How to avoid eval in defmacro? - macros

I write a macro that accepts a list of lambdas to be called and generates a function. The lambdas are always evaluated in defun argument list, but not in defmacro. How can I avoid call to eval inside defmacro?
This code works:
(defmacro defactor (name &rest fns)
(let ((actors (gensym)))
`(let (;(,actors ',fns)
(,actors (loop for actor in ',fns
collect (eval actor)))) ; This eval I want to avoid
(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (format t "Actor (type ~a): [~a]~&" (type-of x) x)) ,actors)
(defun ,name (in out &optional (pos 0))
(assert (stringp in))
(assert (streamp out))
(assert (or (plusp pos) (zerop pos)))
(loop for actor in ,actors
when (funcall actor in out pos)
return it)))))
;; Not-so-relevant use of defactor macros
(defactor invert-case
#'(lambda (str out pos)
(let ((ch (char str pos)))
(when (upper-case-p ch)
(format out "~a" (char-downcase ch))
(1+ pos))))
#'(lambda (str out pos)
(let ((ch (char str pos)))
(when (lower-case-p ch)
(format out "~a" (char-upcase ch))
(1+ pos)))))
This code evaluates as expected to:
Actor (type FUNCTION): [#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (STR OUT POS)) {100400221B}>]
Actor (type FUNCTION): [#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (STR OUT POS)) {100400246B}>]
INVERT-CASE
And its usage is:
;; Complete example
(defun process-line (str &rest actors)
(assert (stringp str))
(with-output-to-string (out)
(loop for pos = 0 then (if success success (1+ pos))
for len = (length str)
for success = (loop for actor in actors
for ln = len
for result = (if (< pos len)
(funcall actor str out pos)
nil)
when result return it)
while (< pos len)
unless success do (format out "~a" (char str pos)))))
(process-line "InVeRt CaSe" #'invert-case) ; evaluates to "iNvErT cAsE" as expected
Without eval, the defactor above evaluates to:
Actor (type CONS): [#'(LAMBDA (STR OUT POS)
(LET ((CH (CHAR STR POS)))
(WHEN (UPPER-CASE-P CH)
(FORMAT OUT ~a (CHAR-DOWNCASE CH))
(1+ POS))))]
Actor (type CONS): [#'(LAMBDA (STR OUT POS)
(LET ((CH (CHAR STR POS)))
(WHEN (LOWER-CASE-P CH)
(FORMAT OUT ~a (CHAR-UPCASE CH))
(1+ POS))))]
and all the rest obviously doesn't work.
If I transform defmacro into defun, it doesn't need eval:
(defun defactor (name &rest fns)
(defun name (in out &optional (pos 0))
(assert (stringp in))
(assert (streamp out))
(assert (or (plusp pos) (zerop pos)))
(loop for actor in fns
when (funcall actor in out pos)
return it)))
However, it always defines the function name instead of the passed function name argument (which should be quoted).
Is it possible to write defactor with the possibility to pass the function name unlike defun version, and without eval in macro version of it?

You're making things more complex than necessary with the first loop... just collect the parameters instead
(defmacro defactor (name &rest fns)
(let ((actors (gensym)))
`(let ((,actors (list ,#fns)))
(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (format t "Actor (type ~a): [~a]~&" (type-of x) x)) ,actors)
(defun ,name (in out &optional (pos 0))
(assert (stringp in))
(assert (streamp out))
(assert (or (plusp pos) (zerop pos)))
(loop for actor in ,actors
when (funcall actor in out pos)
return it)))))

This mostly doesn’t need to be a macro as-is. You can mostly use a helper function:
(defun make-actor (&rest funs)
(lambda (in out &optional (pos 0)
(loop for actor in funs
when (funcall actor in out pos) return it)))
And write a simple macro:
(defmacro defactor (name &rest funs)
`(let ((f (make-actor ,#funs)))
(defun ,name (in out &optional (pos 0)) (funcall f in out pos))))
However this doesn’t gain much in terms of expressivity (you practically call the macro like a function) or efficiency (the compiler has to be quite clever to work out how to improve the code by inclining a bunch of complicated things).
Here is another way one might implement something like this:
(defmacro defactor (name (in out pos) &rest actors)
(let ((inv (gensym "IN"))
(outv (gensym "OUT"))
(posv (gensym "POS")))
`(defun ,name (,inv ,outv &optional (,posv 0))
;; TODO: (declare (type ...) ...)
(or ,#(loop for form in actors
collect `(let ((,in ,inv) (,out ,outv) (,pos ,posv)) ,form)))))
And then use it like:
(defactor invert-case (in out pos)
(let ((ch (char str pos)))
(when (upper-case-p ch)
(format out "~a" (char-downcase ch))
(1+ pos)))
(let ((ch (char str pos)))
(when (lower-case-p ch)
(format out "~a" (char-upcase ch))
(1+ pos))))

Related

Did anybody write when-let-cond?

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)))

Generate codes including unquote-splice by a loop in Common Lisp

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.

How to define function in LISP that recursively return back quoted list

I have problem with macros in my lisp interpreter writtein in JavaScript. the problem is in this code:
(define log (. console "log"))
(define (alist->object alist)
"(alist->object alist)
Function convert alist pairs to JavaScript object."
(if (pair? alist)
((. alist "toObject"))))
(define (klist->alist klist)
"(klist->alist klist)
Function convert klist in form (:foo 10 :bar 20) into alist
in form ((foo . 10) (bar . 20))."
(let iter ((klist klist) (result '()))
(if (null? klist)
result
(if (and (pair? klist) (pair? (cdr klist)) (key? (car klist)))
(begin
(log ":::" (cadr klist))
(log "data" (. (cadr klist) "data"))
(iter (cddr klist) (cons (cons (key->string (car klist)) (cadr klist)) result)))))))
(define (make-empty-object)
(alist->object '()))
(define empty-object (make-empty-object))
(define klist->object (pipe klist->alist alist->object))
;; main function that give problems
(define (make-tags expr)
(log "make-tags" expr)
`(h ,(key->string (car expr))
,(klist->object (cadr expr))
,(if (not (null? (cddr expr)))
(if (and (pair? (caddr expr)) (let ((s (caaddr expr))) (and (symbol? s) (eq? s 'list))))
`(list->array (list ,#(map make-tags (cdaddr expr))))
(caddr expr)))))
(define-macro (with-tags expr)
(make-tags expr))
I call this macro using this code:
(define (view state actions)
(with-tags (:div ()
(list (:h1 () (value (cdr (assoc 'count (. state "counter")))))
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (--> actions (down 1)))) "-")
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (--> actions (up 1)))) "+")))))
which should expand to almost the same code:
(define (view state actions)
(h "div" (make-empty-object)
(list->array (list
(h "h1" (make-empty-object) (value (cdr (assoc 'count (. state "counter")))))
(h "button" (klist->object `(:onclick ,(lambda () (--> actions (down 1))))) "-")
(h "button" (klist->object `(:onclick ,(lambda () (--> actions (up 1))))) "+")))))
This function works. I have problem with expanded code using my macro that call the main function, don't know how LIPS should behave when it find:
(:onclick (lambda () (--> actions (down 1))))
inside code and you try to process it like this:
,(klist->object (cadr expr))
Right now my lisp works that lambda is marked as data (have data flag set to true this is a hack to prevent of recursive evaluation of some code from macros) and klist->object function get lambda code as list, instead of function.
How this should work in Scheme or Common Lisp? Should klist->object get function object (lambda get evaluated) or list structure with lambda as first symbol? If second then how I sould write my function and macro to evaluate lambda should I use eval (kind of hack to me).
Sorry don't know how to test this, with more bug free LISP.
EDIT:
I've tried to apply the hint from #jkiiski in guile (because in my lisp it was not working)
;; -*- sheme -*-
(define nil '())
(define (key? symbol)
"(key? symbol)
Function check if symbol is key symbol, have colon as first character."
(and (symbol? symbol) (eq? ":" (substring (symbol->string symbol) 0 1))))
(define (key->string symbol)
"(key->string symbol)
If symbol is key it convert that to string - remove colon."
(if (key? symbol)
(substring (symbol->string symbol) 1)))
(define (pair-map fn seq-list)
"(seq-map fn list)
Function call fn argument for pairs in a list and return combined list with
values returned from function fn. It work like the map but take two items from list"
(let iter ((seq-list seq-list) (result '()))
(if (null? seq-list)
result
(if (and (pair? seq-list) (pair? (cdr seq-list)))
(let* ((first (car seq-list))
(second (cadr seq-list))
(value (fn first second)))
(if (null? value)
(iter (cddr seq-list) result)
(iter (cddr seq-list) (cons value result))))))))
(define (klist->alist klist)
"(klist->alist klist)
Function convert klist in form (:foo 10 :bar 20) into alist
in form ((foo . 10) (bar . 20))."
(pair-map (lambda (first second)
(if (key? first)
(cons (key->string first) second))) klist))
(define (h props . rest)
(display props)
(display rest)
(cons (cons 'props props) (cons (cons 'rest rest) nil)))
(define (make-tags expr)
`(h ,(key->string (car expr))
(klist->alist (list ,#(cadr expr)))
,(if (not (null? (cddr expr)))
(if (and (pair? (caddr expr)) (let ((s (caaddr expr))) (and (symbol? s) (eq? s 'list))))
`(list->array (list ,#(map make-tags (cdaddr expr))))
(caddr expr)))))
(define-macro (with-tags expr)
(make-tags expr))
(define state '((count . 10)))
(define xxx (with-tags (:div ()
(list (:h1 () (cdr (assoc 'count state)))
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (display "down"))) "-")
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (display "up"))) "+")))))
but got error:
ERROR: Unbound variable: :onclick
I've found solution for my lisp, Here is code:
(define (pair-map fn seq-list)
"(seq-map fn list)
Function call fn argument for pairs in a list and return combined list with
values returned from function fn. It work like the map but take two items from list"
(let iter ((seq-list seq-list) (result '()))
(if (null? seq-list)
result
(if (and (pair? seq-list) (pair? (cdr seq-list)))
(let* ((first (car seq-list))
(second (cadr seq-list))
(value (fn first second)))
(if (null? value)
(iter (cddr seq-list) result)
(iter (cddr seq-list) (cons value result))))))))
(define (make-tags expr)
(log "make-tags" expr)
`(h ,(key->string (car expr))
(alist->object (quasiquote
;; create alist with unquote for values and keys as strings
,#(pair-map (lambda (car cdr)
(cons (cons (key->string car) (list 'unquote cdr))))
(cadr expr))))
,(if (not (null? (cddr expr)))
(if (and (pair? (caddr expr)) (let ((s (caaddr expr))) (and (symbol? s) (eq? s 'list))))
`(list->array (list ,#(map make-tags (cdaddr expr))))
(caddr expr)))))
So in my code I'm writing some kind of meta macro I'm writing quasiquote as list that will get evaluated the same as if I use in my original code:
(klist->object `(:onclick ,(lambda () (--> actions (down 1)))))
I'm using alist->object and new function pair-map, so I can unquote the value and convert key symbol to string.
is this how it should be implemented in scheme? not sure If I need to fix my lisp or macros are working correctly there.

How does intelligent code completion work in Scheme?

From reading a Lisp book I remember they showed an example of an OOP-style method dispatcher based on closures:
(defun create-object ()
(let ((val 0)
(get (lambda () val))
(set (lambda (new-val) (setq val new-val)))
(inc (lambda () (setq val (+ 1 val)))))
(lambda (method)
(cond ((eq method 'get)
get)
((eq method 'set)
set)
((eq method 'inc)
inc)))))
(let ((obj (create-object)))
(funcall (obj 'set) 1)
(funcall (obj 'inc))
(funcall (obj 'get))) ;; 2
Since it's just a function with a string symbol argument, I guess code intel won't be of much help here, not completing the method names or their signatures. (Compare with a similar JavaScript object.)
Is this problem generally solved? How do you program an object system in Scheme so that an editor (like Emacs) can be more intelligent with your code?
P.S. The example may be not a valid Scheme code, but you should get the idea.
I've made some starting code for you.
It's for Emacs Lisp, but it's should be very easily portable to Scheme.
Here's your usage example:
(defun create-object ()
(lexical-let* ((val 0)
(get (lambda() val))
(set (lambda(x) (setq val x))))
(generate-dispatch-table get set)))
(setq obj (create-object))
(funcall (funcall obj 'get))
;; => 0
(funcall (funcall obj 'set) 1)
;; => 1
(funcall (funcall obj 'get))
;; => 1
(scheme-completions obj)
;; => (get set)
And here's how it's implemented:
(defmacro generate-dispatch-table (&rest members)
`(lambda (method)
(cond ,#(mapcar
(lambda (x) `((eq method ',x) ,x)) members))))
(defun collect (pred x)
(when (and x (listp x))
(let ((y (funcall pred x))
(z (append
(collect pred (car x))
(collect pred (cdr x)))))
(if y
(append (list y) z)
z))))
(defun scheme-completions (obj)
(collect
(lambda(x) (and (eq (car x) 'eq)
(eq (cadr x) 'method)
(eq (caaddr x) 'quote)
(cadr (caddr x))))
obj))
And here's a simple visual interface for completions:
(require 'helm)
(defun scheme-completions-helm ()
(interactive)
(let ((y (and
(looking-back "(funcall \\([^ ]*\\) +")
(intern-soft (match-string 1)))))
(when y
(helm :sources
`((name . "members")
(candidates . ,(scheme-completions (eval y)))
(action . (lambda(x) (insert "'" x))))))))
I'm not a Emacs user, but use DrRacket and it does have an object system and do what an IDE should do, but I know Emacs is very customizable since it uses elisp so you can make support for your own syntax both in syntax highlighting and tab-completion. So you do:
Make your own object system
Edit your Emacs editor to do what you want
Many of my colleagues use it and they fix their Emacs in such ways.
Another thing, this question makes me think about the resources at schemewiki.org on the subject where the different approaches are mentioned and even a similar code to the one you posted is posted as example. It's a good read.
I would avoid double notion of symbols in create-object via an obarray.
Furthermore, the interface of the object are all functions. Therefore, use fset and avoid the double funcall.
(defun create-object ()
(lexical-let (val
(_oa (make-vector 11 0)))
(fset (intern "get" _oa) (lambda () val))
(fset (intern "inc" _oa) (lambda () (incf val)))
(fset (intern "set" _oa) (lambda (new-val) (setq val new-val)))
(lambda (method &rest args)
(apply 'funcall (intern (symbol-name method) _oa) args))))
(fset 'obj1 (create-object))
(fset 'obj2 (create-object))
(obj1 'set 1)
(obj2 'set 2)
(obj1 'inc)
(obj2 'inc)
(obj2 'inc)
(obj2 'get)
(obj1 'get)
Example for inheritance:
(defun create-object ()
(lexical-let (val
(_oa (make-vector 11 0)))
(fset (intern "get" _oa) (lambda () val))
(fset (intern "inc" _oa) (lambda () (incf val)))
(fset (intern "set" _oa) (lambda (new-val) (setq val new-val)))
(lambda (method &rest args)
(apply 'funcall (or (intern-soft (symbol-name method) _oa)
(error "Undefined function: %s" method))
args))))
(defun create-object-add10 ()
(lexical-let ((base (create-object))
(_oa (make-vector 11 0)))
(fset (intern "inc" _oa) (lambda () (funcall base 'set (+ (funcall base 'get) 10))))
(lambda (method &rest args)
(let ((call (intern-soft (symbol-name method) _oa)))
(if call
(apply 'funcall call args)
(apply 'funcall base method args))))))
(fset 'obj1 (create-object))
(fset 'obj2 (create-object-add10))
(obj1 'set 1)
(obj2 'set 2)
(obj1 'inc)
(obj2 'inc)
(obj2 'inc)
(obj2 'get)
(obj1 'get)
The definition of create-object-like methods should additionally be supported through macros. That is not done here.
For more features, note, there is a CLOS-compatible object oriented system in emacs:
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/eieio/index.html

how to write alike display (printf) to file in scheme?

Using TinyScheme.
I'm writing my code to file (solved it in 50% here: How to write to a file in tinyscheme?) with:
(with-output-to-file "biophilia.c"
(lambda ()
(write code)
))
; and segmentation fault comes here
but it writes my code with "" qotes and \n\r as is so it doesn't translate it to newline.
I need to write code like it looks with (display code)
in example in racket docs there is printf but seems like TinyScheme implementation got no printf, maybe I need to discover (add code of it) printf?
You could try:
(call-with-output-file "biophilia.c"
(lambda (port)
(write-string code port)))
Provided "code" is a string. It will remove any escapes, and write it as plain text.
Found solution, the only fix is ex-hanged put-char to write-char
(define assert
(lambda (aa msg)
(if (null? aa)
#t
(if (not (car aa))
(error msg)
(assert (cdr aa) msg)))))
(display "define fprintf\n\r")
(define (fprintf port f . args)
(let ((len (string-length f)))
(let loop ((i 0) (args args))
(cond ((= i len) (assert (null? args)))
((and (char=? (string-ref f i) #\~)
(< (+ i 1) len))
(dispatch-format (string-ref f (+ i 1)) port (car args))
(loop (+ i 2) (cdr args)))
(else
(write-char (string-ref f i) port)
(loop (+ i 1) args))))))
(display "define printf\n\r")
(define (printf f . args)
(let ((port (current-output-port)))
(apply fprintf port f args)
(flush-output-port port)))
(display "writing to output file biophilia.c\n\r")
(with-output-to-file "biophilia.c"
(lambda ()
(printf code)
))
code doesn't segfault anymore
but in the end of file: Error: ( : 25) not enough arguments