I want to make a macro, that when used in class definition creates a field, it's public setter, and an annotation. However, it'd seem the macro is not expanding, mostly because it's used inside other (class definition) macro.
Here is an example how to define a class with one field:
(define-simple-class test-class ()
(foo :: java.util.List ))
My macro (only defines field as of now):
(define-syntax autowire
(syntax-rules ()
((autowire class id)
(id :: class))))
However, if I try to use it:
(define-simple-class test-class ()
(autowire java.util.List foo))
and query fields of the new class via reflection, I can see that it creates a field named autowire, and foo is nowhere to be seen. Looks like an issue of the order the macros are expanded.
Yes, macros are expanded “from the outside in”. After expanding define-simple-class, the subform (autowire java.util.List foo) does not exist anymore.
If you want this kind of behaviour modification, you need to define your own define-not-so-simple-class macro, which might expand to a define-simple-class form.
However, please step back before making such a minor tweak to something that is standard, and ask yourself whether it is worth it. The upside might be syntax that is slightly better aligned to the way you think, but the downside is that it might be worse aligned to the way others think (who might need to understand your code). There is a maxim for maintainable and readable coding: “be conventional”.
Related
This code:
(require racket/generic)
;; A holder that assigns ids to the things it holds. Some callers want to know the
;; the id that was assigned when adding a thing to the holder, and others don't.
(define-generics holder
(add-new-thing+id holder new-thing) ;returns: holder id (two values)
(add-new-thing holder new-thing) ;returns: holder
#:fallbacks
[(define (add-new-thing holder new-thing) ;probably same code for all holder structs
(let-values ([(holder _) (add-new-thing+id holder new-thing)])
holder))])
produces this error message:
add-new-thing+id: method not implemented in: (add-new-thing+id holder new-thing)
I'm able to fix it by adding a define/generic inside the fallbacks, like this:
#:fallbacks
[(define/generic add add-new-thing+id)
(define (add-new-thing holder new-thing)
(let-values ([(holder _) (add holder new-thing)])
holder))])
but this seems to add complexity without adding value, and I don't understand why one works and the other doesn't.
As I understand #:fallbacks, the idea is that the generic definition can build methods out of the most primitive methods, so structs that implement the generic interface don't always need to reimplement the same big set of methods that usually just call the core methods with identical code—but they can override those "derived" methods if needed. say, for optimization. That's a very useful thing*—but have I misunderstood fallbacks?
It seems strange that fallbacks code couldn't refer to the generic methods. Isn't the main value of fallbacks to call them? The documentation for define/generic says that it's a syntax error to invoke it outside a #:methods clause in a struct definition, so I'm probably misusing it. Anyway, can someone explain what are the rules for code in a #:fallbacks clause? How are you supposed to write it?
* The Clojure world has something similar, in the potemkin library's def-abstract-type and deftype+, but not as well integrated into the language. potemkin/def-map-type illustrates very nicely why fallbacks—as I understand them, anyway—are such a valuable feature.
The second version of your code is correct.
The first version of your code would work if you had a fallback definition of add-new-thing+id, but because you are referring to any possible definition of that method outside of the fallback scope, you need to import it.
It effectively feels a bit repetitive to have to define the generic again inside the fallback clause. It's because #:fallbacks works the same way as #:methods, and therefore has the same behavior of overriding generics with its own definitions.
To make it explicit that you are overriding a method, you need to "import" it inside your clause, using define/generic (which is not really defining anything, it is just importing the generic into the context).
As the documentation for define/generic says:
When used inside the method definitions associated with the #:methods keyword, binds local-id to the generic for method-id. This form is useful for method specializations to use generic methods (as opposed to the local specialization) on other values.
Then in define-generics:
The syntax of the fallback-impls is the same as the methods provided for the #:methods keyword for struct.
Which means #:fallbacks has the same behavior as using #:methods in a struct.
Why?
The logic behind that behavior is that method definition blocks, like #:methods and #:fallbacks have access to their own definitions of all the generics, so that it's easy to refer to your own context. To explicitly use a generic from outside this context, you need to use define/generic.
We are pretty familiar with implicits in Scala for now, but macros are pretty undiscovered area (at least for me) and, despite the presence of some great articles by Eugene Burmako, it is still not an easy material to just dive in.
In this particular question I'd like to find out if there is a possibility to achieve the analogous to the following code functionality using just macros:
implicit class Nonsense(val s: String) {
def ##(i:Int) = s.charAt(i)
}
So "asd" ## 0 will return 'a', for example. Can I implement macros that use infix notation? The reason to this is I'm writing a DSL for some already existing project and implicits allow making the API clear and concise, but whenever I write a new implicit class, I feel like introducing a new speed-reducing factor. And yes, I do know about value classes and stuff, I just think it would be really great if my DSL transformed into the underlying library API calls during compilation rather than in runtime.
TL;DR: can I replace implicits with macros while not changing the API? Can I write macros in infix form? Is there something even more suitable for this case? Is the trouble worth it?
UPD. To those advocating the value classes: in my case I have a little more than just a simple wrapper - they are often stacked. For example, I have an implicit class that takes some parameters, returns a lambda wrapping this parameters (i.e. partial function), and the second implicit class that is made specifically for wrapping this type of functions. I can achieve something like this:
a --> x ==> b
where first class wraps a and adds --> method, and the second one wraps the return type of a --> x and defines ==>(b). Plus it may really be the case when user creates considerable amount of objects in this fashion. I just don't know if this will be efficient, so if you could tell me that value classes cover this case - I'd be really glad to know that.
Back in the day (2.10.0-RC1) I had trouble using implicit classes for macros (sorry, I don't recollect why exactly) but the solution was to use:
an implicit def macro to convert to a class
define the infix operator as a def macro in that class
So something like the following might work for you:
implicit def toNonsense(s:String): Nonsense = macro ...
...
class Nonsense(...){
...
def ##(...):... = macro ...
...
}
That was pretty painful to implement. That being said, macro have become easier to implement since.
If you want to check what I did, because I'm not sure that applies to what you want to do, refer to this excerpt of my code (non-idiomatic style).
I won't address the relevance of that here, as it's been commented by others.
I've run into a problem that a third-party library needs to act on a class as if it was finalized. After some reading I understand the motivation behind this mechanism, but I don't really know how it functions.
Example:
(make-instance 'expression :op '+ :left 'nan :right 'nan)
(defmethod normalize-expression ((this expression))
(optima:match this
((optima::or (expression :left 'nan) (expression :right 'nan)) 'nan)
((expression :op op :left x :right y) (funcall op x y))))
Unless I add the first line, the function will not compile, giving me this error:
; caught ERROR:
; (during macroexpansion of (SB-PCL::%DEFMETHOD-EXPANDER NORMALIZE-EXPRESSION ...))
; SB-MOP:CLASS-SLOTS called on #<STANDARD-CLASS EXPRESSION>, which is not yet finalized.
; See also:
; AMOP, Generic Function SB-MOP:CLASS-SLOTS
optima is a pattern-matching library, the (expression :op op ...) is matching instances of class expression against the given pattern. I don't know in much details, but it looks like it needs to know what are the accessors defined for this class, and it looks like that information is not available until it is finalized. So, is there any way to sidestep the finalization problem?
The class will not be extended (at least not in this project, and it's not being planned). It doesn't hurt that much to create a dummy instance... it is just an ugly solution, so I hoped to find a better one. Also, perhaps, I'd get some more info on finalization, which is good too :)
Forgetting to ensure class finalization seems to be quite common mistake when using MOP.
In lisp, classes are defined in two "phases":
Direct class definition
Effective class definition
Direct class definition is isomorphic to defclass form. It has class name, names of superclasses, list of direct slots (i.e., slots defined on this particular class but on its superclasses).
Effective class definition contains all information needed for compiler/interpreter. It contains list of all class slots (including those defined on superclasses), class instance layout, references to accessor methods, etc.
Process of transforming direct class definition to effective class definition is called class finalization. Since CLOS supports redefining classes, finalization might be called multiple times for a class. One of the reasons why finalization is delayed is because class may be defined before its superclasses are defined.
Regarding your particular problem: is seems that optima:match should ensure that class is finalized before trying to list its slots. This can be done with two functions: class-finalized-p (to check whether class needs finalization) and finalize-inheritance to actually perform finalization. Or you can use utility function closer-mop:ensure-finalized. (closer-mop is a library for portable usage of CLOS MOP).
E.g.,:
(c2mop:ensure-finalized (find-class 'expression))
This is a problem that's been nagging at me for some time, and I wonder if anyone here can help.
I have a PLT Redex model of a language called lambdaLVar that is more or less a garden-variety untyped lambda calculus, but extended with a store containing "lattice variables", or LVars. An LVar is a variable whose value can only increase over time, where the meaning of "increase" is given by a partially ordered set (aka a lattice) that the user of the language specifies. Therefore lambdaLVar is really a family of languages -- instantiate it with one lattice and you get one language; with a different lattice, and you get another. You can take a look at the code here; the important stuff is in lambdaLVar.rkt.
In the on-paper definition of lambdaLVar, the language definition is parameterized by that user-specified lattice. For a long time, I've wanted to do the same kind of parameterization in the Redex model, but so far, I haven't been able to figure out how. Part of the trouble is that the grammar of the language depends on how the user instantiates the lattice: elements of the lattice become terminals in the grammar. I don't know how to express a grammar in Redex that is abstract over the lattice.
In the meantime, I tried to make lambdaLVar.rkt as modular as I could. The language defined in that file is specialized to a particular lattice: natural numbers with max as the least-upper-bound (lub) operation. (Or, equivalently, natural numbers ordered by <=. It's a very boring lattice.) The only parts of the code that are specific to that lattice are the line (define lub-op max) near the top, and natural appearing in the grammar. (There's a lub metafunction that is defined in terms of the user-specified lub-op function. The latter is just a Racket function, so lub has to escape out to Racket to call lub-op.)
Barring the ability to actually specify lambdaLVar in a way that is abstract over the choice of lattice, it seems like I ought to be able to write a version of lambdaLVar with the most bare-bones of lattices -- just Bot and Top elements, where Bot <= Top -- and then use define-extended-language to add more stuff. For instance, I could define a language called lambdaLVar-nats that is specialized to the naturals lattice I described:
;; Grammar for elements of a lattice of natural numbers.
(define-extended-language lambdaLVar-nats
lambdaLVar
(StoreVal .... ;; Extend the original language
natural))
;; All we have to specify is the lub operation; leq is implicitly <=
(define-metafunction/extension lub lambdaLVar-nats
lub-nats : d d -> d
[(lub-nats d_1 d_2) ,(max (term d_1) (term d_2))])
Then, to replace the two reduction relations slow-rr and fast-rr that I had for lambdaLVar, I could define a couple of wrappers:
(define nats-slow-rr
(extend-reduction-relation slow-rr
lambdaLVar-nats))
(define nats-fast-rr
(extend-reduction-relation fast-rr
lambdaLVar-nats))
My understanding from the documentation on extend-reduction-relation is that it should reinterpret the rules in slow-rr and fast-rr, but using lambdaLVar-nats. Putting all this together, I tried running the test suite that I had with one of the new, extended reduction relations:
> (program-test-suite nats-slow-rr)
The first thing I get is a contract violation complaint: small-step-base: input (((l 3)) new) at position 1 does not match its contract. The contract line of small-step-base is just #:contract (small-step-base Config Config), where Config is a grammar nonterminal that has a new meaning if reinterpreted under lambdaLVar-nats than it did under lambdaLVar, because of the specific lattice stuff. As an experiment, I got rid of the contracts onsmall-step-base and small-step-slow.
I was then able to actually run my 19 test programs, but 10 of them fail. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all the ones that fail are programs that use natural-number-valued LVars in some way. (The rest are "pure" programs that don't interact with the store of LVars at all.) So, the tests that fail are exactly the ones that use the extended grammar.
So I kept following the rabbit hole, and it seems like Redex wants me to extend all of the existing judgment forms and metafunctions to be associated with lambdaLVar-nats rather than lambdaLVar. That makes sense, and it seems to work OK for judgment forms as far as I can tell, but with metafunctions I get into trouble: I want the new metafunction to overload the old one of the same name (because existing judgment forms are using it) and there doesn't seem to be a way to do that. If I have to rename the metafunctions, it defeats the purpose, because I'll have to write whole new judgment forms anyway. I suppose that what I want is a sort of late binding of metafunction calls!
My question in a nutshell: Is there any way in Redex to parameterize the definition of a language in the way I want, or to extend the definition of a language in a way that will do what I want? Will I end up just having to write Redex-generating macros?
Thanks for reading!
I asked the Racket users mailing list; the thread begins here. To summarize the resulting discussion: In Redex as it stands today, the answer is no, there is no way to parameterize a language definition in the way I want. However, it should be possible in a future version of Redex with a module system, which is in the works right now.
It also doesn't work to try to use Redex's existing extension forms (define-extended-language, extend-reduction-relation, and so on) in the way I tried to do here, because -- as I discovered -- the original metafunctions do not get transitively reinterpreted to use the extended languages. But a module system would apparently help with this, too, because it would allow you to package up metafunctions, judgment-forms, and reduction relations together and simultaneously extend them (see the discussion here).
So, for now, the answer is, indeed, to write a Redex-generating macro. Something like this works:
(define-syntax-rule (define-lambdaLVar-language name lub-op lattice-values ...)
(begin
;; Entire original Redex model goes here, with `natural` replaced with
;; `lattice-values ...`, and instances of `...` replaced with `(... ...)`
))
And then you can instantiate particular lattices with, e.g.,:
(define-lambdaLVar-language lambdaLVar-nat max natural)
I hope Redex does get modules soon, but in the meantime, this seems to work well.
In common-lisp, I want to implement a kind of reference system like this:
Suppose that I have:
(defclass reference () ((host) (port) (file)))
and also I have:
(defun fetch-remote-value (reference) ...) which fetches and deserializes a lisp object.
How could I intervene in the evaluation process so as whenever a reference object is being evaluated, the remote value gets fetched and re-evaluated again to produce the final result?
EDIT:
A more elaborate description of what I want to accomplish:
Using cl-store I serialize lisp objects and send them to a remote file(or db or anything) to be saved. Upon successful storage I keep the host,port and file in a reference object. I would like, whenever eval gets called on a reference object, to first retrieve the object, and then call eval on the retrieved value. Since a reference can be also serialized in other (parent) objects or aggregate types, I can get free recursive remote reference resolution by modyfing eval so i dont have to traverse and resolve the loaded object's child references myself.
EDIT:
Since objects always evaluate to themselves, my question is a bit wrongly posed. Essentially what I would like to do is:
I would like intercept the evaluation of symbols so that when their value is an object of type REFERENCE then instead of returning the object as the result of the symbol evaluation, to return the result of (fetch-remote-value object) ?
In short: you cannot do this, except by rewriting the function eval and modifying your Lisp's compiler. The rules of evaluation are fixed Lisp standard.
Edit After reading the augmented question, I don't think, that you can achieve full transperency for your references here. In a scenario like
(defclass foo () (reference :accessor ref))
(ref some-foo)
The result of the call to ref is simply a value; it will not be considered for evaluation regardless of its type.
Of course, you could define your accessors in a way, which does the resolution transparently:
(defmacro defresolver (name class slot)
`(defmethod ,name ((inst ,class))
(fetch-remote-reference (slot-value inst ',slot))))
(defresolver foo-reference foo reference)
Edit You can (sort of) hook into the symbol resolution mechanism of Common Lisp using symbol macros:
(defmacro let-with-resolution (bindings &body body)
`(symbol-macrolet ,(mapcar #'(lambda (form) (list (car form) `(fetch-aux ,(cadr form)))) bindings) ,#body))
(defmethod fetch-aux ((any t)) any)
(defmethod fetch-aux ((any reference)) (fetch-remote-reference any))
However, now things become pretty arcane; and the variables are no longer variables, but magic symbols, which merely look like variables. For example, modifying the content of a variable "bound" by this macro is not possible. The best you can do with this approach is to provide a setf expansion for fetch-aux, which modifies the original place.
Although libraries for lazy evaluatione and object persistence bring you part of the way, Common Lisp does not provide a portable way to implement fully transparent persistent values. Lazy or persistent values still have to be explicitly forced.
MOP can be used to implement lazy or persistent objects though, with the slot values transparently forced. It would take a change in the internals of the Common Lisp implementations to provide general transparency, so you could do e.g. (+ p 5) with p potentially holding a persistent or lazy value.
It is not possible to directly change the evaluation mechanisms. You would need to write a compiler for your code to something else. Kind of an embedded language.
On the CLOS level there are several ways to deal with it:
Two examples:
write functions that dispatch on the reference object:
(defmethod move ((object reference) position)
(move (dereference reference) position))
(defmethod move ((object automobile) position)
...))
This gets ugly and might be automated with a macro.
CHANGE-CLASS
CLOS objects already have an indirection, because they can change their class. Even though they may change their class, they keep their identity. CHANGE-CLASS is destructively modifying the instance.
So that would make it possible to pass around reference objects and at some point load the data, change the reference object to some other class and set the slots accordingly. This changing the class needs to be triggered somewhere in the code.
One way to have it automagically triggered might be an error handler that catches some kinds of errors involving reference object.
I would add a layer on top of your deserialize mechanism that dispatches based on the type of the incoming data.