f)
(break)
)
)
(if (setq isPrime t)
(append list i)
)
) ;; <- end of defun
) ;; <- closes nothing
In Lisp, parentheses are for the computer, whereas indentation is for humans. Tools can automatically indent the code according to the structure (the parenthesis), and any discrepancy between what indentation you expect and the one being computed is a hint that your code is badly formed. If you look at the indentation of your expressions, you can see how deep you are in the form, and that alone helps you understand the code.
Symbol names are dash-separated, not camlCased.
Your code, with remarks:
(defun occurences-of-primes (list)
;; You argument is likely to be a LIST, given its name and the way
;; you call APPEND below. But you never iterate over the list. This
;; is suspicious.
(loop
for i from 2 to 100
do
(setq is-prime t) ;; setting an undeclared variable
(loop
for j from 2 to i
never (zerop (mod i j))
;; the following two forms are not expected here according
;; to LOOP's grammar; setting IS-PRIME to F, but F is not
;; an existing variable. If you want to set to false, use
;; NIL instead.
(setq is-prime f)
;; BREAK enters the debugger, maybe you wanted to use
;; LOOP-FINISH instead, but the NEVER clause above should
;; already be enough to exit the loop as soon as its
;; sub-expression evaluates to NIL.
(break)))
;; The return value of (SETQ X V) is V, so here your test would
;; always succeed.
(if (setq is-prime t)
;; Append RETURNS a new list, without modifying its
;; arguments. In particular, LIST is not modified. Note that "I"
;; is unknown at this point, because the bindings effective
;; inside the LOOP are not visible in this scope. Besides, "I"
;; is a number, not a list.
(append list i)))
Original question
Write one function which counts all the occurrences of a prime number in a (possibly nested) list.
Even though the homework questions says "write one function", it does not say that you should write one big function that compute everything at once. You could write one such big function, but if you split your problem into sub-problems, you will end with different auxiliary functions, which:
are simpler to understand (they do one thing)
can be reused to build other functions
The sub-problems are, for example: how to determine if a number is a prime? how to iterate over a tree (a.k.a. a possibly nested list)? how to count
the occurrences?
The basic idea is to write an "is-prime" function, iterate over the tree and call "is-prime" on each element; if the element is prime and was never seen before, add 1 to a counter, local to your function.
You can also flatten the input tree, to obtain a list, then sort the resulting
list; you iterate over the list while keeping track of the last
value seen: if the value is the same as the previous one, you
already know if the number is prime; if the previous number differs, then
you have to test if the number is prime first.
You could also abstract things a little more, and define a higher-order tree-walker function, which calls a function on each leaf of the tree. And write another higher-order function which "memoizes" calls: it wraps around a
function F so that if you call F with the same arguments as before,
it returns the result that was stored instead of recomputing it.
Example
I'll combine the above ideas because if you give that answer to a teacher you are likely to have to carefully explain what each part does (and if you can, great for you); this is not necessarily the "best" answer, but it covers a lot of things.
(defun tree-walk-leaves (tree function)
(typecase tree
(null nil)
(cons
(tree-walk-leaves (car tree) function)
(tree-walk-leaves (cdr tree) function))
(t (funcall function tree))))
(defun flatten (tree &optional keep-order-p)
(let ((flat nil))
(tree-walk-leaves tree (lambda (leaf) (push leaf flat)))
(if keep-order-p
(nreverse flat)
flat)))
(defun prime-p (n)
(or (= n 2)
(and (> n 2)
(oddp n)
(loop
for d from 3 upto (isqrt n) by 2
never (zerop (mod n d))))))
(defun count-occurences-of-prime (tree)
(count-if #'prime-p (remove-duplicates (flatten tree))))
(count-occurences-of-prime '(((1)(2))(5)(3)((8)3)))
=> 4
If, instead, you don't want to remove duplicates but count the multiple times a prime number occurs, you can do:
(count-if (memoize #'prime-p) (flatten tree))
... where memoize is:
(defun memoize (function &key (test #'equalp) (key #'identity))
(let ((hash (make-hash-table :test test)))
(lambda (&rest args)
(let ((args (funcall key args)))
(multiple-value-bind (result exists-p) (gethash args hash)
(values-list
(if exists-p
result
(setf (gethash args hash)
(multiple-value-list (apply function args))))))))))
(memoize is useless if there are no duplicates)
In Python, I am able to use yield to build up a list without having to define a temporary variable:
def get_chars_skipping_bar(word):
while word:
# Imperative logic which can't be
# replaced with a for loop.
if word[:3] == 'bar':
word = word[3:]
else:
yield foo[0]
foo = foo[1:]
In elisp, I can't see any way of doing this, either built-in or using any pre-existing libraries. I'm forced to manually build a up a list and call nreverse on it. Since this is a common pattern, I've written my own macro:
(require 'dash)
(require 'cl)
(defun replace-calls (form x func)
"Replace all calls to X (a symbol) in FORM,
calling FUNC to generate the replacement."
(--map
(cond
((consp it)
(if (eq (car it) x)
(funcall func it)
(replace-calls it x func)))
(:else it))
form))
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield foo).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to yield."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results (list)))
,#(replace-calls body 'yield
(lambda (form) `(push ,(second form) ,results)))
(nreverse ,results))))
Example usage:
(setq foo "barbazbarbarbiz")
(with-results
(while (not (s-equals? "" foo))
;; Imperative logic which can't be replaced with cl-loop's across.
(if (s-starts-with? "bar" foo)
(setq foo (substring foo 3))
(progn
(yield (substring foo 0 1))
(setq foo (substring foo 1))))))
There must be a better way of doing this, or an existing solution, somewhere in elisp, cl.el, or a library.
The Python function is actually a generator. In ANSI Common Lisp, we would usually reach for a lexical closure to simulate a generator, or else us a library to define generators directly, like Pygen. Maybe these approaches can be ported to Emacs Lisp.
AFAIK, people just use push+nreverse like you do. If you want to define your macro in a more robust way (e.g. so it doesn't misfire on something like (memq sym '(yield stop next))) you could do it as:
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield EXP).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to `yield'."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results '()))
(cl-macrolet ((yield (exp) `(push ,exp ,results)))
,#body)
(nreverse ,results))))
Maybe something like this:
(setq foo "barbaz")
(cl-loop for i from 0 to (1- (length foo))
collect (string (aref foo i)))
In any case, there's nothing wrong with push and nreverse.
Lisp is different from Python. yield is not used. I also see the use of coroutine-like constructs for this as a mistake. It's the equivalent of the come-from construct. Suddenly routines have multiple context dependent entry points.
In Lisp use functions/closures instead.
In Common Lisp, the LOOP macro allows efficient mappings over vectors. The following code can be abstracted to some mapping function, if preferred:
CL-USER 17 > (defun chars-without-substring (string substring)
(loop with i = 0
while (< i (length string))
when (and (>= (- (length string) i) (length substring))
(string= substring string
:start2 i
:end2 (+ i (length substring))))
do (incf i (length substring))
else
collect (prog1 (char string i) (incf i))))
CHARS-WITHOUT-SUBSTRING
CL-USER 18 > (chars-without-substring "barbazbarbarbiz" "bar")
(#\b #\a #\z #\b #\i #\z)
Code that requires break statements or continue statements in other languages can be done with block & return-from or catch & throw in Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp. Then there is code that requires redo statements, or at least best written with redo. And redo statements don't have to be about loops. How can I do redo in Lisp?
If there was a redo equivalent in Lisp, I think it would work like this: special form with-redo which takes a symbol and forms, and redo which takes a symbol. The form (with-redo 'foo BODY-FORMS...) may contain (redo 'foo) in its BODY-FORMS, and (redo 'foo) transfers control back to the beginning of BODY-FORMS.
In Common Lisp:
(tagbody
start
(do-something)
(go start))
(dotimes (i some-list)
redo
(when (some-condition-p)
(go redo))
(some-more))
Rainer's answer illustrates the use of tagbody which is probably the easiest way to implement this kind of construct (a particular kind of goto, or unconditional jump). I thought it'd be nice to point out that if you don't want to use an explicit tagbody, or an implicit tagbody provided by one of the standard constructs, you can also create a with-redo just as you suggested. The only difference in this implementation is that we won't quote the tag, since they're not evaluted in tagbody, and being consistent with the other constructs is nice too.
(defmacro with-redo (name &body body)
`(macrolet ((redo (name)
`(go ,name)))
(tagbody
,name
,#body)))
CL-USER> (let ((x 0))
(with-redo beginning
(print (incf x))
(when (< x 3)
(redo beginning))))
1
2
3
; => NIL
Now this is actually a leaky abstraction, since the body could define other labels for the implicit tagbody, and could use go instead of redo, and so on. This might be desirable; lots of the built in iteration constructs (e.g., do, do*) use an implicit tagbody, so it might be OK. But, since you're also adding your own control flow operator, redo, you might want to make sure that it can only be used with tags defined by with-redo. In fact, while Perl's redo can be used with or without a label, Ruby's redo doesn't appear to allow a label. The label-less cases allow behavior of jumping back to the innermost enclosing loop (or, in our case, the innermost with-redo). We can address the leaky abstraction, as well as the ability to nest redos at the same time.
(defmacro with-redo (&body body)
`(macrolet ((redo () `(go #1=#:hidden-label)))
(tagbody
#1#
((lambda () ,#body)))))
Here we've defined a tag for use with with-redo that other things shouldn't know about (and can't find out unless they macroexpand some with-redo forms, and we've wrapped the body in a lambda function, which means that, e.g., a symbol in the body is a form to be evaluated, not a tag for tagbody. Here's an example showing that redo jumps back to the nearest lexically enclosing with-redo:
CL-USER> (let ((i 0) (j 0))
(with-redo
(with-redo
(print (list i j))
(when (< j 2)
(incf j)
(redo)))
(when (< i 2)
(incf i)
(redo))))
(0 0)
(0 1)
(0 2)
(1 2)
(2 2)
; => NIL
Of course, since you can define with-redo on your own, you can make the decisions about which design you want to adopt. Perhaps you like the idea of redo taking no arguments (and disguising a go with a secret label, but with-redo still being an implicit tagbody so that you can define other tags and jump to them with go; you can adapt the code here to do just that, too.
Some notes on implementation
This this answer has generated a few comments, I wanted to make a couple more notes about the implementation. Implementing with-redo with labels is pretty straightfoward, and I think that all the answers posted address it; the label-less case is a bit tricker.
First, the use of a local macrolet is a convenience that will get us warnings with redo is used outside of some lexically enclosing with-redo. E.g., in SBCL:
CL-USER> (defun redo-without-with-redo ()
(redo))
; in: DEFUN REDO-WITHOUT-WITH-REDO
; (REDO)
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: REDO
Second, the use of #1=#:hidden-label and #1# means that the go tag for redoing is an uninterned symbol (which lessens the likelihood that the abstraction leaks), but also is the same symbol across expansions of with-redo. In the following snippet tag1 and tag2 are the go-tags from two different expansions of with-redo.
(let* ((exp1 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo 1 2 3)))
(exp2 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo a b c))))
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag1 &rest rest)) exp1 ; tag1 is the go-tag
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag2 &rest rest)) exp2
(eq tag1 tag2))))
; => T
An alternative implementation of with-redo that uses a fresh gensym for each macroexpansion does not have this guarantee. For instance, consider with-redo-gensym:
(defmacro with-redo-gensym (&body body)
(let ((tag (gensym "REDO-TAG-")))
`(macrolet ((redo () `(go ,tag)))
(tagbody
,tag
((lambda () ,#body))))))
(let* ((exp1 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo-gensym 1 2 3)))
(exp2 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo-gensym a b c))))
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag1 &rest rest)) exp1
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag2 &rest rest)) exp2
(eq tag1 tag2))))
; => NIL
Now, it's worth asking whether this makes a practical difference, and if so, in which cases, and is it a difference for the better or the worse? Quite frankly, I'm not entirely sure.
If you were performing some complicated code manipulation after the inner macroexpansion of an (with-redo ...) form, form1, so that (redo) has already been turned into (go #1#), it means that moving the (go #1#) into the body of another (with-redo ...) form, form2, it will still have the effect of restarting an iteration in form2. In my mind, this makes it more like a return that could be transported from a block b1 into a different block b2, with the only difference it now returns from b2 instead of b1. I think that this is desirable, since we're trying to treat label-less with-redo and redo as primitive control structures.
Update: Emacs 24.4 (soon to be released) has tagbody. cl-lib that comes with Emacs 24.4 includes cl-tagbody.
For a dialect of Lisp which doesn't have tagbody, one can still implement redo as long as the dialect has a catch/throw equivalent.
For Emacs Lisp:
;; with-redo version 0.1
(defmacro with-redo (tag &rest body)
"Eval BODY allowing jumps using `throw'.
TAG is evalled to get the tag to use; it must not be nil.
Then the BODY is executed.
Within BODY, a call to `throw' with the same TAG and a non-nil VALUE causes a jump to the beginning of BODY.
A call to `throw' with the same TAG and nil as VALUE exits BODY and this `with-redo'.
If no throw happens, `with-redo' returns the value of the last BODY form."
(declare (indent 1))
(let ((ret (make-symbol "retval")))
`(let (,ret)
(while
(catch ,tag
(setq ,ret (progn ,#body))
nil))
,ret)))
(defun redo (symbol)
(throw symbol t))
Example of use (all examples are in Emacs Lisp):
(with-redo 'question
(let ((name (read-string "What is your name? ")))
(when (equal name "")
(message "Zero length input. Please try again.")
(beep)
(sit-for 1)
(redo 'question))
name))
Same example written as a mid-test loop instead:
(require 'cl-lib)
(let (name)
(cl-loop do
(setq name (read-string "What is your name? "))
while
(equal name "")
do
(message "Zero length input. Please try again.")
(beep)
(sit-for 1))
name)
Same example written as an infinite loop with a throw instead:
(let (name)
(catch 'question
(while t
(setq name (read-string "What is your name? "))
(unless (equal name "")
(throw 'question name))
(message "Zero length input. Please try again.")
(beep)
(sit-for 1))))
Implementing with-lex-redo-anon and lex-redo, where (lex-redo) causes a jump to the beginning of body of the textually/lexically innermost with-lex-redo-anon form:
;; with-lex-redo-anon version 0.1
(require 'cl-lib)
(defmacro with-lex-redo-anon (&rest body)
"Use with `(lex-redo)'."
(let ((tag (make-symbol "lex-redo-tag"))
(ret (make-symbol "retval")))
`(cl-macrolet ((lex-redo () '(cl-return-from ,tag t)))
(let (,ret)
(while
(cl-block ,tag
(setq ,ret (progn ,#body))
nil))
,ret))))
Example test:
(let ((i 0) (j 0))
(with-lex-redo-anon
(with-lex-redo-anon
(print (list i j))
(when (< j 2)
(incf j)
(lex-redo)))
(when (< i 2)
(incf i)
(lex-redo))))
Same output as in another answer.
I am quite new to Common Lisp and programming, and I'm trying to write a certain function that turns all non-nil args into an alist. The only way I can think of so far is:
(let ((temp nil))
(if arg1
(setf temp (acons 'arg1 arg1 nil)))
(if arg2
(setf temp (acons 'arg2 arg2 temp)))
...
(if arg20-ish
(setf temp (acons 'arg20-ish arg20-ish temp)))
(do-something-with temp))
which does not seem very elegant, it would be messy with many arguments and when these need to be changed. I am looking for a smarter way to do this, both for the sake of writing this particular function and for learning how to think in Lisp and/or functional programming.
The tricky part for me is figuring out how to get the names of the arguments or what symbol to use, without hand coding each case. If &rest provided arg names it would be easy to filter out NILs with loop or mapcar, but since it doesn't, I can't see how to "automate" this.
I'm totally interested in other solutions than the one described, if people think this way is unnatural.
Edit: Below is an example of what I am trying to do:
An object is created, with a non-fixed number of data pairs and some tags, e.g.:
user = "someone"
creation-time = (get-universal-time)
color-of-sky = "blue"
temperature-in-celsius = 32
language = "Common Lisp"
...
tags = '("one" "two" "three")
These properties (i.e. key/arg names) could be different each time. The new object will then be added to a collection; I thought the array might work well since I want constant access time and only need a numeric ID.
The collection will hold more and more such custom objects, indefinitely.
I want to be able to quickly access all objects matching any combination of any of the tags used in these objects.
Since the array is supposed to store more and more data over a long period, I don't want to parse every item in it each time I need to search for a tag. Thus I also store the index of each object with a given tag in a hash-table, under the tag name. I have written this function, what I find difficult is figuring out how to collect the data and turn it into an alist or anything that I can easily parse, index, and store.
This macro will define a function that turns its non-nil arguments into an alist bound during execution of the body:
(defmacro defnamed (fun-name alist-sym (&rest args) &body body)
`(defun ,fun-name (,#args)
(let ((,alist-sym))
,#(mapcar
(lambda (s)
`(when ,s
(push (cons ',s ,s) ,alist-sym)))
(reverse args))
,#body)))
Demonstration:
(defnamed make-my alist (a b c)
alist)
(make-my 1 NIL 3)
=> ((A . 1) (C . 3))
Here's a sort of solution using macros:
(defmacro named-args (fun-name alist-sym (&rest syms) &body body)
`(defun ,fun-name (&key ,#syms)
(declare (special ,#syms))
(let ((,alist-sym
(loop
for s in ',syms
collecting (cons s (symbol-value s)))))
,#body)))
You can then use it with something like
(named-args f u (a b c)
(format t "~A~%" u))
which expands to
(DEFUN F (&KEY A B C)
(DECLARE (SPECIAL A B C))
(LET ((U
(LOOP FOR S IN '(A B C)
COLLECTING (CONS S (SYMBOL-VALUE S)))))
(FORMAT T "~A~%" U)))
Finally, calling will give
(f :a 3) => ((A . 3) (B) (C))
Note that we need the special declaration otherwise symbol-value doesn't work (you need a global binding for symbol-value). I couldn't find a way to get rid of that.
Looking at your question again, it looks like you actually don't want the keyword arguments that didn't get passed. In which case you could parse a &rest argument (although that's a flat list, so you'd need to map along it in twos) or you could modify the macro as follows:
(defmacro named-args (fun-name alist-sym (&rest syms) &body body)
`(defun ,fun-name (&key ,#syms)
(declare (special ,#syms))
(let ((,alist-sym
(loop
for s in ',syms
when (symbol-value s)
collecting (cons s (symbol-value s)))))
,#body)))
and then you get
(f :a 3) => ((A . 3))