I'm trying to print a list of pairs of values (representing key/value pairs) in Racket.
Here's the code I have right now:
#lang racket
(define (write-json keyvalues)
(displayln "{")
(for-each
(lambda (kv) (
(displayln (format "~a: ~a," (car kv) (cdr kv)))))
keyvalues)
(displayln "}"))
(write-json (list (cons "a" 1) (cons "b" 2)))
When I run the example, it prints:
{
a: 1,
Then, it crashes with this error message:
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: #<void>
arguments...: [none]
context...:
/.../racket/collects/racket/private/map.rkt:58:19: loop
"test.rkt": [running body]
for-loop
run-module-instance!125
perform-require!78
Any idea what's going on?
Thanks!
This is a paren issue. You have an extra set of parentheses around your lambda's body, ie:
( (displayln (format "~a: ~a;" (car kv) (cdr kv))) )
Since displayln is used for side effect, its output is void, hence why your error message states that you're trying to run (#<void>).
In general, whenever you get an error stating "expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments", see if you have parentheses issues in your code block. Editors like Dr. Racket would highlight that region for you.
Related
I have a struct spider:
(defstruct spider omegas values k)
And an instance spider:
(set '*spider* (make-spider
:omegas '()
:values (list *input*)
:k '(#'omegashift #'dec #'dupval '((0 . #'dec) (1 . #'inc) (2 . #'dec)))))
But when I run the expression: (listp (car (spider-k *spider*)) on Emacs and SBCL (and SLIME is involved but I'm not sure what it is.)
The REPL returns T. This is obviously confusing as (car (spider-k *spider*) correctly returns #'OMEGASHIFT and (listp (function OMEGASHIFT)) properly returns NIL.
Why is (listp (car (spider-k *spider*)) true? Shouldn't it be false?
#'omegashift is a reader-macro that expands to the list (function omegashift).
When you evaluate (function omegashift) you get a function, but you're not evaluating it because you quoted the list. So you're just getting the list that the reader-macro expands to.
You'd see the same thing if you did (listp (car '('foo))). 'foo expands to the list (quote foo). This evaluates to the symbol foo, but the quote before the list prevents evaluation.
To get functions instead of lists, you need to evaluate the function expressions. You can do this by calling the function list rather than quoting a list.
(setq *spider* (make-spider
:omegas '()
:values (list *input*)
:k (list #'omegashift #'dec #'dupval (list (cons 0 #'dec) (cons 1 #'inc) (cons 2 #'dec)))))
You can also use backquote to simplify this:
(setq *spider* (make-spider
:omegas '()
:values (list *input*)
:k `(,#'omegashift ,#'dec ,#'dupval '((0 . ,#'dec) (1 . ,#'inc) (2 . ,#'dec)))))
Inside a backquoted expression, you use comma to mark the sub-expressions that you want to evaluate.
BTW, you should use setq to assign variables, not set with a quoted symbol. They're equivalent for global variables, but you can't use set with a local variable.
I have the following Racket code:
#lang racket
(define (for-each proc items)
(cond ((not (null? items))
(proc (car items))
(for-each proc (cdr items)))))
(for-each (lambda (x) (newline) (display x))
(list 57 321 88))
Because the condition isn't satisfied after 88 is printed, and the Racket's documentation says:
If none of the question-expressions evaluates to true, cond’s value is the answer-expression of the else clause. If there is no else, cond reports an error.
So the expected result is an error, however I get the correct output:
57
321
88
Can somebody tell me why? (ps: I'm using DrRacket 6.2)
Changing the indentation a little:
(define (for-each proc items)
(cond
[(not (null? items)) (proc (car items))
(for-each proc (cdr items))]))
A call (for-each f (list 1 2 3))
will call the function and bind proc to f and items to '(1 2 3).
The test (not (null? items)) is true, since '(1 2 3) is non-empty.
The right hand side is therefore evaluated. The right hand side does two things:
1.) (proc (car items)) calls f with the first element in the list (here 1) and then 2). calls (for-each proc (cdr items)). Here (cdr items) becomes '(2 3).
Eventually for-each will be called with (for-each f '()).
At that point (not (null? items)) will evaluate to #f and the cond will try the next clause. Since there are no more clauses cond will return void.
The documentation says:
If no cond-clauses are present, the result is #<void>.
Note: The cond in the teaching languages will return an error. The constructs in the teaching language generally reports errors, where there is a chance of shooting ones own foot.
I don't know where you got that information. To quote the spec:
The last test-expr in a cond can be replaced by else. In terms of evaluation, else serves as a synonym for #t, but it clarifies that the last clause is meant to catch all remaining cases. If else is not used, then it is possible that no test-exprs produce a true value; in that case, the result of the cond expression is #void.
I'm trying different binding models for macro lambda lists.
Edit: in fact the lambda list for my test macros is always (&rest ...). Which means that I'm 'destructuring' the argument list and not the lambda list. I try to get a solution that works for combining optional with key arguments or rest/body with key arguments - both combinations don't work in the Common Lisp standard implementation.
So I have different functions giving me a list of bindings having the same syntax as used by 'let'.
E.g:
(build-bindings ...) => ((first 1) middle (last "three"))
Now I thought to use a simple macro inside my test macros feeding such a list to 'let'.
This is trivial if I have a literal list:
(defmacro let-list (_list &rest _body)
`(let ,_list ,#_body))
(let-list ((a 236)) a) => 236
But that's the same as a plain 'let'.
What I'd like to have is the same thing with a generated list.
So e.g.
(let-list (build-bindings ...)
(format t "first: ~s~%" first)
last)
with (build-bindings ...), evaluated in the same lexical scope as the call (let-list ...), returning
((first 1) middle (last "three"))
the expansion of the macro should be
(let
((first 1) middle (last "three"))
(format t "first: ~s~%" first)
last)
and should print 1 and return "three".
Any idea how to accomplish that?
Edit (to make the question more general):
If I have a list of (symbol value) pairs, i.e. same syntax that let requires for it's list of bindings, e.g. ((one 1) (two 'two) (three "three")), is there any way to write a macro that creates lexical bindings of the symbols with the supplied values for it's &rest/&body parameter?
This is seems to be a possible solution which Joshua pointed me to:
(let ((list_ '((x 23) (y 6) z)))
(let
((symbols_(loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (car item_) item_)))
(values_ (loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (cadr item_) nil))))
(progv symbols_ values_
(format t "x ~s, y ~s, z ~s~%" x y z))))
evaluates to:
;Compiler warnings :
; In an anonymous lambda form: Undeclared free variable X
; In an anonymous lambda form: Undeclared free variable Y
; In an anonymous lambda form: Undeclared free variable Z
x 23, y 6, z NIL
I could also easily rearrange my build-bindings functions to return the two lists needed.
One problem is, that the compiler spits warnings if the variables have never been declared special.
And the other problem that, if the dynamically bound variables are also used in a surrounding lexical binding, they a shadowed by the lexical binding - again if they have never been declared special:
(let ((x 47) (y 11) (z 0))
(let ((list_ '((x 23) (y 6) z)))
(let
((symbols_(loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (car item_) item_)))
(values_ (loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (cadr item_) nil))))
(progv symbols_ values_
(format t "x ~s, y ~s, z ~s~%" x y z)))))
evaluates to:
x 47, y 11, z 0
A better way could be:
(let ((x 47) (y 11) (z 0))
(locally
(declare (special x y))
(let ((list_ '((x 23) (y 6) z)))
(let
((symbols_(loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (car item_) item_)))
(values_ (loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (cadr item_) nil))))
(progv symbols_ values_
(format t "x ~s, y ~s, z ~s~%" x y z))))))
evaluates to:
;Compiler warnings about unused lexical variables skipped
x 23, y 6, z NIL
I can't see at the moment whether there are other problems with the dynamic progv bindings.
But the whole enchilada of a progv wrapped in locally with all the symbols declared as special cries for a macro again - which is again not possible due to same reasons let-list doesn't work :(
The possiblilty would be a kind of macro-lambda-list destructuring-hook which I'm not aware of.
I have to look into the implementation of destructuring-bind since that macro does kind of what I'd like to do. Perhaps that will enlight me ;)
So a first (incorrect) attempt would look something like this:
(defun build-bindings ()
'((first 1) middle (last "three")))
(defmacro let-list (bindings &body body)
`(let ,bindings
,#body))
Then you could try doing something like:
(let-list (build-bindings)
(print first))
That won't work, of course, because the macro expansion leaves the form (build-bindings) in the resulting let, in a position where it won't be evaluated:
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings)
(print first))))
(LET (BUILD-BINDINGS)
(PRINT FIRST))
Evaluation during Macroexpansion time
The issue is that you want the result of build-bindings at macroexpansion time, and that's before the code as a whole is run. Now, in this example, build-bindings can be run at macroexpansion time, because it's not doing anything with any arguments (remember I asked in a comment what the arguments are?). That means that you could actually eval it in the macroexpansion:
(defmacro let-list (bindings &body body)
`(let ,(eval bindings)
,#body))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings)
(print first))))
(LET ((FIRST 1) MIDDLE (LAST "three"))
(PRINT FIRST))
Now that will work, insofar as it will bind first, middle, and last to 1, nil, and "three", respectively. However, if build-bindings actually needed some arguments that weren't available at macroexpansion time, you'd be out of luck. First, it can take arguments that are available at macroexpansion time (e.g., constants):
(defun build-bindings (a b &rest cs)
`((first ',a) (middle ',b) (last ',cs)))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings 1 2 3 4 5)
(print first))))
(LET ((FIRST '1) (MIDDLE '2) (LAST '(3 4 5)))
(PRINT FIRST))
You could also have some of the variables appear in there:
(defun build-bindings (x ex y why)
`((,x ,ex) (,y ,why)))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings 'a 'ay 'b 'bee)
(print first))))
(LET ((A AY) (B BEE))
(PRINT FIRST))
What you can't do, though, is have the variable names be determined from values that don't exist until runtime. E.g., you can't do something like:
(let ((var1 'a)
(var2 'b))
(let-list (build-bindings var1 'ay var2 'bee)
(print first))
because (let-list (build-bindings …) …) is macroexpanded before any of this code is actually executed. That means that you'd be trying to evaluate (build-bindings var1 'ay var2 'bee) when var1 and var2 aren't bound to any values.
Common Lisp does all its macroexpansion first, and then evaluates code. That means that values that aren't available until runtime are not available at macroexpansion time.
Compilation (and Macroexpansion) at Runtime
Now, even though I said that Common Lisp does all its macroexpansion first, and then evaluates code, the code above actually uses eval at macroexpansion to get some extra evaluation earlier. We can do things in the other direction too; we can use compile at runtime. That means that we can generate a lambda function and compile it based on code (e.g., variable names) provided at runtime. We can actually do this without using a macro:
(defun %dynamic-lambda (bindings body)
(flet ((to-list (x) (if (listp x) x (list x))))
(let* ((bindings (mapcar #'to-list bindings))
(vars (mapcar #'first bindings))
(vals (mapcar #'second bindings)))
(apply (compile nil `(lambda ,vars ,#body)) vals))))
CL-USER> (%dynamic-lambda '((first 1) middle (last "three"))
'((list first middle last)))
;=> (1 NIL "three")
This compiles a lambda expression that is created at runtime from a body and a list of bindings. It's not hard to write a macro that takes some fo the quoting hassle out of the picture:
(defmacro let-list (bindings &body body)
`(%dynamic-lambda ,bindings ',body))
CL-USER> (let-list '((first 1) middle (last "three"))
(list first middle last))
;=> (1 NIL "three")
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings)
(list first middle last)))
;=> (%DYNAMIC-LAMBDA (BUILD-BINDINGS) '((LIST FIRST MIDDLE LAST)))
CL-USER> (flet ((build-bindings ()
'((first 1) middle (last "three"))))
(let-list (build-bindings)
(list first middle last)))
;=> (1 NIL "three")
This gives you genuine lexical variables from a binding list created at runtime. Of course, because the compilation is happening at runtime, you lose access to the lexical environment. That means that the body that you're compiling into a function cannot access the "surrounding" lexical scope. E.g.:
CL-USER> (let ((x 3))
(let-list '((y 4))
(list x y)))
; Evaluation aborted on #<UNBOUND-VARIABLE X {1005B6C2B3}>.
Using PROGV and special variables
If you don't need lexical variables, but can use special (i.e., dynamically scoped) variables instead, you can establish bindings at runtime using progv. That would look something like:
(progv '(a b c) '(1 2 3)
(list c b a))
;;=> (3 2 1)
You'll probably get some warnings with that if run it, because when the form is compiled, there's no way to know that a, b, and c are supposed to be special variables. You can use locally to add some special declarations, though:
(progv '(a b c) '(1 2 3)
(locally
(declare (special a b c))
(list c b a)))
;;=> (3 2 1)
Of course, if you're doing this, then you have to know the variables in advance which is exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place. However, if you're willing to know the names of the variables in advance (and your comments seem like you might be okay with that), then you can actually use lexical variables.
Lexical variables with values computed at run time
If you're willing to state what the variables will be, but still want to compute their values dynamically at run time, you can do that relatively easily. First, lets write the direct version (with no macro):
;; Declare three lexical variables, a, b, and c.
(let (a b c)
;; Iterate through a list of bindings (as for LET)
;; and based on the name in the binding, assign the
;; corresponding value to the lexical variable that
;; is identified by the same symbol in the source:
(dolist (binding '((c 3) (a 1) b))
(destructuring-bind (var &optional value)
(if (listp binding) binding (list binding))
(ecase var
(a (setf a value))
(b (setf b value))
(c (setf c value)))))
;; Do something with the lexical variables:
(list a b c))
;;=> (1 NIL 3)
Now, it's not too hard to write a macrofied version of this. This version isn't perfect, (e.g., there could be hygiene issues with names, and declarations in the body won't work (because the body is being spliced in after some stuff). It's a start, though:
(defmacro computed-let (variables bindings &body body)
(let ((assign (gensym (string '#:assign-))))
`(let ,variables
(flet ((,assign (binding)
(destructuring-bind (variable &optional value)
(if (listp binding) binding (list binding))
(ecase variable
,#(mapcar (lambda (variable)
`(,variable (setf ,variable value)))
variables)))))
(map nil #',assign ,bindings))
,#body)))
(computed-let (a b c) '((a 1) b (c 3))
(list a b c))
;;=> (1 NIL 3)
One way of making this cleaner would be to avoid the assignment altogether, and the computed values to provide the values for the binding directly:
(defmacro computed-let (variables bindings &body body)
(let ((values (gensym (string '#:values-)))
(variable (gensym (string '#:variable-))))
`(apply #'(lambda ,variables ,#body)
(let ((,values (mapcar #'to-list ,bindings)))
(mapcar (lambda (,variable)
(second (find ,variable ,values :key 'first)))
',variables)))))
This version creates a lambda function where the arguments are the specified variables and the body is the provided body (so the declarations in the body are in an appropriate place), and then applies it to a list of values extracted from the result of the computed bindings.
Using LAMBDA or DESTRUCTURING-BIND
since I'm doing some "destructuring" of the arguments (in a bit a different way), I know which arguments must be present or have which
default values in case of missing optional and key arguments. So in
the first step I get a list of values and a flag whether an optional
or key argument was present or defaulted. In the second step I would
like to bind those values and/or present/default flag to local
variables to do some work with them
This is actually starting to sound like you can do what you need to by using a lambda function or destructuring-bind with keyword arguments. First, note that you can use any symbol as a keyword argument indicator. E.g.:
(apply (lambda (&key
((b bee) 'default-bee b?)
((c see) 'default-see c?))
(list bee b? see c?))
'(b 42))
;;=> (42 T DEFAULT-SEE NIL)
(destructuring-bind (&key ((b bee) 'default-bee b?)
((c see) 'default-see c?))
'(b 42)
(list bee b? see c?))
;;=> (42 T DEFAULT-SEE NIL)
So, if you just make your function return bindings as a list of keyword arguments, then in the destructuring or function application you can automatically bind corresponding variables, assign default values, and check whether non-default values were provided.
Acting a bit indirectly:
a solution that works for combining optional with key arguments or
rest/body with key arguments
Have you considered the not-entirely-uncommon paradigm of using a sub-list for the keywords?
e.g.
(defmacro something (&key (first 1) second) &body body) ... )
or, a practical use from Alexandria:
(defmacro with-output-to-file ((stream-name file-name
&rest args
&key (direction nil direction-p)
&allow-other-keys)
&body body)
I'm trying to implement the Towers of Hanoi.I'm not printing out anything between my recursive calls yet, but I keep getting an error saying
'('(LIST) 'NIL 'NIL) should be a lambda expression
I've read that the reason this happens is because of a problem with the parenthesis, however I cannot seem to find what my problem is. I think it's happening in the pass-list function when I am trying to call the hanoi function. My code:
(defun pass-list(list)
(hanoi('('(list)'()'())))
)
(defun hanoi ('('(1) '(2) '(3)))
(hanoi '('(cdr 1) '(cons(car 1) 2) '(3)))
(hanoi '('(cons(car 3)1) '(2)'(cdr 3)))
)
This code has many syntax problems; there are erroneous quotes all over the place, and it looks like you're trying to use numbers as variables, which will not work. The source of the particular error message that you mentioned comes from
(hanoi('('(list)'()'())))
First, understand that the quotes in 'x and '(a b c) are shorthand for the forms (quote x) and (quote (a b c)), and that (quote anything) is the syntax for getting anything, without anything being evaluated. So '(1 2 3) gives you the list (1 2 3), and '1 gives you 1. quote is just a symbol though, and can be present in other lists, so '('(list)'()'()) is the same as (quote ((quote (list)) (quote ()) (quote ()))) which evaluates to the list ((quote (list)) (quote ()) (quote ())). Since () can also be written nil (or NIL), this last is the same as ('(list) 'NIL 'NIL). In Common Lisp, function calls look like
(function arg1 arg2 ...)
where each argi is a form, and function is either a symbol (e.g., list, hanoi, car) or a list, in which case it must be a lambda expression, e.g., (lambda (x) (+ x x)). So, in your line
(hanoi('('(list)'()'())))
we have a function call. function is hanoi, and arg1 is ('('(list)'()'())). But how will this arg1 be evaluated? Well, it's a list, which means it's a function application. What's the function part? It's
'('(list)'()'())
which is the same as
'('(list 'NIL 'NIL))
But as I just said, the only kind of list that can be function is a lambda expression. This clearly isn't a lambda expression, so you get the error that you're seeing.
I can't be sure, but it looks like you were aiming for something like the following. The line marked with ** is sort of problematic, because you're calling hanoi with some arguments, and when it returns (if it ever returns; it seems to me like you'd recurse forever in this case), you don't do anything with the result. It's ignored, and then you go onto the third line.
(defun pass-list(list)
(hanoi (list list) '() '()))
(defun hanoi (a b c)
(hanoi (rest a) (cons (first a) b) c) ; **
(hanoi (cons (first c) a) b (rest c)))
If hanoi is supposed to take a single list as an argument, and that list is supposed to contain three lists (I'm not sure why you'd do it that way instead of having hanoi take just three arguments, but that's a different question, I suppose), it's easy enough to modify; just take an argument abc and extract the first, second, and third lists from it, and pass a single list to hanoi on the recursive call:
(defun hanoi (abc)
(let ((a (first abc))
(b (second abc))
(c (third abc)))
(hanoi (list (rest a) (cons (first a) b) c))
(hanoi (list (cons (first c) a) b (rest c)))))
I'd actually probably use destructuring-bind here to simplify getting a, b, and c out of abc:
(defun hanoi (abc)
(destructuring-bind (a b c) abc
(hanoi (list (rest a) (cons (first a) b) c))
(hanoi (list (cons (first c) a) b (rest c)))))
I'm reading Peter Norvig's Paradigms of AI. In chapter 6.2, the author uses code like below (not the original code, I picked out the troubling part):
Code Snippet:
(progv '(op arg) '(1+ 1)
(eval '(op arg)))
As the author's original intent, this code should return 2, but in sbcl 1.1.1, the interpreter is apparently not looking up op in the environment, throwing out op: undefined function.
Is this implementation specific? Since the code must have been tested on some other lisp.
p.s Original code
You probably mean
(progv '(op arg) '(1+ 1)
(eval '(funcall op arg)))
Edit(2013-08-21):
PAIP was written in pre-ANSI-Common-Lisp era, so it's possible the code
there contains a few noncompliances wrt the standard. We can make
the examples work with the following revision:
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
"Test an arbitrary expression involving variables.
The pattern looks like ((?if code) . rest)."
(and (eval (reduce (lambda (code binding)
(destructuring-bind (var . val) binding
(subst val var code)))
bindings :initial-value (second (first pattern))))
(pat-match (rest pattern) input bindings)))
;; CL-USER> (pat-match '(?x ?op ?y is ?z (?if (eql (?op ?x ?y) ?z))) '(3 + 4 is 7))
;; ((?Z . 7) (?Y . 4) (?OP . +) (?X . 3) (T . T))
;; CL-USER> (pat-match '(?x ?op ?y (?if (?op ?x ?y))) '(3 > 4))
;; NIL
Elements in first positions are not looked up as values, but as functions and there is no concept of dynamic binding in the function namespace.
I'd say after a quick look that the original code was designed to evaluate in a context like
(progv '(x y) '(12 34)
(eval '(> (+ x y) 99)))
i.e. evaluating a formula providing substitution for variables, not for function names.
The other answers so far are right, in that the actual form being evaluated is not the variables being bound by progv (simply (op arg)), but none have mentioned what is being evaluated. In fact, the comments in the code you linked to provide a (very) short explanation (this is the only code in that file that uses progv):
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
"Test an arbitrary expression involving variables.
The pattern looks like ((?if code) . rest)."
;; *** fix, rjf 10/1/92 (used to eval binding values)
(and (progv (mapcar #'car bindings)
(mapcar #'cdr bindings)
(eval (second (first pattern))))
(pat-match (rest pattern) input bindings)))
The idea is that a call to match-if gets called like
(match-if '((?if code) . rest) input ((v1 val1) (v2 val2) ...))
and eval is called with (second (first pattern)), which the value of code. However, eval is called within the progv that binds v1, v2, &c., to the corresponding val1, val2, &c., so that if any of those variables appear free in code, then they are bound when code is evaluated.
Problem
The problem that I see here is that, by the code we can't tell if the value is to be saved as the variable's symbol-value or symbol-function. Thus when you put a + as a value to some corresponding variable, say v, then it'll always be saved as the symbol-value of var, not it's symbol-function.
Therefore when you'll try to use it as, say (v 1 2) , it won't work. Because there is no function named v in the functions' namespace(see this).
So, what to do?
A probable solution can be explicit checking for the value that is to be bound to a variable. If the value is a function, then it should be bound to the variable's function value. This checking can be done via fboundp.
So, we can make a macro functioner and a modified version of match-if. functioner checks if the value is a function, and sets it aptly. match-if does the dynamic local bindings, and allows other code in the scope of the bound variables.
(defmacro functioner (var val)
`(if (and (symbolp ',val)
(fboundp ',val))
(setf (symbol-function ',var) #',val)
(setf ,var ,val)))
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
(eval `(and (let ,(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (list (car x))) bindings)
(declare (special ,# (mapcar #'car bindings)))
(loop for i in ',bindings
do (eval `(functioner ,(first i) ,(rest i))))
(eval (second (first ',pattern))))
(pat-match (rest ',pattern) ',input ',bindings))))