Often when I try to write a macro, I run up against the following difficulty: I need one form that is passed to the macro to be evaluated before being processed by a helper function that is invoked while generating the macro's expansion. In the following example, we are only interested in how we could write a macro to emit the code we want, and not in the uselessness of the macro itself:
Imagine (bear with me) a version of Common Lisp's lambda macro, where only the number of arguments is important, and the names and order of the arguments are not. Let's call it jlambda. It would be used like so:
(jlambda 2
...body)
where 2 is the arity of the function returned. In other words, this produces a binary operator.
Now imagine that, given the arity, jlambda produces a dummy lambda-list which it passes to the actual lambda macro, something like this:
(defun build-lambda-list (arity)
(assert (alexandria:non-negative-integer-p arity))
(loop for x below arity collect (gensym)))
(build-lambda-list 2)
==> (#:G15 #:G16)
The expansion of the above call to jlambda will look like this:
(lambda (#:G15 #:16)
(declare (ignore #:G15 #:16))
…body))
Let's say we need the jlambda macro to be able to receive the arity value as a Lisp form that evaluates to a non-negative integer (as opposed to receiving a non-negative integer directly) eg:
(jlambda (+ 1 1)
...body)
The form (+ 1 1) needs to be evaluated, then the result needs to be passed to build-lambda-list and that needs to be evaluated, and the result of that is inserted into the macro expansion.
(+ 1 1)
=> 2
(build-lambda-list 2)
=> (#:G17 #:18)
(jlambda (+ 1 1) ...body)
=> (lambda (#:G19 #:20)
(declare (ignore #:G19 #:20))
…body))
So here's a version of jlambda that works when the arity is provided as a number directly, but not when it's passed as a form to be evaluated:
(defun jlambda-helper (arity)
(let ((dummy-args (build-lambda-list arity)))
`(lambda ,dummy-args
(declare (ignore ,#dummy-args))
body)))
(defmacro jlambda (arity &body body)
(subst (car body) 'body (jlambda-helper arity)))
(jlambda 2 (print “hello”)) ==> #<anonymous-function>
(funcall *
'ignored-but-required-argument-a
'ignored-but-required-argument-b)
==> “hello”
“hello”
(jlambda (+ 1 1) (print “hello”)) ==> failed assertion in build-lambda-list, since it receives (+ 1 1) not 2
I could evaluate the (+ 1 1) using the sharp-dot read macro, like so:
(jlambda #.(+ 1 1) (print “hello”)) ==> #<anonymous-function>
But then the form cannot contain references to lexical variables, since they are not available when evaluating at read-time:
(let ((x 1))
;; Do other stuff with x, then:
(jlambda #.(+ x 1) (print “hello”))) ==> failure – variable x not bound
I could quote all body code that I pass to jlambda, define it as a function instead, and then eval the code that it returns:
(defun jlambda (arity &rest body)
(let ((dummy-args (build-lambda-list arity)))
`(lambda ,dummy-args
(declare (ignore ,#dummy-args))
,#body)))
(eval (jlambda (+ 1 1) `(print “hello”))) ==> #<anonymous-function>
But I can't use eval because, like sharp-dot, it throws out the lexical environment, which is no good.
So jlambda must be a macro, because I don't want the function body code evaluated until the proper context for it has been established by jlambda's expansion; however it must also be a function, because I want the first form (in this example, the arity form) evaluated before passing it to helper functions that generate the macro expansion. How do I overcome this Catch-22 situation?
EDIT
In response to #Sylwester 's question, here's an explanation of the context:
I'm writing something akin to an “esoteric programming language”, implemented as a DSL in Common Lisp. The idea (admittedly silly but potentially fun) is to force the programmer, as far as possible (I'm not sure how far yet!), to write exclusively in point-free style. To do this, I will do several things:
Use curry-compose-reader-macros to provide most of the functionality required to write in point-free style in CL
Enforce functions' arity – i.e. override CL's default behaviour that allows functions to be variadic
Instead of using a type system to determine when a function has been “fully applied” (like in Haskell), just manually specify a function's arity when defining it.
So I'll need a custom version of lambda for defining a function in this silly language, and – if I can't figure that out - a custom version of funcall and/or apply for invoking those functions. Ideally they'll just be skins over the normal CL versions that change the functionality slightly.
A function in this language will somehow have to keep track of its arity. However, for simplicity, I would like the procedure itself to still be a funcallable CL object, but would really like to avoid using the MetaObject Protocol, since it's even more confusing to me than macros.
A potentially simple solution would be to use a closure. Every function could simply close over the binding of a variable that stores its arity. When invoked, the arity value would determine the exact nature of the function application (i.e. full or partial application). If necessary, the closure could be “pandoric” in order to provide external access to the arity value; that could be achieved using plambda and with-pandoric from Let Over Lambda.
In general, functions in my language will behave like so (potentially buggy pseudocode, purely illustrative):
Let n be the number of arguments provided upon invocation of the function f of arity a.
If a = 0 and n != a, throw a “too many arguments” error;
Else if a != 0 and 0 < n < a, partially apply f to create a function g, whose arity is equal to a – n;
Else if n > a, throw a “too many arguments” error;
Else if n = a, fully apply the function to the arguments (or lack thereof).
The fact that the arity of g is equal to a – n is where the problem with jlambda would arise: g would need to be created like so:
(jlambda (- a n)
...body)
Which means that access to the lexical environment is a necessity.
This is a particularly tricky situation because there's no obvious way to create a function of a particular number of arguments at runtime. If there's no way to do that, then it's probably easiest to write a a function that takes an arity and another function, and wraps the function in a new function that requires that is provided the particular number of arguments:
(defun %jlambda (n function)
"Returns a function that accepts only N argument that calls the
provided FUNCTION with 0 arguments."
(lambda (&rest args)
(unless (eql n (length args))
(error "Wrong number of arguments."))
(funcall function)))
Once you have that, it's easy to write the macro around it that you'd like to be able to:
(defmacro jlambda (n &body body)
"Produces a function that takes exactly N arguments and and evalutes
the BODY."
`(%jlambda ,n (lambda () ,#body)))
And it behaves roughly the way you'd want it to, including letting the arity be something that isn't known at compile time.
CL-USER> (let ((a 10) (n 7))
(funcall (jlambda (- a n)
(print 'hello))
1 2 3))
HELLO
HELLO
CL-USER> (let ((a 10) (n 7))
(funcall (jlambda (- a n)
(print 'hello))
1 2))
; Evaluation aborted on #<SIMPLE-ERROR "Wrong number of arguments." {1004B95E63}>.
Now, you might be able to do something that invokes the compiler at runtime, possibly indirectly, using coerce, but that won't let the body of the function be able to refer to variables in the original lexical scope, though you would get the implementation's wrong number of arguments exception:
(defun %jlambda (n function)
(let ((arglist (loop for i below n collect (make-symbol (format nil "$~a" i)))))
(coerce `(lambda ,arglist
(declare (ignore ,#arglist))
(funcall ,function))
'function)))
(defmacro jlambda (n &body body)
`(%jlambda ,n (lambda () ,#body)))
This works in SBCL:
CL-USER> (let ((a 10) (n 7))
(funcall (jlambda (- a n)
(print 'hello))
1 2 3))
HELLO
CL-USER> (let ((a 10) (n 7))
(funcall (jlambda (- a n)
(print 'hello))
1 2))
; Evaluation aborted on #<SB-INT:SIMPLE-PROGRAM-ERROR "invalid number of arguments: ~S" {1005259923}>.
While this works in SBCL, it's not clear to me whether it's actually guaranteed to work. We're using coerce to compile a function that has a literal function object in it. I'm not sure whether that's portable or not.
NB: In your code you use strange quotes so that (print “hello”) doesn't actually print hello but the whatever the variable “hello” evaluates to, while (print "hello") does what one would expect.
My first question is why? Usually you know how many arguments you are taking compile time or at least you just make it multiple arity. Making an n arity function only gives you errors when passwd with wrong number of arguments as added feature with the drawback of using eval and friends.
It cannot be solved as a macro since you are mixing runtime with macro expansion time. Imagine this use:
(defun test (last-index)
(let ((x (1+ last-index)))
(jlambda x (print "hello"))))
The macro is expanded when this form is evaluated and the content replaced before the function is assigned to test. At this time x doesn't have any value whatsoever and sure enough the macro function only gets the symbols so that the result need to use this value. lambda is a special form so it again gets expanded right after the expansion of jlambda, also before any usage of the function.
There is nothing lexical happening since this happens before the program is running. It could happen before loading the file with compile-file and then if you load it will load all forms with the macros already expanded beforehand.
With compile you can make a function from data. It is probably as evil as eval is so you shouldn't be using it for common tasks, but they exist for a reason:
;; Macro just to prevent evaluation of the body
(defmacro jlambda (nexpr &rest body)
`(let ((dummy-args (build-lambda-list ,nexpr)))
(compile nil (list* 'lambda dummy-args ',body))))
So the expansion of the first example turns into this:
(defun test (last-index)
(let ((x (1+ last-index)))
(let ((dummy-args (build-lambda-list x)))
(compile nil (list* 'lambda dummy-args '((print "hello")))))))
This looks like it could work. Lets test it:
(defparameter *test* (test 10))
(disassemble *test*)
;Disassembly of function nil
;(CONST 0) = "hello"
;11 required arguments <!-- this looks right
;0 optional arguments
;No rest parameter
;No keyword parameters
;4 byte-code instructions:
;0 (const&push 0) ; "hello"
;1 (push-unbound 1)
;3 (calls1 142) ; print
;5 (skip&ret 12)
;nil
Possible variations
I've made a macro that takes a literal number and makes bound variables from a ... that can be used in the function.
If you are not using the arguments why not make a macro that does this:
(defmacro jlambda2 (&rest body)
`(lambda (&rest #:rest) ,#body))
The result takes any number of arguments and just ignores it:
(defparameter *test* (jlambda2 (print "hello")))
(disassemble *test*)
;Disassembly of function :lambda
;(CONST 0) = "hello"
;0 required arguments
;0 optional arguments
;Rest parameter <!-- takes any numer of arguments
;No keyword parameters
;4 byte-code instructions:
;0 (const&push 0) ; "hello"
;1 (push-unbound 1)
;3 (calls1 142) ; print
;5 (skip&ret 2)
;nil
(funcall *test* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)
; ==> "hello" (prints "hello" as side effect)
EDIT
Now that I know what you are up to I have an answer for you. Your initial function does not need to be runtime dependent so all functions indeed have a fixed arity, so what we need to make is currying or partial application.
;; currying
(defmacro fixlam ((&rest args) &body body)
(let ((args (reverse args)))
(loop :for arg :in args
:for r := `(lambda (,arg) ,#body)
:then `(lambda (,arg) ,r)
:finally (return r))))
(fixlam (a b c) (+ a b c))
; ==> #<function :lambda (a) (lambda (b) (lambda (c) (+ a b c)))>
;; can apply multiple and returns partially applied when not enough
(defmacro fixlam ((&rest args) &body body)
`(let ((lam (lambda ,args ,#body)))
(labels ((chk (args)
(cond ((> (length args) ,(length args)) (error "too many args"))
((= (length args) ,(length args)) (apply lam args))
(t (lambda (&rest extra-args)
(chk (append args extra-args)))))))
(lambda (&rest args)
(chk args)))))
(fixlam () "hello") ; ==> #<function :lambda (&rest args) (chk args)>
;;Same but the zero argument functions are applied right away:
(defmacro fixlam ((&rest args) &body body)
`(let ((lam (lambda ,args ,#body)))
(labels ((chk (args)
(cond ((> (length args) ,(length args)) (error "too many args"))
((= (length args) ,(length args)) (apply lam args))
(t (lambda (&rest extra-args)
(chk (append args extra-args)))))))
(chk '()))))
(fixlam () "hello") ; ==> "hello"
If all you want is lambda functions that can be applied either partially or fully, I don't think you need to pass the amount of parameters explicitly. You could just do something like this (uses Alexandria):
(defmacro jlambda (arglist &body body)
(with-gensyms (rest %jlambda)
`(named-lambda ,%jlambda (&rest ,rest)
(cond ((= (length ,rest) ,(length arglist))
(apply (lambda ,arglist ,#body) ,rest))
((> (length ,rest) ,(length arglist))
(error "Too many arguments"))
(t (apply #'curry #',%jlambda ,rest))))))
CL-USER> (jlambda (x y) (format t "X: ~s, Y: ~s~%" x y))
#<FUNCTION (LABELS #:%JLAMBDA1046) {1003839D6B}>
CL-USER> (funcall * 10) ; Apply partially
#<CLOSURE (LAMBDA (&REST ALEXANDRIA.0.DEV::MORE) :IN CURRY) {10038732DB}>
CL-USER> (funcall * 20) ; Apply fully
X: 10, Y: 20
NIL
CL-USER> (funcall ** 100) ; Apply fully again
X: 10, Y: 100
NIL
CL-USER> (funcall *** 100 200) ; Try giving a total of 3 args
; Debugger entered on #<SIMPLE-ERROR "Too many arguments" {100392D7E3}>
Edit: Here's also a version that lets you specify the arity. Frankly, I don't see how this could possibly be useful though. If the user cannot refer to the arguments, and nothing is done with them automatically, then, well, nothing is done with them. They might as well not exist.
(defmacro jlambda (arity &body body)
(with-gensyms (rest %jlambda n)
`(let ((,n ,arity))
(named-lambda ,%jlambda (&rest ,rest)
(cond ((= (length ,rest) ,n)
,#body)
((> (length ,rest) ,n)
(error "Too many arguments"))
(t (apply #'curry #',%jlambda ,rest)))))))
CL-USER> (jlambda (+ 1 1) (print "hello"))
#<CLOSURE (LABELS #:%JLAMBDA1085) {1003B7913B}>
CL-USER> (funcall * 2)
#<CLOSURE (LAMBDA (&REST ALEXANDRIA.0.DEV::MORE) :IN CURRY) {1003B7F7FB}>
CL-USER> (funcall * 5)
"hello"
"hello"
Edit2: If I understood correctly, you might be looking for something like this (?):
(defvar *stack* (list))
(defun jlambda (arity function)
(lambda ()
(push (apply function (loop repeat arity collect (pop *stack*)))
*stack*)))
CL-USER> (push 1 *stack*)
(1)
CL-USER> (push 2 *stack*)
(2 1)
CL-USER> (push 3 *stack*)
(3 2 1)
CL-USER> (push 4 *stack*)
(4 3 2 1)
CL-USER> (funcall (jlambda 4 #'+)) ; take 4 arguments from the stack
(10) ; and apply #'+ to them
CL-USER> (push 10 *stack*)
(10 10)
CL-USER> (push 20 *stack*)
(20 10 10)
CL-USER> (push 30 *stack*)
(30 20 10 10)
CL-USER> (funcall (jlambda 3 [{reduce #'*} #'list])) ; pop 3 args from
(6000 10) ; stack, make a list
; of them and reduce
; it with #'*
My program is supposed to convert a given temperature from Fahrenheit to Centigrade or the other way around. It takes in a list containing a number and a letter. The letter is the temperature and the letter is the unit we are in. Then I call the appropriate function either F-to-C or C-to-F. How do I call the functions with the given list that was first checked in my temperature-conversion function. Here is my code.
(defun temperature-conversion (lst)
(cond
((member 'F lst) (F-to-C))
((member 'C lst) (C-to-F))
(t (print "You didn't enter a valid unit for conversion"))
)
)
(defun F-to-C ()
;;(print "hello")
(print (temperature-conversion(lst)))
)
(defun C-to-F ()
(print "goodbye"))
;;(print (temperature-conversion '(900 f)))
(setf data1 '(900 f))
You have infinite recursion: temperature-conversion calls F-to-C which calls temperature-conversion again.
I would do this:
(defun c2f (c) (+ 32 (/ (* 9 c) 5)))
(defun f2c (f) (/ (* 5 (- f 32)) 9))
(defun temperature-conversion (spec)
(ecase (second spec)
(C (c2f (first spec)))
(F (f2c (first spec)))))
(temperature-conversion '(32 f))
==> 0
(temperature-conversion '(100 c))
==> 212
(temperature-conversion '(100))
*** - The value of (SECOND SPEC) must be one of C, F
The value is: NIL
The following restarts are available:
ABORT :R1 Abort main loop
I think this example is generally used to demonstrate how functions are first-class values.
With a little modification to sds's answer, you can have an ECASE statement that selects the appropriate function, which is then used by a surrounding FUNCALL.
(defun temperature-conversion (spec)
(destructuring-bind (temperature unit) spec
(funcall
(ecase unit (C #'c2f) (F #'f2c))
temperature)))
I added a DESTRUCTURING-BIND in case you don't know yet what it is.
I'm trying to write a function in Common Lisp to convert a base 10 number into a base 8 number, represented as a list, recursively.
Here's what I have so far:
(defun base8(n)
(cond
((zerop (truncate n 8)) (cons n nil))
((t) (cons (mod n 8) (base8 (truncate n 8))))))
This function works fine when I input numbers < 8 and > -8, but the recursive case is giving me a lot of trouble. When I try 8 as an argument (which should return (1 0)), I get an error Undefined operator T in form (T).
Thanks in advance.
Just for fun, here's a solution without recursion, using built-in functionality:
(defun base8 (n)
(reverse (coerce (format nil "~8R" n) 'list)))
It seems you have forgotten to (defun t ...) or perhaps it's not the function t you meant to have in the cond? Perhaps it's t the truth value?
The dual namespace nature of Common Lisp makes it possible for t to both be a function and the truth value. the difference is which context you use it and you clearly are trying to apply t as a function/macro.
Here is the code edited for the truth value instead of the t function:
(defun base8(n)
(cond
((zerop (truncate n 8)) (cons n nil))
(t (cons (mod n 8) (base8 (truncate n 8))))))
(base8 8) ; ==> (0 1)
I've been attempting to learn programming with the book "Structures and Interpretation of Computer Programs. To do the exercises I've been using DrRacket (I couldn't find a scheme interpreter for Windows 7, and DrRacket seems pretty good), and haven't had any problems so far. But while doing exercise 1.22 I've ran into an issue. I've wrote a procedure that gives a given number (n) of prime numbers larger than a:
(define (search-for-primes a n)
(define (sfp-iter a n counter)
(cond ((and (prime? a) (= counter n))
((newline) (display "end")))
((prime? a)
((newline)
(display a)
(sfp-iter (+ a 1) n (+ counter 1))))
(else (sfp-iter (+ a 1) n counter))))
(sfp-iter a n 0))
The procedure works as intended, displaying all that it should, but after displaying end it shows the following error message:
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: #
arguments...:
#
And highlights the following line of code:
((newline) (display "end"))
What is the problem?
(I apologize for any mistakes in spelling and so, English isn't my native language, I also apologize for any error in formatting or tagging, I'm new here)
You have a couple of parenthesis problems, this fixes it:
(define (search-for-primes a n)
(define (sfp-iter a n counter)
(cond ((and (prime? a) (= counter n))
(newline) (display "end"))
((prime? a)
(newline)
(display a)
(sfp-iter (+ a 1) n (+ counter 1)))
(else (sfp-iter (+ a 1) n counter))))
(sfp-iter a n 0))
In the first and second conditions of the cond, you were incorrectly surrounding the code with (). That's unnecessary, in a cond clause all the expressions that come after the condition are implicitly surrounded by a (begin ...) form, so there's no need to group them together.
I'm reading/working through Practical Common Lisp. I'm on the chapter about building a test framework in Lisp.
I have the function "test-+" implemented as below, and it works:
(defun test-+ ()
(check
(= (+ 1 2) 3)
(= (+ 5 6) 11)
(= (+ -1 -6) -7)))
Remember, I said, it works, which is why what follows is so baffling....
Here is some code that "test-+" refers to:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(combine-results
,#(loop for f in forms collect `(report-result ,f ',f))))
(defmacro combine-results (&body forms)
(with-gensyms (result)
`(let ((,result t))
,#(loop for f in forms collect `(unless ,f (setf ,result nil)))
,result)))
(defmacro with-gensyms ((&rest names) &body body)
`(let ,(loop for n in names collect `(,n (gensym)))
,#body))
(defun report-result (value form)
(format t "~:[FAIL~;pass~] ... ~a~%" value form)
value)
Now, what I've been doing is using Slime to macro-expand these, step by step (using ctrl-c RET, which is mapped to macroexpand-1).
So, the "check" call of "test-+" expands to this:
(COMBINE-RESULTS
(REPORT-RESULT (= (+ 1 2) 3) '(= (+ 1 2) 3))
(REPORT-RESULT (= (+ 5 6) 11) '(= (+ 5 6) 11))
(REPORT-RESULT (= (+ -1 -6) -7) '(= (+ -1 -6) -7)))
And then that macro-expands to this:
(LET ((#:G2867 T))
(UNLESS (REPORT-RESULT (= (+ 1 2) 3) '(= (+ 1 2) 3)) (SETF #:G2867 NIL))
(UNLESS (REPORT-RESULT (= (+ 5 6) 11) '(= (+ 5 6) 11)) (SETF #:G2867 NIL))
(UNLESS (REPORT-RESULT (= (+ -1 -6) -7) '(= (+ -1 -6) -7))
(SETF #:G2867 NIL))
#:G2867)
And it is THAT code, directly above this sentence, which doesn't work. If I paste that into the REPL, I get the following error (I'm using Clozure Common Lisp):
Unbound variable: #:G2867 [Condition of type UNBOUND-VARIABLE]
Now, if I take that same code, replace the gensym with a variable name such as "x", it works just fine.
So, how can we explain the following surprises:
The "test-+" macro, which calls all of this, works fine.
The macro-expansion of the "combine-results" macro does not run.
If I remove the gensym from the macro-expansion of "combine-results", it
does work.
The only thing I can speculate is that you cannot use code the contains literal usages of gensyms. If so, why not, and how does one work around that? And if that is not the explanation, what is?
Thanks.
GENSYM creates uninterned symbols. When the macro runs normally, this isn't a problem, because the same uninterned symbol is being substituted throughout the expression.
But when you copy and paste the expression into the REPL, this doesn't happen. #: tells the reader to return an uninterned symbol. As a result, each occurrence of #:G2867 is a different symbol, and you get the unbound variable warning.
If you do (setq *print-circle* t) before doing the MACROEXPAND it will use #n= and #n# notation to link the identical symbols together.
The code, after being printed and read back, is no longer the same code. In particular, the two instances of #:G2867 in the printed representation would be read back as two separated symbols (albeit sharing the same name), while they should be the same in the original internal representation.
Try setting *PRINT-CIRCLE* to T to preserve the identity in the printed representation of the macro-expanded code.