Like the title says this list throws an error
and: bad syntax in: and
but how to write it then, need and in that list?
Best
You cannot use and other than at the beginning of an s-expr because it is a reserved word, it seems.
So outside of that in other positions, you can use it only with quote, else it gives bad syntax error.
The only possibility to let it appear in the end of a list - thus - is:
`(test ,'and)
;; '(test and)
In addition, Racket makes a syntax-check (check whether a variable is bound or not) before evaluating. (And not when evaluating the expression like Common Lisp does).
(if '() whatever 3) ;; `whatever` being a variable not defined before.
;; common-lisp: 3
;; racket: whatever: unbound identifier in module in: whatever
In Common Lisp, since it is a Lisp-2 (different namespaces between function and variable), you can even create/keep a variable with the name and:
;; CL: a variable with the name 'and'
(defvar and 3)
(list 1 and)
;; => (1 3)
However, also in Common Lisp, redefinition of a function and is not allowed:
;; CL: redefine function 'and' - doesn't work:
(defun and (&rest args) (apply #'or args))
;; *** - DEFUN/DEFMACRO: AND is a special operator and may not be redefined.
In Racket, it is impossible to bind sth to a reserved word like and.
So, since Racket is Lisp-1, any redefinition of and is not allowed (neither as variable name nor as a function name), and since Racket does syntax checking for bound variables before evaluating an s-expr - be it a special form/macro or a function - and in any other position than at the beginning of an s-expression cannot occur in Racket without a quote/'.
When you construct lists, you need to quote each element.
Welcome to Racket v6.12.
> (list 'test 'and)
'(test and)
Related
I'm a Lisp beginner and I'm struggling to understand why the following code gives me an error.
(dolist (elem '(mapcar
mapcon))
(when (fboundp `',elem) (print "hello")))
Thanks.
Edit:
A bit more context. I wrote the following in Elisp and I don't know how to fix it.
(dolist (ui-elem '(menu-bar-mode
tool-bar-mode
tooltip-mode
scroll-bar-mode
horizontal-scroll-bar-mode))
(when (fboundp `',ui-elem) (ui-elem -1)))
Note
In your question you mix common-lisp and elisp, but they are two different languages. The question however touches on concepts that are identical in both languages.
The need to quote symbols
The code you want to write checks if a symbol is bound to a function.
What you already know probably is that you can call fboundp on a symbol to determines this:
(fboundp 'menu-bar-mode)
=> t
When you evalute the above form, 'menu-bar-mode is the same as (quote menu-bar-mode), and is evaluated as the symbol object menu-bar-mode. This is the value that is given as an argument to fboundp.
In you example you want to iterate over a list of symbols, call fboundp on it and call the function if the symbol denotes a function. You can do this as follows:
(dolist (s '(menu-bar-mode and other symbols))
(when (fboundp s)
(funcall s -1)))
The list of symbols '(menu-bar-mode and other symbols) is quoted, which means that when dolist evaluates it, it sees a list of symbols. The value to which s is bound at each iteration of the loop is a symbol object, there is no need to quote them.
Quoting a symbol is something you have to do when writing them in your code so that they are not interpreted as variables. When you iterate over a list of symbols, you already manipulate symbols.
Note also that both Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp are "Lisp-2", meanings that you have to use (funcall ui-elem -1) instead of writing (ui-elem -1). When you write the latter form, that means calling the function literally named ui-elem because for function application, the first symbol in the list is not evaluated, it is taken literally.
Too many levels of quoting
The actual error I have when I execute your code is:
(wrong-type-argument symbolp 'mapcar)
It may look like 'mapcar denotes a symbol, because when you want the interpreter to evaluate some code as a symbol, you need to quote it. However, Lisp printers write objects in a way that they can be read back to "similar" objects. The error message that is printed if I expect a symbol to be a number is the following, where symbol foo is printed unquoted:
(+ 'foo 3)
;; error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p foo)
In your error message, the form that you are trying to use as a symbol is (quote mapcar). Recall that when you directly call fboundp:
(fboundp 'mapcar)
It is the same as-if you wrote:
(fboundp (quote mapcar))
First, (quote mapcar) is evaluated, as the symbol mapcar. Then, fboundp is applied to that value.
But when you write the following, while ui-elem is bound to symbol mapcar:
(fboundp `',ui-elem)
This is equivalent to:
(fboundp `(quote ,ui-elem))
The argument to fboundp is evaluated as (quote mapcar). You have one extra level of quoting. You could write instead:
(fboundp `,ui-elem)
But then, you don't need to use backquote/comma, you can directly write:
(fboundp ui-elem)
This question already has answers here:
setq and defvar in Lisp
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was following a tutorial on lisp and they did the following code
(set 'x 11)
(incf x 10)
and interpreter gave the following error:
; in: INCF X
; (SETQ X #:NEW671)
;
; caught WARNING:
; undefined variable: X
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined variable:
; X
; caught 1 WARNING condition
21
what is the proper way to increment x ?
This is indeed how you are meant to increment x, or at least one way of doing so. However it is not how you are meant to bind x. In CL you need to establish a binding for a name before you use it, and you don't do that by just assigning to it. So, for instance, this code (in a fresh CL image) is not legal CL:
(defun bad ()
(setf y 2))
Typically this will cause a compile-time warning and a run-time error, although it may do something else: its behaviour is not defined.
What you have done, in particular, is actually worse than this: you have rammed a value into the symbol-value of x (with set, which does this), and then assumed that something like (incf x) will work, which it is extremely unlikely to do. For instance consider something like this:
(defun worse ()
(let ((x 2))
(set 'x 4)
(incf x)
(values x (symbol-value 'x))))
This is (unlike bad) legal code, but it probably does not do what you want it to do.
Many CL implementations do allow assignment to previously unbound variables at the top-level, because in a conversational environment it is convenient. But the exact meaning of such assignments is outwith the language standard.
CMUCL and its derivatives, including SBCL, have historically been rather more serious about this than other implementations were at the time. I think the reason for this is that the interpreter was a bunch more serious than most others and/or they secretly compiled everything anyway and the compiler picked things up.
A further problem is that CL has slightly awkward semantics for top-level variables: if you go to the effort to establish a toplevel binding in the normal way, with defvar & friends, then you also cause the variable to be special -- dynamically scoped -- and this is a pervasive effect: it makes all bindings of that name special. That is often a quite undesirable consequence. CL, as a language, has no notion of a top-level lexical variable.
What many implementations did, therefore, was to have some kind of informal notion of a top-level binding of something which did not imply a special declaration: if you just said (setf x 3) at the toplevel then this would not contage the entire environment. But then there were all sorts of awkward questions: after doing that, what is the result of (symbol-value 'x) for instance?
Fortunately CL is a powerful language, and it is quite possible to define top-level lexical variables within the language. Here is a very hacky implementation called deflexical. Note that there are better implementations out there (including at least one by me, which I can't find right now): this is not meant to be a bullet-proof solution.
(defmacro deflexical (var &optional value)
;; Define a cheap-and-nasty global lexical variable. In this
;; implementation, global lexicals are not boundp and the global
;; lexical value is not stored in the symbol-value of the symbol.
;;
;; This implementation is *not* properly thought-through and is
;; without question problematic
`(progn
(define-symbol-macro ,var (get ',var 'lexical-value))
(let ((flag (cons nil nil)))
;; assign a value only if there is not one already, like DEFVAR
(when (eq (get ',var 'lexical-value flag) flag)
(setf (get ',var 'lexical-value) ,value))
;; Return the symbol
',var)))
Are symbols and names different? On Lisp by Paul Graham, which focuses on common lisp, has some discussions that seem to imply so, e.g.
Since lambda-expressions are also names of functions, they can also appear first in function calls:
((lambda (x) (* x 2) 3)
6
This makes it sound like symbols are names but names aren't symbols. But I don't understand what sort of Lisp "object" symbols are / could be.
This is also deriving from my question here on the sharp-quote (#') operator v. symbol-function. I'm suspecting the only reason these are different is because not all names are symbols but I don't have enough background to understand those answers yet (hence this question).
I'm also asking for clarification in elisp v. common lisp. I'm assuming this pertains to lexical form, which wasn't introduced in elisp until version 24 (24.1 I think).
Lambda Expressions are not names of functions. It's just that ((lambda (...) ...) ...) is allowed in Common Lisp, since it is defined in the standard as legal syntax.
The only allowed function names in Common Lisp are symbols and lists like (setf symbol).
For example one can write
(defun (setf foo) (...) ...)
Here (setf foo) is the function name.
Other function names don't exist in Common Lisp, only symbols and (setf symbol) names.
Common Lisp Hyperspec Glossary: Function Name.
function name n. 1. (in an environment) A symbol or a list (setf
symbol) that is the name of a function in that environment. 2. A
symbol or a list (setf symbol).
Note: the Common Lisp version of 1984 (as published in CLtL1) did only have symbols as function names. Thus the idea of a function name was not defined. The function to retrieve a function from a symbol was called SYMBOL-FUNCTION. In 1989 the ANSI CL standardization group decided to add setf lists as function names. It also introduced the function FDEFINITION, which is like SYMBOL-FUNCTION but also accepts other function names, besides symbols. See here: Issue FUNCTION-NAME.
I think Rainer's answer gets this right, but since the question appeared in a comment on my answer to another question, I'll include (an update to) my response from that comment.
A symbol is an actual object. You can inspect it, you can create them with make-symbol, etc. Importantly, symbols are one of the primary components of source code in Common Lisp. Function names, especially in the context that this question arose in (arguments to the function special operator) are either symbols or lists of the form (setf symbol) according to the glossary entry:
function name n. 1. (in an environment) A symbol or a list (setf symbol) that is the name of a function in that environment. 2. A
symbol or a list (setf symbol).
Function is a special operator that doesn't evaluate its arguments, so passing a symbol or setf list means something like:
(function car)
(function (setf car))
and not:
(function 'car)
(function '(setf car))
Now, lexical variables, e.g., x in (let ((x 42)) x), while represented by symbols in the source code, don't actually have any connection with the symbol at runtime. The compiled version of (let ((x 42)) x) doesn't need to know anything about the symbol x. Intuitively, this makes sense, because we'd expect the code (let ((y 42)) y) to compile to the same thing. However, when a variable is special, there is a connection with the symbol. The difference is clearest with:
(let ((x 42))
(symbol-value x))
;=> NIL
(let ((x 42))
(declare (special x)) ; or (defparameter x ...) or (defvar x ...) earlier
(symbol-value x))
;=> 42
We'd expect the same thing to be true of lexically scoped functions, e.g., the following code causes an error because there's no connection between the symbol x at runtime and the local function:
(flet ((x () 42))
(symbol-function 'x)) ; ERROR, no function value for symbol x
But even so, we can still do:
(flet ((x () 42))
(function x))
This is because function is special operator and can access the environment where is occurs. That means that (because it's special, and the implementation makes it work) it can know that x is defined as function here. It may be interesting to note, now, that since flet and labels are defined to take a function name, you can do:
(flet (((setf kar) (value kons)
...))
...)
The Lisp forum thread Define macro alias? has an example of creating function alias using a form such as
(setf (symbol-function 'zero?) #'zerop)
This works fine, making zero? a valid predicate. Is it possible to parametrize this form without resorting to macros? I'd like to be able to call the following and have it create function?:
(define-predicate-alias 'functionp)`
My take was approximately:
(defun defalias (old new)
(setf (symbol-function (make-symbol new))
(symbol-function old)))
(defun define-predicate-alias (predicate-function-name)
(let ((alias (format nil "~A?" (string-right-trim "-pP" predicate-function-name))))
(defalias predicate-function-name alias)))
(define-predicate-alias 'zerop)
(zero? '())
This fails when trying to call zero? saying
The function COMMON-LISP-USER::ZERO? is undefined.
make-symbol creates an uninterned symbol. That's why zero? is undefined.
Replace your (make-symbol new) with e.g. (intern new *package*). (Or you may want to think more carefully in which package to intern your new symbol.)
Your code makes a symbol, via MAKE-SYMBOL, but you don't put it into a package.
Use the function INTERN to add a symbol to a package.
To expand on Lars' answer, choose the right package. In this case the default might be to use the same package from the aliased function:
About style:
Anything that begins with DEF should actually be a macro. If you have a function, don't use a name beginning with "DEF". If you look at the Common Lisp language, all those are macro. For example: With those defining forms, one would typically expect that they have a side-effect during compilation of files: the compiler gets informed about them. A function can't.
If I put something like this in a file
(define-predicate-alias zerop)
(zero? '())
and then compile the file, I would expect to not see any warnings about an undefined ZERO?. Thus a macro needs to expand (define-predicate-alias 'zerop) into something which makes the new ZERO? known into the compile-time environment.
I would also make the new name the first argument.
Thus use something like MAKE-PREDICATE-ALIAS instead of DEFINE-PREDICATE-ALIAS, for the function.
There are already some answers that explain how you can do this, but I'd point out:
Naming conventions, P, and -P
Common Lisp has a naming convention that is mostly adhered to (there are exceptions, even in the standard library), that if a type name is multiple words (contains a -), then its predicate is named with -P suffix, whereas if it doesn't, the suffix is just P. So we'd have keyboardp and lcd-monitor-p. It's good then, that you're using (string-right-trim "-pP" predicate-function-name)), but since the …P and …-P names in the standard, and those generated by, e.g., defstruct, will be using P, not p, you might just use (string-right-trim "-P" predicate-function-name)). Of course, even this has the possible issues with some names (e.g., pop), but I guess that just comes with the territory.
Symbol names, format, and *print-case*
More importantly, using format to create symbol names for subsequent interning is dangerous, because format doesn't always print a symbol's name with the characters in the same case that they actually appear in its name. E.g.,
(let ((*print-case* :downcase))
(list (intern (symbol-name 'foo))
(intern (format nil "~A" 'foo))))
;=> (FOO |foo|) ; first symbol has name "FOO", second has name "foo"
You may be better off using string concatenation and extracting symbol names directly. This means you could write code like (this is slightly different use case, since the other questions already explain how you can do what you're trying to do):
(defmacro defpredicate (symbol)
(flet ((predicate-name (symbol)
(let* ((name (symbol-name symbol))
(suffix (if (find #\- name) "-P" "P")))
(intern (concatenate 'string name suffix)))))
`(defun ,(predicate-name symbol) (x)
(typep x ',symbol)))) ; however you're checking the type
(macroexpand-1 '(defpredicate zero))
;=> (DEFUN ZEROP (X) (TYPEP X 'ZERO))
(macroexpand-1 '(defpredicate lcd-monitor))
;=> (DEFUN LCD-MONITOR-P (X) (TYPEP X 'LCD-MONITOR))
I've written an ad hoc parser generator that creates code to convert an old and little known 7-bit character set into unicode. The call to the parser generator expands into a bunch of defuns enclosed in a progn, which then get compiled. I only want to expose one of the generated defuns--the top-level one--to the rest of the system; all the others are internal to the parser and only get called from within the dynamic scope of the top-level one. Therefore, the other defuns generated have uninterned names (created with gensym). This strategy works fine with SBCL, but I recently tested it for the first time with CLISP, and I get errors like:
*** - FUNCALL: undefined function #:G16985
It seems that CLISP can't handle functions with uninterned names. (Interestingly enough, the system compiled without a problem.) EDIT: It seems that it can handle functions with uninterned names in most cases. See the answer by Rörd below.
My questions is: Is this a problem with CLISP, or is it a limitation of Common Lisp that certain implementations (e.g. SBCL) happen to overcome?
EDIT:
For example, the macro expansion of the top-level generated function (called parse) has an expression like this:
(PRINC (#:G75735 #:G75731 #:G75733 #:G75734) #:G75732)
Evaluating this expression (by calling parse) causes an error like the one above, even though the function is definitely defined within the very same macro expansion:
(DEFUN #:G75735 (#:G75742 #:G75743 #:G75744) (DECLARE (OPTIMIZE (DEBUG 2)))
(DECLARE (LEXER #:G75742) (CONS #:G75743 #:G75744))
(MULTIPLE-VALUE-BIND (#:G75745 #:G75746) (POP-TOKEN #:G75742)
...
The two instances of #:G75735 are definitely the same symbol--not two different symbols with the same name. As I said, this works with SBCL, but not with CLISP.
EDIT:
SO user Joshua Taylor has pointed out that this is due to a long standing CLISP bug.
You don't show one of the lines that give you the error, so I can only guess, but the only thing that could cause this problem as far as I can see is that you are referring to the name of the symbol instead of the symbol itself when trying to call it.
If you were referring to the symbol itself, all your lisp implementation would have to do is lookup that symbol's symbol-function. Whether it's interned or not couldn't possibly matter.
May I ask why you haven't considered another way to hide the functions, i.e. a labels statement or defining the functions within a new package that exports only the one external function?
EDIT: The following example is copied literally from an interaction with the CLISP prompt.
As you can see, calling the function named by a gensym is working as expected.
[1]> (defmacro test ()
(let ((name (gensym)))
`(progn
(defun ,name () (format t "Hello!"))
(,name))))
TEST
[2]> (test)
Hello!
NIL
Maybe your code that's trying to call the function gets evaluated before the defun? If there's any code in the macro expansion besides the various defuns, it may be implementation-dependent what gets evaluated first, and so the behaviour of SBCL and CLISP may differ without any of them violating the standard.
EDIT 2: Some further investigation shows that CLISP's behaviour varies depending upon whether the code is interpreted directly or whether it's first compiled and then interpreted. You can see the difference by either directly loading a Lisp file in CLISP or by first calling compile-file on it and then loading the FASL.
You can see what's going on by looking at the first restart that CLISP offers. It says something like "Input a value to be used instead of (FDEFINITION '#:G3219)." So for compiled code, CLISP quotes the symbol and refers to it by name.
It seems though that this behaviour is standard-conforming. The following definition can be found in the HyperSpec:
function designator n. a designator for a function; that is, an object that denotes a function and that is one of: a symbol (denoting the function named by that symbol in the global environment), or a function (denoting itself). The consequences are undefined if a symbol is used as a function designator but it does not have a global definition as a function, or it has a global definition as a macro or a special form. See also extended function designator.
I think an uninterned symbol matches the "a symbol is used as a function designator but it does not have a global definition as a function" case for unspecified consequences.
EDIT 3: (I can agree that I'm not sure whether CLISP's behaviour is a bug or not. Someone more experienced with details of the standard's terminology should judge this. It comes down to whether the function cell of an uninterned symbol - i.e. a symbol that cannot be referred to by name, only by having a direct hold on the symbol object - would be considered a "global definition" or not)
Anyway, here's an example solution that solves the problem in CLISP by interning the symbols in a throwaway package, avoiding the matter of uninterned symbols:
(defmacro test ()
(let* ((pkg (make-package (gensym)))
(name (intern (symbol-name (gensym)) pkg)))
`(progn
(defun ,name () (format t "Hello!"))
(,name))))
(test)
EDIT 4: As Joshua Taylor notes in a comment to the question, this seems to be a case of the (10 year old) CLISP bug #180.
I've tested both workarounds suggested in that bug report and found that replacing the progn with locally actually doesn't help, but replacing it with let () does.
You can most certainly define functions whose names are uninterned symbols. For instance:
CL-USER> (defun #:foo (x)
(list x))
#:FOO
CL-USER> (defparameter *name-of-function* *)
*NAME-OF-FUNCTION*
CL-USER> *name-of-function*
#:FOO
CL-USER> (funcall *name-of-function* 3)
(3)
However, the sharpsign colon syntax introduces a new symbol each time such a form is read read:
#: introduces an uninterned symbol whose name is symbol-name. Every time this syntax is encountered, a distinct uninterned symbol is created. The symbol-name must have the syntax of a symbol with no package prefix.
This means that even though something like
CL-USER> (list '#:foo '#:foo)
;=> (#:FOO #:FOO)
shows the same printed representation, you actually have two different symbols, as the following demonstrates:
CL-USER> (eq '#:foo '#:foo)
NIL
This means that if you try to call such a function by typing #: and then the name of the symbol naming the function, you're going to have trouble:
CL-USER> (#:foo 3)
; undefined function #:foo error
So, while you can call the function using something like the first example I gave, you can't do this last one. This can be kind of confusing, because the printed representation makes it look like this is what's happening. For instance, you could write such a factorial function like this:
(defun #1=#:fact (n &optional (acc 1))
(if (zerop n) acc
(#1# (1- n) (* acc n))))
using the special reader notation #1=#:fact and #1# to later refer to the same symbol. However, look what happens when you print that same form:
CL-USER> (pprint '(defun #1=#:fact (n &optional (acc 1))
(if (zerop n) acc
(#1# (1- n) (* acc n)))))
(DEFUN #:FACT (N &OPTIONAL (ACC 1))
(IF (ZEROP N)
ACC
(#:FACT (1- N) (* ACC N))))
If you take that printed output, and try to copy and paste it as a definition, the reader creates two symbols named "FACT" when it comes to the two occurrences of #:FACT, and the function won't work (and you might even get undefined function warnings):
CL-USER> (DEFUN #:FACT (N &OPTIONAL (ACC 1))
(IF (ZEROP N)
ACC
(#:FACT (1- N) (* ACC N))))
; in: DEFUN #:FACT
; (#:FACT (1- N) (* ACC N))
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: #:FACT
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined function:
; #:FACT
; caught 1 STYLE-WARNING condition
I hope I get the issue right. For me it works in CLISP.
I tried it like this: using a macro for creating a function with a GENSYM-ed name.
(defmacro test ()
(let ((name (gensym)))
`(progn
(defun ,name (x) (* x x))
',name)))
Now I can get the name (setf x (test)) and call it (funcall x 2).
Yes, it is perfectly fine defining functions that have names that are unintenred symbols. The problem is that you cannot then call them "by name", since you can't fetch the uninterned symbol by name (that is what "uninterned" means, essentially).
You would need to store the uninterned symbol in some sort of data structure, to then be able to fetch the symbol. Alternatively, store the defined function in some sort of data structure.
Surprisingly, CLISP bug 180 isn't actually an ANSI CL conformance bug. Not only that, but evidently, ANSI Common Lisp is itself so broken in this regard that even the progn based workaround is a courtesy of the implementation.
Common Lisp is a language intended for compilation, and compilation produces issues regarding the identity of objects which are placed into compiled files and later loaded ("externalized" objects). ANSI Common Lisp requires that literal objects reproduced from compiled files are only similar to the original objects. (CLHS 3.2.4 Literal Objects in Compiled Files).
Firstly, according to the definition similarity (3.2.4.2.2 Definition of Similarity), the rules for uninterned symbols is that similarity is name based. If we compile code with a literal that contains an uninterned symbol, then when we load the compiled file, we get a symbol which is similar and not (necessarily) the same object: a symbol which has the same name.
What if the same uninterned symbol is inserted into two different top-level forms which are then compiled as a file? When the file is loaded, are those two similar to each other at least? No, there is no such requirement.
But it gets worse: there is also no requirement that two occurrences of the same uninterned symbol in the same form will be externalized in such a way that their relative identity is preserved: that the re-loaded version of that object will have the same symbol object in all the places where the original was. In fact, the definition of similarity contains no provision for preserving the circular structure and substructure sharing. If we have a literal like '#1=(a b . #1#), as a literal in a compiled file, there appears to be no requirement that this be reproduced as a circular object with the same graph structure as the original (a graph isomorphism). The similarity rule for conses is given as naive recursion: two conses are similar if their respective cars and cdrs are similar. (The rule can't even be evaluated for circular objects; it doesn't terminate).
That the above works is because of implementations going beyond what is required in the spec; they are providing an extension consistent with (3.2.4.3 Extensions to Similarity Rules).
Thus, purely according to ANSI CL, we cannot expect to use macros with gensyms in compiled files, at least in some ways. The expectation expressed in code like the following runs afoul of the spec:
(defmacro foo (arg)
(let ((g (gensym))
(literal '(blah ,g ,g ,arg)))
...))
(defun bar ()
(foo 42))
The bar function contains a literal with two insertions of a gensym, which according to the similarity rules for conses and symbols need not reproduce as a list containing two occurrences of the same object in the second and third positions.
If the above works as expected, it's due to "extensions to the similarity rules".
So the answer to the "Why can't CLISP ..." question is that although CLISP does provide an extension for similarity which preserves the graph structure of literal forms, it doesn't do it across the entire compiled file, only within individual top level items within that file. (It uses *print-circle* to emit the individual items.) The bug is that CLISP doesn't conform to the best possible behavior users can imagine, or at least to a better behavior exhibited by other implementations.