Related
I was thinking about a cond with a twist
(let ((a 0))
(let* ((result nil))
(tagbody
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b1 1)
(print "1")
(setf result b1)
(go finish)))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b2 2)
(print "2")
(setf result b2)
(go finish)))
(when T
(print "else")
(setf result a))
(format t "=== ~A~%" a)
finish)
result))
where when test-form is wrapped in let. On one hand this seems to fit into a problem I am working on, but also seems overcomplicated. Can it be simplified with a macro? What would be the best way to simplify it if I had lots of test-forms?
Part of the problem in trying to do it that way is restricting the let blocks to only one test-form and its body.
But I wonder if I am going down the wrong path. Playing with an imaginary variant of when-let suggests there is no benefit of going down this path.
Trying cond
The version using cond appears to be more compact.
(let ((a 3))
(let* ((b1 (+ 0 a))
(b2 (+ 0 a)))
(cond
((eq b1 1)
(print "1")
b1)
((eq b2 2)
(print "2")
b2)
(T (print "else")
a))))
All boils down to the variables defined in the let* which in real life example would be used to avoid calculating the same value twice and improve readability. What should I do?
I'd prefer to think more in terms of blocks and returning values from them, instead working with goto and variables. If one really needs separate let-bound variables and their own scope:
(prog ((a 0))
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b1 1)
(print "1")
(return b1)))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b2 2)
(print "2")
(return b2)))
(return
(progn
(print "else")
(return a))))
Somebody did now. I wanted it to be compatible with cond which raises a trouble: if you want the binding clauses to be like
(cond/binding
...
((var expr) <use var>)
...)
But you want to allow just general test clauses, then a function with one argument is ambiguous: should
(cond/binding
...
((car x) ...)
...)
call car or bind car? To make this work then you need to bind a useless variable in that case:
(cond/binding
...
((useless (car x)) <useless not used here>)
...)
And that means you either need to insert ignore or ignorable declarations all over the place, or live with compiler warnings.
So, well, I decided it would be better to go the other way: you have to say when you want to bind a variable. And you do that by a clause like:
(cond/binding
...
((bind var expr) <var is bound here>)
...)
And note that bind is magic in the syntax (so this means you can't call a function called bind, but that's OK as I already use bind as a keyword in other macros.
The macro also tries hard (well, hard given I basically just typed it in and it's had no testing) to actually behave like cond: returning multiple values, for instance.
So this:
(cond/binding
((f x y z) t)
((bind x 3) (print x) (values x t))
(t (values nil nil))
(1))
expands to
(block #:cond/binding
(when (f x y z)
(return-from #:cond/binding (progn t)))
(let ((x 3))
(when x
(return-from #:cond/binding
(progn (print x) (values x t)))))
(when t
(return-from #:cond/binding (progn (values nil nil))))
(let ((r 1))
(when r
(return-from #:cond/binding r))))
(where all the blocks are the same block).
So, here:
(defmacro cond/binding (&body clauses)
;; Like COND but it can bind variables. All clauses are (should be)
;; like COND, except that a clause of the form ((bind var <expr>)
;; ...) will bind a variable. Note that bind has to be literally
;; the symbol BIND: it's magic in the syntax.
(let ((bn (make-symbol "COND/BINDING")))
`(block ,bn
,#(mapcar
(lambda (clause)
(unless (consp clause)
(error "bad clause ~S" clause))
(case (length clause)
(1
`(let ((r ,(car clause)))
(when r (return-from ,bn r))))
(otherwise
(destructuring-bind (test/binding &body forms) clause
(typecase test/binding
(cons
(case (car test/binding)
((bind)
(unless (and (= (length test/binding) 3)
(symbolp (second test/binding)))
(error "bad binding clause ~S" test/binding))
(destructuring-bind (var expr) (rest test/binding)
`(let ((,var ,expr))
(when ,var
(return-from ,bn
(progn ,#forms))))))
(otherwise
`(when ,test/binding
(return-from ,bn
(progn ,#forms))))))
(t
`(when ,test/binding
(return-from ,bn
(progn ,#forms)))))))))
clauses))))
Caveat emptor.
If I understand you problem correctly, then you can use or and rely on the fact that when is evaluated to nil if the condition is not true, e.g.,
(defun example (a)
(or
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b1 1)
(print "1")
b1))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eql b2 2)
(print "2")
b2))
(progn
(print "else")
a)))
Using macrolet is the best solution so far. That allows me to bypass the limitations of when-let and not all bindins in the let form have to evaluate to true.
(let ((a 3))
(let ((result nil))
(macrolet ((ret-go (res)
`(progn
(setf result ,res)
(go finish))))
(tagbody
(let ((b1 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b1 1)
(print "1")
(ret-go b1)))
(let ((b2 (+ 0 a)))
(when (eq b2 2)
(print "2")
(ret-go b2)))
(when T
(print "else")
(setf result a))
(format t "=== ~A~%" a)
finish)
result)))
say I have two lists in lisp
(setq a '(p q))
(setq b '(1 2))
(car a) is p
(car b) is 1
now I want to define a symbol '(test p 1) but if I use below
(setq c '(test (car a) (car b)))
I get '(test (car a) (car b))
it is understandable, but I just want to know how can I substitute those (car a) to p and (car b) to 1 and form a new symbol of '(test p 1)
Thanks
First off, setq should not be used on unbound variables. You can use setq on established variables. Also for global variables you should use *earmuffs*.
(defparameter *a* '(p q))
(defparameter *b* '(1 2))
(car *a*) ; ==> p
(car *b*) ; ==> 1
The quote will use the quotes structure as data. That means everything expr where you write 'expr will never be evaluated beyond taking the data verbatim. New lists are created with cons. eg.
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* (cons 'test
(cons (car *a*)
(cons (car *b*)
'()))))
cons is the primitive, but CL has several other ways to create lists. eg. the same with the function list:
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* (list 'test (car *a*) (car *b*)))
The second the structure becomes more complex using quasiquote/unquote/unquote-splice is a lot easier.
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* `(test ,(car *a*) ,(car *b*)))
;; more complex example
(defmacro my-let ((&rest bindings) &body body)
`((lambda ,(mapcar #'car bindings)
,#body)
,(mapcar #'cadr bindings)))
(macroexpand-1 '(my-let ((a 10) (b 20)) (print "hello") (+ (* a a) (* b b))))
; ==> ((lambda (a b)
; (print "hello")
; (+ (* a a) (* b b)))
; (10 20))
Note that this is just sugar for the identical structure made with cons, list, and append. It might be optimized for minimal memory use so will share structure. eg. `(,x b c) in a procedure will do (cons x '(b c)) which means if you create two versions their cdr will be eq and you should refrain from mutating these parts.
If you want to make a list the function you want is list:
(list 'test (car a) (car b))`
Will be the list (test p 1).
Note that the purpose of quote (abbreviated ', so '(x) is identical to (quote (x))) is simply to tell the evaluator that what follows is literal data, not code. So, in (list 'test ...), which is the same as (list (quote test) ...) then quote tells the evaluator that test is being used as a literal datum, rather than as the name of a binding, and similarly '(p q) means 'this is a literal list with elements p and q', while (p q) means 'this is a form for evaluation, whose meaning depends on what p is')
To complete the answer from tfb, you can write
`(test ,(car a) ,(car b)
This is strictly the same of
(list 'test (car a) (car b)
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 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)
How to calculate the difference between two sets in Emacs Lisp? The sets should be lists.
The programm should be very simple and short, or else I won't understand it. I'm a newbee.
Thx
There is a set-difference function in the Common Lisp extensions:
elisp> (require 'cl-lib)
cl-lib
elisp> (cl-set-difference '(1 2 3) '(2 3 4))
(1)
When I write Elisp code that has lots of list data transformations, I use dash library, because it has loads of functions to work with lists. Set difference can be done with -difference:
(require 'dash)
(-difference '(1 2 3 4) '(3 4 5 6)) ;; => '(1 2)
Disclaimer: this is not an efficient way to do it in eLisp. An efficient way is through a hash-table with a hash function, but since you asked about lists, then here it is:
(defun custom-set-difference (a b)
(remove-if
#'(lambda (x) (and (member x a) (member x b)))
(append a b)))
(custom-set-difference '(1 2 3 4 5) '(2 4 6))
(1 3 5 6)
(defun another-set-difference (a b)
(if (null a) b
(let (removed)
(labels ((find-and-remove
(c)
(cond
((null c) nil)
((equal (car c) (car a))
(setq removed t) (cdr c))
(t (cons (car c) (find-and-remove (cdr c)))))))
(setf b (find-and-remove b))
(if removed
(another-set-difference (cdr a) b)
(cons (car a) (another-set-difference (cdr a) b)))))))
(another-set-difference '(1 2 3 4 5) '(2 4 6))
(1 3 5 6)
The second is slightly more efficient, because it will remove the elements as it makes consequent checks, but the first is shorter and more straight-forward.
Also note that lists are not good representation of sets because they naturally allow repetition. Hash maps are better for that purpose.
Here is a simple & short definition, which should be easy to understand. It is essentially the same as the set-difference function in the Common Lisp library for Emacs, but without any treatment of a TEST argument.
(defun set-diff (list1 list2 &optional key)
"Combine LIST1 and LIST2 using a set-difference operation.
Optional arg KEY is a function used to extract the part of each list
item to compare.
The result list contains all items that appear in LIST1 but not LIST2.
This is non-destructive; it makes a copy of the data if necessary, to
avoid corrupting the original LIST1 and LIST2."
(if (or (null list1) (null list2))
list1
(let ((keyed-list2 (and key (mapcar key list2)))
(result ()))
(while list1
(unless (if key
(member (funcall key (car list1)) keyed-list2)
(member (car list1) list2))
(setq result (cons (car list1) result)))
(setq list1 (cdr list1)))
result)))
GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual, Sets and Lists suggests using cl-lib's
cl-set-difference LIST1 LIST2 &key :test :test-not :key
(require 'cl-lib)
(cl-set-difference '(1 2 3) '(2 3 4))
(1)