I'm just starting to learn the concept of macro functions.
My teacher has asked us to create a macro function that would function exactly the same way as incf.
Here is an example he has given us for pop
(defmacro mypop (nom)
(list 'prog1 (list 'car nom) (list 'setq nom (list 'cdr nom))) )
Here is the regular function I'm trying to turn into a macro:
(defun iincf (elem &optional num )
(cond
((not num) (setq elem (+ 1 elem)))
(t (setq elem (+ num elem))) ) )
Here is my attempt at turning it into a macro :
(defmacro myincf (elem &optional num )
(list 'cond
((list 'not num) (list 'setq elem (list '+ 1 elem)))
(t (list 'setq elem (list '+ num elem))) ) )
However, I get this error and I don't know why:
*** - system::%expand-form: (list 'not num) should be a lambda expression
Also, I'm not sure whether my function would actually change the value of the variable at the top level.
So here are my 2 questions:
Why do I get this error?
Is the function I'm trying to turn into a macro fine? (if successfully turning it into a macro function, would it do what I intend to?)
PS: I know this exercise would probably infringe many common rules in lisp, but this is just for practice. Thanks! :)
The reason for the error is that your syntax is invalid:
((list ...) ...)
(t (list ...))
The first element should be a function name or a lambda expression, so you would need to change it to something like
(list (list ...) ...)
(list t (list ...))
Although the macro isn't a very good one yet. First of all, the backquote syntax would make the code much more readable. It allows you to write a template where only the specified forms are evaluated. For example, the given MYPOP macro would look like
(defmacro mypop (nom)
`(prog1 (car ,nom)
(setq ,nom (cdr ,nom))))
Only the forms with a comma before them are evaluated. Same with your macro:
(defmacro myincf (elem &optional num)
`(cond
((not ,num) (setq ,elem (+ 1 ,elem)))
(t (setq ,elem (+ ,num ,elem)))))
The COND shouldn't really be part of the expansion though. It should be evaluated during macroexpansion, and only the SETQ form from one of the branches returned.
(defmacro myincf (elem &optional num)
(cond
((not num) `(setq ,elem (+ 1 ,elem)))
(t `(setq ,elem (+ ,num ,elem)))))
The only difference between the two branches is that the first one defaults to 1 for NUM. A simpler way to achieve the same would be to give NUM a default value.
(defmacro myincf (elem &optional (num 1))
`(setq ,elem (+ ,num ,elem)))
Of course, the standard INCF is a bit more complex, since it works for all sorts of places (not just variables) and ensures that the subforms of the place are evaluated only once. However, since the MYPOP example doesn't handle those, I don't think you have to either.
If you want to, a simple way to define such a macro would be
(define-modify-macro myincf (&optional (num 1)) +)
Or you could do the same manually with something like
(defmacro myincf (place &optional (num 1) &environment env)
(multiple-value-bind (dummies vals store setter getter)
(get-setf-expansion place env)
`(let* (,#(mapcar #'list dummies vals)
(,(first store) (+ ,getter ,num)))
,setter)))
But using DEFINE-MODIFY-MACRO would be preferrable in a real program (shorter code, less bugs). You could read about GET-SETF-EXPANSION and DEFINE-MODIFY-MACRO if you're interested.
Related
contextualization: I've been doing a university project in which I have to write a parser for regular expressions and build the corresponding epsilon-NFA. I have to do this in Prolog and Lisp.
I don't know if questions like this are allowed, if not I apologize.
I heard some of my classmates talking about how they used the function gensym for that, I asked them what it did and even checked up online but I literally can't understand what this function does neither why or when is best to use it.
In particular, I'm more intrested in what it does in Lisp.
Thank you all.
GENSYM creates unique symbols. Each call creates a new symbol. The symbol usually has a name which includes a number, which is counted up. The name is also unique (the symbol itself is already unique) with a number, so that a human reader can identify different uninterned symbols in the source code.
CL-USER 39 > (gensym)
#:G1083
CL-USER 40 > (gensym)
#:G1084
CL-USER 41 > (gensym)
#:G1085
CL-USER 42 > (gensym)
#:G1086
gensym is often used in Lisp macros for code generation, when the macro needs to create new identifiers, which then don't clash with existing identifiers.
Example: we are going to double the result of a Lisp form and we are making sure that the Lisp form itself will be computed only once. We do that by saving the value in a local variable. The identifier for the local variable will be computed by gensym.
CL-USER 43 > (defmacro double-it (it)
(let ((new-identifier (gensym)))
`(let ((,new-identifier ,it))
(+ ,new-identifier ,new-identifier))))
DOUBLE-IT
CL-USER 44 > (macroexpand-1 '(double-it (cos 1.4)))
(LET ((#:G1091 (COS 1.4)))
(+ #:G1091 #:G1091))
T
CL-USER 45 > (double-it (cos 1.4))
0.33993432
a little clarification of the existing answers (as the op is not yet aware of the typical common lisp macros workflow):
consider the macro double-it, proposed by mr. Joswig. Why would we bother creating this whole bunch of let? when it can be simply:
(defmacro double-it (it)
`(+ ,it ,it))
and ok, it seems to be working:
CL-USER> (double-it 1)
;;=> 2
but look at this, we want to increment x and double it
CL-USER> (let ((x 1))
(double-it (incf x)))
;;=> 5
;; WHAT? it should be 4!
the reason can be seen in macro expansion:
(let ((x 1))
(+ (setq x (+ 1 x)) (setq x (+ 1 x))))
you see, as the macro doesn't evaluate form, just splices it into generated code, it leads to incf being executed twice.
the simple solution is to bind it somewhere, and then double the result:
(defmacro double-it (it)
`(let ((x ,it))
(+ x x)))
CL-USER> (let ((x 1))
(double-it (incf x)))
;;=> 4
;; NICE!
it seems to be ok now. really it expands like this:
(let ((x 1))
(let ((x (setq x (+ 1 x))))
(+ x x)))
ok, so what about the gensym thing?
let's say, you want to print some message, before doubling your value:
(defmacro double-it (it)
`(let* ((v "DOUBLING IT")
(val ,it))
(princ v)
(+ val val)))
CL-USER> (let ((x 1))
(double-it (incf x)))
;;=> DOUBLING IT
;;=> 4
;; still ok!
but what if you accidentally name value v instead of x:
CL-USER> (let ((v 1))
(double-it (incf v)))
;;Value of V in (+ 1 V) is "DOUBLING IT", not a NUMBER.
;; [Condition of type SIMPLE-TYPE-ERROR]
It throws this weird error! Look at the expansion:
(let ((v 1))
(let* ((v "DOUBLING IT") (val (setq v (+ 1 v))))
(princ v)
(+ val val)))
it shadows the v from the outer scope with string, and when you are trying to add 1, well it obviously can't. Too bad.
another example, say you want to call the function twice, and return 2 results as a list:
(defmacro two-funcalls (f v)
`(let ((x ,f))
(list (funcall x ,v) (funcall x ,v))))
CL-USER> (let ((y 10))
(two-funcalls (lambda (z) z) y))
;;=> (10 10)
;; OK
CL-USER> (let ((x 10))
(two-funcalls (lambda (z) z) x))
;; (#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (Z)) {52D2D4AB}> #<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (Z)) {52D2D4AB}>)
;; NOT OK!
this class of bugs is very nasty, since you can't easily say what's happened.
What is the solution? Obviously not to name the value v inside macro. You need to generate some sophisticated name that no one would reproduce in their code, like my-super-unique-value-identifier-2019-12-27. This would probably save you, but still you can't really be sure. That's why gensym is there:
(defmacro two-funcalls (f v)
(let ((fname (gensym)))
`(let ((,fname ,f))
(list (funcall ,fname ,v) (funcall ,fname ,v)))))
expanding to:
(let ((y 10))
(let ((#:g654 (lambda (z) z)))
(list (funcall #:g654 y) (funcall #:g654 y))))
you just generate the var name for the generated code, it is guaranteed to be unique (meaning no two gensym calls would generate the same name for the runtime session),
(loop repeat 3 collect (gensym))
;;=> (#:G645 #:G646 #:G647)
it still can potentially be clashed with user var somehow, but everybody knows about the naming and doesn't call the var #:GXXXX, so you can consider it to be impossible. You can further secure it, adding prefix
(loop repeat 3 collect (gensym "MY_GUID"))
;;=> (#:MY_GUID651 #:MY_GUID652 #:MY_GUID653)
GENSYM will generate a new symbol at each call. It will be garanteed, that the symbol did not exist before it will be generated and that it will never be generated again. You may specify a symbols prefix, if you like:
CL-USER> (gensym)
#:G736
CL-USER> (gensym "SOMETHING")
#:SOMETHING737
The most common use of GENSYM is generating names for items to avoid name clashes in macro expansion.
Another common purpose is the generaton of symbols for the construction of graphs, if the only thing demand you have is to attach a property list to them, while the name of the node is not of interest.
I think, the task of NFA-generation could make good use of the second purpose.
This is a note to some of the other answers, which I think are fine. While gensym is the traditional way of making new symbols, in fact there is another way which works perfectly well and is often better I find: make-symbol:
make-symbol creates and returns a fresh, uninterned symbol whose name is the given name. The new-symbol is neither bound nor fbound and has a null property list.
So, the nice thing about make-symbol is it makes a symbol with the name you asked for, exactly, without any weird numerical suffix. This can be helpful when writing macros because it makes the macroexpansion more readable. Consider this simple list-collection macro:
(defmacro collecting (&body forms)
(let ((resultsn (make-symbol "RESULTS"))
(rtailn (make-symbol "RTAIL")))
`(let ((,resultsn '())
(,rtailn nil))
(flet ((collect (it)
(let ((new (list it)))
(if (null ,rtailn)
(setf ,resultsn new
,rtailn new)
(setf (cdr ,rtailn) new
,rtailn new)))
it))
,#forms
,resultsn))))
This needs two bindings which the body can't refer to, for the results, and the last cons of the results. It also introduces a function in a way which is intentionally 'unhygienic': inside collecting, collect means 'collect something'.
So now
> (collecting (collect 1) (collect 2) 3)
(1 2)
as we want, and we can look at the macroexpansion to see that the introduced bindings have names which make some kind of sense:
> (macroexpand '(collecting (collect 1)))
(let ((#:results 'nil) (#:rtail nil))
(flet ((collect (it)
(let ((new (list it)))
(if (null #:rtail)
(setf #:results new #:rtail new)
(setf (cdr #:rtail) new #:rtail new)))
it))
(collect 1)
#:results))
t
And we can persuade the Lisp printer to tell us that in fact all these uninterned symbols are the same:
> (let ((*print-circle* t))
(pprint (macroexpand '(collecting (collect 1)))))
(let ((#2=#:results 'nil) (#1=#:rtail nil))
(flet ((collect (it)
(let ((new (list it)))
(if (null #1#)
(setf #2# new #1# new)
(setf (cdr #1#) new #1# new)))
it))
(collect 1)
#2#))
So, for writing macros I generally find make-symbol more useful than gensym. For writing things where I just need a symbol as an object, such as naming a node in some structure, then gensym is probably more useful. Finally note that gensym can be implemented in terms of make-symbol:
(defun my-gensym (&optional (thing "G"))
;; I think this is GENSYM
(check-type thing (or string (integer 0)))
(let ((prefix (typecase thing
(string thing)
(t "G")))
(count (typecase thing
((integer 0) thing)
(t (prog1 *gensym-counter*
(incf *gensym-counter*))))))
(make-symbol (format nil "~A~D" prefix count))))
(This may be buggy.)
I'm currently experimenting with macro's in Lisp and I would like to write a macro which can handle syntax as follows:
(my-macro (args1) (args2))
The macro should take two lists which would then be available within my macro to do further processing. The catch, however, is that the lists are unquoted to mimic the syntax of some real Lisp/CLOS functions. Is this possible?
Currently I get the following error when attempting to do something like this:
Undefined function ARGS1 called with arguments ().
Thanks in advance!
I think you need to show what you have tried to do. Here is an example of a (silly) macro which has an argument pattern pretty much what yours is:
(defmacro stupid-let ((&rest vars) (&rest values) &body forms)
;; Like LET but with a terrible syntax
(unless (= (length vars) (length values))
(error "need exactly one value for each variable"))
(unless (every #'symbolp vars)
(error "not every variable is a symbol"))
`(let ,(mapcar #'list vars values) ,#forms))
Then
> (macroexpand '(stupid-let (a b c) (1 2 3) (+ a b c)))
(let ((a 1) (b 2) (c 3)) (+ a b c))
The above macro depends on defmacro's arglist-destructuring, but you don't have to do that:
(defun proper-list-p (l)
;; elaborate version with an occurs check, quadratic.
(labels ((plp (tail tails)
(if (member tail tails)
nil
(typecase tail
(null t)
(cons (plp (rest tail) (cons tail tails)))
(t nil)))))
(plp l '())))
(defmacro stupid-let (vars values &body forms)
;; Like LET but with a terrible syntax
(unless (and (proper-list-p vars) (proper-list-p values))
(error "need lists of variables and values"))
(unless (= (length vars) (length values))
(error "need exactly one value for each variable"))
(unless (every #'symbolp vars)
(error "not every variable is a symbol"))
`(let ,(mapcar #'list vars values) ,#forms))
As a slightly more useful example, here is a macro which is a bit like the CLOS with-slots / with-accessors macros:
(defmacro with-mindless-accessors ((&rest accessor-specifications) thing
&body forms)
"Use SYMBOL-MACROLET to define mindless accessors for THING.
Each accessor specification is either a symbol which names the symbol
macro and the accessor, or a list (macroname accessorname) which binds
macroname to a symbol macro which calls accessornam. THING is
evaluated once only."
(multiple-value-bind (accessors functions)
(loop for accessor-specification in accessor-specifications
if (symbolp accessor-specification)
collect accessor-specification into acs
and collect accessor-specification into fns
else if (and (proper-list-p accessor-specification)
(= (length accessor-specification) 2)
(every #'symbolp accessor-specification))
collect (first accessor-specification) into acs
and collect (second accessor-specification) into fns
else do (error "bad accessor specification ~A" accessor-specification)
end
finally (return (values acs fns)))
(let ((thingn (make-symbol "THING")))
`(let ((,thingn ,thing))
(symbol-macrolet ,(loop for accessor in accessors
for function in functions
collect `(,accessor (,function ,thingn)))
,#forms)))))
So now we can write this somewhat useless code:
> (with-mindless-accessors (car cdr) (cons 1 2)
(setf cdr 3)
(+ car cdr))
4
And this:
> (let ((l (list 1 2)))
(with-mindless-accessors (second) l
(setf second 4)
l))
(1 4)
Looking at Practical Common Lisp, we're looking at a simple automated unit test framework. We're trying to write a macro to be used as such:
(check (= (+ 1 2) 3) (= (- 1 4) 9))
This should expand to something using a previously defined function report-result. The suggested implementation is:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(progn
,#(loop for f in forms collect `(report-result ,f ',f))))
However, that expansion seems rather procedural to me. I wanted to replace the loop with a mapcar to expand to something like this:
(mapcar #'(lambda (form) (report-result form 'form)) (list form-1 ... form-n))
However, I'm clearly lacking the macro-writing skills to do so. Can someone come up with one such macro?
In case it's relevant, this is the definition of report-result:
(defun report-result (result form)
(format t "~:[FAIL~;pass~] ... ~a~%" result form))
It's indeed fairly simple: you just place the collect expression into the body of your mapcar:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(progn
,#(mapcar #'(lambda (form)
`(report-result ,form ',form))
forms)))
You don't really need to know anything about the "macro-y" stuff that's going on, in order to do the replacement you want, which is simply replacing a loop with some other equivalent expression: it will work just as well in a macro context as it would outside.
If you want to expand to a mapcar you can, but there's no real reason to do so, since the list's size is known at compile time. Here's what that would look like:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(let ((results (list ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (form)
`(list ,form ',form))
forms))))
(mapcar #'(lambda (result)
(report-result (car result) (cadr result)))
results)))
Which expands like so
> (macroexpand-1 '(check (+ 1 2) (* 2 3)))
(let ((results (list (list (+ 1 2) '(+ 1 2))
(list (* 2 3) '(* 2 3)))))
(mapcar #'(lambda (result) (report-result (car result) (cadr result)))
results))
Which as you can see is rather awkward: the macro already has the forms like (+ 1 2) available to it, but in order to preserve them to runtime for the mapcar lambda to see, you have to emit the input form twice. And you have to produce the whole list to map over, rather than just producing a list that's "finished" to begin with. Additionally, this produces a list as output, and requires having all the inputs and outputs in memory at once: the original macro with progn produced the inputs and outputs one at a time, and discarded them when finished.
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)
In Python, I am able to use yield to build up a list without having to define a temporary variable:
def get_chars_skipping_bar(word):
while word:
# Imperative logic which can't be
# replaced with a for loop.
if word[:3] == 'bar':
word = word[3:]
else:
yield foo[0]
foo = foo[1:]
In elisp, I can't see any way of doing this, either built-in or using any pre-existing libraries. I'm forced to manually build a up a list and call nreverse on it. Since this is a common pattern, I've written my own macro:
(require 'dash)
(require 'cl)
(defun replace-calls (form x func)
"Replace all calls to X (a symbol) in FORM,
calling FUNC to generate the replacement."
(--map
(cond
((consp it)
(if (eq (car it) x)
(funcall func it)
(replace-calls it x func)))
(:else it))
form))
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield foo).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to yield."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results (list)))
,#(replace-calls body 'yield
(lambda (form) `(push ,(second form) ,results)))
(nreverse ,results))))
Example usage:
(setq foo "barbazbarbarbiz")
(with-results
(while (not (s-equals? "" foo))
;; Imperative logic which can't be replaced with cl-loop's across.
(if (s-starts-with? "bar" foo)
(setq foo (substring foo 3))
(progn
(yield (substring foo 0 1))
(setq foo (substring foo 1))))))
There must be a better way of doing this, or an existing solution, somewhere in elisp, cl.el, or a library.
The Python function is actually a generator. In ANSI Common Lisp, we would usually reach for a lexical closure to simulate a generator, or else us a library to define generators directly, like Pygen. Maybe these approaches can be ported to Emacs Lisp.
AFAIK, people just use push+nreverse like you do. If you want to define your macro in a more robust way (e.g. so it doesn't misfire on something like (memq sym '(yield stop next))) you could do it as:
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield EXP).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to `yield'."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results '()))
(cl-macrolet ((yield (exp) `(push ,exp ,results)))
,#body)
(nreverse ,results))))
Maybe something like this:
(setq foo "barbaz")
(cl-loop for i from 0 to (1- (length foo))
collect (string (aref foo i)))
In any case, there's nothing wrong with push and nreverse.
Lisp is different from Python. yield is not used. I also see the use of coroutine-like constructs for this as a mistake. It's the equivalent of the come-from construct. Suddenly routines have multiple context dependent entry points.
In Lisp use functions/closures instead.
In Common Lisp, the LOOP macro allows efficient mappings over vectors. The following code can be abstracted to some mapping function, if preferred:
CL-USER 17 > (defun chars-without-substring (string substring)
(loop with i = 0
while (< i (length string))
when (and (>= (- (length string) i) (length substring))
(string= substring string
:start2 i
:end2 (+ i (length substring))))
do (incf i (length substring))
else
collect (prog1 (char string i) (incf i))))
CHARS-WITHOUT-SUBSTRING
CL-USER 18 > (chars-without-substring "barbazbarbarbiz" "bar")
(#\b #\a #\z #\b #\i #\z)