In C, if I want to see a function that how to work, I open the library which provides the function and analyze the code. How can be implementations of the lisp functions seen? For example, intersection function
You can also look at the source code of lisp functions.
For example, the source files for CLISP, one Common Lisp implementation, are available here: http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/src-files.html
If you want to examine the implementation of functions related to lists, you can look at the file: http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/src/list.d
The usual answer is "M-."
Assuming you have a properly configured IDE, and the source code of the function, clicking on its name and pressing M-. (that's Meta, or Alt or Option or Escape, and dot/period; or whatever key your IDE uses) should reveal its definition (or, for a generic function, definitions, plural; including any compiler macros that might optimize out some cases). Sometimes it's on a right-click or other mouse menu or toolbar.
If the source isn't available, you can often see the actual compiled form by evaluating (disassemble 'function)
Most IDE's, including perennial favourite Emacs+Slime, have other Inspection operations on the menu as well.
In a non-IDE environment, most compilers have reflection tools of their own (compiler-dependant) which are usually also mapped by the Swank library that Slime uses; one might find useful function in that package.
And this really should be documented in your IDE's manual.
I should postscript this that:
You really shouldn't care about the implementation of the core library functions; their contractual behavior is very well documented in the CLHS standard, which is available online and eg, Quicklisp has an utility to link it to Slime (C-c C-d h on a symbol in the COMMON-LISP package); for all well-written Lisp libraries, there should be documentation attached to functions, variables, classes, etc. accessible via the documentation function in the REPL or the IDE's menus and Inspection windows.
Core library functions are often highly optimized and far more complex than most user-level code should want to be, and often call down into compiler-specific "guts" that one should avoid doing in application code.
Related
In a CppCon talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80BZxujhY38 at 5:00)
Herb Sutter alluded to defun defun 3 being somehow a problem. After
I googled it, it's still not clear to me why. Can someone elaborate?
In a comment from the same video:
Herb Sutter
See also the paper, P0707 (http://wg21.link/p0707), and search for "defun." Lisp defun (and Scheme define) lets you define a function... but in Lisp and Scheme you can even redefine built-in functions and macros, including defun/define itself which is what "defun defun" / "define define" does. Here's a sample related StackExchange question: https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/375/symbols-value-as-a-variable-is-void-defun-when-reloading-emacs .
I'm not interested in doing anything like that in C++, and there's nothing like that in my proposal, you can't change any definitions (including of this class after it is defined), you can't reach out and affect anyone else's type or code, the only thing you can do is participate in generating the one-time-and-then-immutable definition of this class you're writing right now which is nice and localized and bounded... and still very powerful.
The linked paper contains this section:
5.2.1 Problems in other languages
In Lisp and related languages, programmers can redefine other people’s code and even global language facilities (e.g., the notorious (defun defun () 3) in Lisp, or (define define () 3) in Scheme). This is powerful, but undisciplined (causes arbitrary global effects up to and including breaking the language itself), fragile (Lisp makes it notoriously easy to write “write-only” code that is difficult to review, read, and maintain), and causes programs to be tightly coupled among their components and with their developer’s environment (Lisp makes it notoriously easy to write code whose meaning depends on local customizations, is hard to share, and when shared is hard to compose with other code that came from an environment with competing assumptions).4
The footnote says:
4 Various incarnations and offshoots of Lisp attempted to mitigate this problem in various ways without actually taking away the root cause: Common Lisp added the guarantee that all symbols in the package COMMON-LISP are protected and must not be redefined by user code otherwise you get undefined behavior; although this provides some protection for the standard facilities, it does not solve the general problem because it still permits one set of user code to redefine things in another set of user code. Also, implementations like SBCL attempted to further improve the problem by providing ways to “lock” packages so their contents cannot be accidentally redefined; however, even SBCL also provides ways to “unlock” them again.
So I was writing my own function and I called it make-list and I got this from debugger:
The function MAKE-LIST is predefined in Clozure CL.
[Condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR]
Restarts:
0: [CONTINUE] Replace the definition of MAKE-LIST.
Fine, but what if I had accidentally chosen option 0?? Would my compiler be broken and forever have the wrong definition of an internal function, as I would have replaced it?
Only your currently running image would be broken, in which case you can restart CCL to restore it.
The only way to do permanent damage is to save the image, and chose to overwrite the original image file.
Many Lisp systems are written in Lisp themselves.
Clozure CL is such an example. Clozure CL is written in Clozure CL (with some C and assembler). Clozure CL can compile itself.
Thus many/most Common Lisp functions in Clozure CL are written in Clozure CL. So it needs some kind of a switch, where it allows to define or redefine built-in functionality. So there is definitely a way to edit the implementation's source code and change things. It would be best that your definitions are 'correct', so that the functioning of the Lisp system is not compromised. Keep in mind that redefinitions typically do not have an effect on inlined functions or on already expanded macros.
Now, if we as typical programmers use Clozure CL, some packages are protected and redefining the symbols are not allowed and an error is signaled. But you can continue and then change internal functions. As always in many Common Lisp, they are wide open for changes, but this comes with the responsibility for you as the programmer to do the right thing.
If you change a Lisp-internal function, there a some ways to leave permanent damage:
saving an image and using that later
using it to recompile CCL itself or parts of it
you could compile a file and somehow the generated code could be different than with the original compiler
you could compile a file and somehow the generated code includes an inlined version of the changed Lisp function
if one loads such a file, it could be automatically via some init file, it contains the changes and the changed code will be a part of the then currently running Lisp.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
I'm getting the Lisp language easily enough, but I'm having trouble groking the mechanics of development. One of my issues is dealing with Emacs. I have no experience with it and find it generally confusing with hard to find/figure out commands.
Specific questions:
I get the REPL, but I don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
-I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I
need to change a function I have to
retype the defun and make changes
(tedious and error prone). How can I
do this better?
-How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program?
I'm used to the C model where you have
code files that you can review, edit
and recompile. I know lisp has
something similar (via the load
function), but how does one get a
function I just defined and tested
into a file to be saved? I'm hoping
there's a better method than my
current select+copy+paste.
Load SLIME. Enter code in your .lisp file, and then run slime-eval-buffer to load all your code into Lisp. Then, for a specific function you are hacking on C-e, C-j to redefine it in your running Lisp.
-How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
Yes. (trace 'my-function) - or some variant on that - and when my-function is called, it will break into the debugger.
-As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a
(defun ...). It's not until I try to
use it that I find out it's not valid.
Is there any way to get errors sooner
(i.e. compile the code)?
To some degree, that is a characteristic of dynamic languages (Python, Perl, Ruby, Lisp, etc.). Try SBCL for better error-checking.
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Emacs is the free IDE for Lisp. Allegro has a free edition I believe; I've never tried it though..
-Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Nah, Scheme is not as pragmatic a language.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/Web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
One can also use the LispWorks Personal Edition for learning Lisp. It has some limitations and the full product is commercial, but it is quite a bit easier to use.
I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
The REPL has a history. With keyboard commands you can get back prior input and change it. Other than that just edit a Lisp file and compile code from there. In Lisp you can compile/eval individual expressions and definitions. Typical IDEs like SLIME, LispWorks or Allegro CL allow you to run code also from normal Lisp text windows - additionally to executing expressions in the REPLA (aka Listener).
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
Copy and paste in one thing. But the correct way is to work from a text file in an editor window. One can compile/load expressions, the editor buffer or the associated file.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
See STEP, TRACE and related. SLIME, LispWorks and Allegro CL have lots of additional features.
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
For many cases one uses a compiler. The compiler will find a range of errors and also will note when something is unusual (for example a function does not exist or a variable has not been defined).
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
LispWorks, Allegro CL are the best under Windows. There are some alternatives like Corman Lisp (I don't know it is maintained right now) or even Ufasoft Lisp.
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Not really.
It doesn't sound like you're really using SLIME, or at least not in the way it was intended to be used. ("have to retype the defun", "the C model where you have code files")
I recommend watching some SLIME screencasts (or, even better, watching a Lisp programmer use SLIME for a few minutes, if you have one handy). The SLIME webpage has a couple.
It sounds like you'd really enjoy the DrRacket IDE. Racket is closer to Scheme than to Common Lisp, but you could dip your toes into the Lisp family without the speed bump of the Emacs style of development.
For now I've stuck with multi-occur-in-matching-buffers and rgrep, which, while powerful, is still pretty basic I guess.
Eventhough I realize anything more involved than matching a regexp and renaming will need to integrate with CEDET's semantic bovinator, I feel like there is still room for improvement here.
Built-in functions, packages, or custom-code what do you find helpful getting the job done ?
Cheers
In CEDET, there is a symbol reference tool. By default it also uses find/grep in a project to find occurrence of a symbol. It is better to use GNU Global, IDUtils, or CScope instead to create a database in your project. You can then use semantic-symref-symbol which will then use gnu global or whatever to find all the references.
Once in symref list buffer, you can look through the hits. You can then select various hits and perform operations such as symbol rename, or the more powerful, execute macro on all the hits.
While there are more focused commands that could be made, the macro feature allows almost anything to happen for the expert user who understands Emacs keyboard macros well.
It depends on which language you are using; if your language is supported by slime, there are the family of who commands: slime-who-calls, who-references, who-binds, calls-who, etc. They provide real, semantic based information, so are more reliable than regexp matching.
If you're editing lisp, I've found it useful (in general) to use the paredit.el package. Follow the link for documentation, and the video is a great introduction.
I've heard that Lisp lets you redefine the language itself, and I have tried to research it, but there is no clear explanation anywhere. Does anyone have a simple example?
Lisp users refer to Lisp as the programmable programming language. It is used for symbolic computing - computing with symbols.
Macros are only one way to exploit the symbolic computing paradigm. The broader vision is that Lisp provides easy ways to describe symbolic expressions: mathematical terms, logic expressions, iteration statements, rules, constraint descriptions and more. Macros (transformations of Lisp source forms) are just one application of symbolic computing.
There are certain aspects to that: If you ask about 'redefining' the language, then redefine strictly would mean redefine some existing language mechanism (syntax, semantics, pragmatics). But there is also extension, embedding, removing of language features.
In the Lisp tradition there have been many attempts to provide these features. A Lisp dialect and a certain implementation may offer only a subset of them.
A few ways to redefine/change/extend functionality as provided by major Common Lisp implementations:
s-expression syntax. The syntax of s-expressions is not fixed. The reader (the function READ) uses so-called read tables to specify functions that will be executed when a character is read. One can modify and create read tables. This allows you for example to change the syntax of lists, symbols or other data objects. One can also introduce new syntax for new or existing data types (like hash-tables). It is also possible to replace the s-expression syntax completely and use a different parsing mechanism. If the new parser returns Lisp forms, there is no change needed for the Interpreter or Compiler. A typical example is a read macro that can read infix expressions. Within such a read macro, infix expressions and precedence rules for operators are being used. Read macros are different from ordinary macros: read macros work on the character level of the Lisp data syntax.
replacing functions. The top-level functions are bound to symbols. The user can change the this binding. Most implementations have a mechanism to allow this even for many built-in functions. If you want to provide an alternative to the built-in function ROOM, you could replace its definition. Some implementations will raise an error and then offer the option to continue with the change. Sometimes it is needed to unlock a package. This means that functions in general can be replaced with new definitions. There are limitations to that. One is that the compiler may inline functions in code. To see an effect then one needs to recompile the code that uses the changed code.
advising functions. Often one wants to add some behavior to functions. This is called 'advising' in the Lisp world. Many Common Lisp implementations will provide such a facility.
custom packages. Packages group the symbols in name spaces. The COMMON-LISP package is the home of all symbols that are part of the ANSI Common Lisp standard. The programmer can create new packages and import existing symbols. So you could use in your programs an EXTENDED-COMMON-LISP package that provides more or different facilities. Just by adding (IN-PACKAGE "EXTENDED-COMMON-LISP") you can start to develop using your own extended version of Common Lisp. Depending on the used namespace, the Lisp dialect you use may look slighty or even radically different. In Genera on the Lisp Machine there are several Lisp dialects side by side this way: ZetaLisp, CLtL1, ANSI Common Lisp and Symbolics Common Lisp.
CLOS and dynamic objects. The Common Lisp Object System comes with change built-in. The Meta-Object Protocol extends these capabilities. CLOS itself can be extended/redefined in CLOS. You want different inheritance. Write a method. You want different ways to store instances. Write a method. Slots should have more information. Provide a class for that. CLOS itself is designed such that it is able to implement a whole 'region' of different object-oriented programming languages. Typical examples are adding things like prototypes, integration with foreign object systems (like Objective C), adding persistance, ...
Lisp forms. The interpretation of Lisp forms can be redefined with macros. A macro can parse the source code it encloses and change it. There are various ways to control the transformation process. Complex macros use a code walker, which understands the syntax of Lisp forms and can apply transformations. Macros can be trivial, but can also get very complex like the LOOP or ITERATE macros. Other typical examples are macros for embedded SQL and embedded HTML generation. Macros can also used to move computation to compile time. Since the compiler is itself a Lisp program, arbitrary computation can be done during compilation. For example a Lisp macro could compute an optimized version of a formula if certain parameters are known during compilation.
Symbols. Common Lisp provides symbol macros. Symbol macros allow to change the meaning of symbols in source code. A typical example is this: (with-slots (foo) bar (+ foo 17)) Here the symbol FOO in the source enclosed with WITH-SLOTS will be replaced with a call (slot-value bar 'foo).
optimizations, with so-called compiler macros one can provide more efficient versions of some functionality. The compiler will use those compiler macros. This is an effective way for the user to program optimizations.
Condition Handling - handle conditions that result from using the programming language in a certain way. Common Lisp provides an advanced way to handle errors. The condition system can also be used to redefine language features. For example one could handle undefined function errors with a self-written autoload mechanism. Instead of landing in the debugger when an undefined function is seen by Lisp, the error handler could try to autoload the function and retry the operation after loading the necessary code.
Special variables - inject variable bindings into existing code. Many Lisp dialects, like Common Lisp, provide special/dynamic variables. Their value is looked up at runtime on the stack. This allows enclosing code to add variable bindings that influence existing code without changing it. A typical example is a variable like *standard-output*. One can rebind the variable and all output using this variable during the dynamic scope of the new binding will go to a new direction. Richard Stallman argued that this was very important for him that it was made default in Emacs Lisp (even though Stallman knew about lexical binding in Scheme and Common Lisp).
Lisp has these and more facilities, because it has been used to implement a lot of different languages and programming paradigms. A typical example is an embedded implementation of a logic language, say, Prolog. Lisp allows to describe Prolog terms with s-expressions and with a special compiler, the Prolog terms can be compiled to Lisp code. Sometimes the usual Prolog syntax is needed, then a parser will parse the typical Prolog terms into Lisp forms, which then will be compiled. Other examples for embedded languages are rule-based languages, mathematical expressions, SQL terms, inline Lisp assembler, HTML, XML and many more.
I'm going to pipe in that Scheme is different from Common Lisp when it comes to defining new syntax. It allows you to define templates using define-syntax which get applied to your source code wherever they are used. They look just like functions, only they run at compile time and transform the AST.
Here's an example of how let can be defined in terms of lambda. The line with let is the pattern to be matched, and the line with lambda is the resulting code template.
(define-syntax let
(syntax-rules ()
[(let ([var expr] ...) body1 body2 ...)
((lambda (var ...) body1 body2 ...) expr ...)]))
Note that this is NOTHING like textual substitution. You can actually redefine lambda and the above definition for let will still work, because it is using the definition of lambda in the environment where let was defined. Basically, it's powerful like macros but clean like functions.
Macros are the usual reason for saying this. The idea is that because code is just a data structure (a tree, more or less), you can write programs to generate this data structure. Everything you know about writing programs that generate and manipulate data structures, therefore, adds to your ability to code expressively.
Macros aren't quite a complete redefinition of the language, at least as far as I know (I'm actually a Schemer; I could be wrong), because there is a restriction. A macro can only take a single subtree of your code, and generate a single subtree to replace it. Therefore you can't write whole-program-transforming macros, as cool as that would be.
However, macros as they stand can still do a whole lot of stuff - definitely more than any other language will let you do. And if you're using static compilation, it wouldn't be hard at all to do a whole-program transformation, so the restriction is less of a big deal then.
A reference to 'structure and interpretation of computer programs' chapter 4-5 is what I was missing from the answers (link).
These chapters guide you in building a Lisp evaluator in Lisp. I like the read because not only does it show how to redefine Lisp in a new evaluator, but also let you learn about the specifications of Lisp programming language.
This answer is specifically concerning Common Lisp (CL hereafter), although parts of the answer may be applicable to other languages in the lisp family.
Since CL uses S-expressions and (mostly) looks like a sequence of function applications, there's no obvious difference between built-ins and user code. The main difference is that "things the language provides" is available in a specific package within the coding environment.
With a bit of care, it is not hard to code replacements and use those instead.
Now, the "normal" reader (the part that reads source code and turns it into internal notation) expects the source code to be in a rather specific format (parenthesised S-expressions) but as the reader is driven by something called "read-tables" and these can be created and modified by the developer, it is also possible to change how the source code is supposed to look.
These two things should at least provide some rationale as to why Common Lisp can be considered a re-programmable programming language. I don't have a simple example at hand, but I do have a partial implementation of a translation of Common Lisp to Swedish (created for April 1st, a few years back).
From the outside, looking in...
I always thought it was because Lisp provided, at its core, such basic, atomic logical operators that any logical process can be built (and has been built and provided as toolsets and add-ins) from the basic components.
It is not so much that it can redefine itself as that its basic definition is so malleable that it can take any form and that no form is assumed/presumed into the structure.
As a metaphor, if you only have organic compounds you do organic chemistry, if you only have metal oxides you do metallurgy but if you have only elements you can do everything but you have extra initial steps to complete....most of which others have already done for you....
I think.....
Cool example at http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/papers/PDF/X-expressions.pdf
reader macros define X-expressions to coexist with S-expressions, e.g.,
? (cx <circle cx="62" cy="135" r="20"/>)
62
plain vanilla Common Lisp at http://www.AgentSheets.com/lisp/XMLisp/XMLisp.lisp
...
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
(when (and (not (boundp '*Non-XMLISP-Readtable*)) (get-macro-character #\<))
(warn "~%XMLisp: The current *readtable* already contains a #/< reader function: ~A" (get-macro-character #\<))))
... of course the XML parser is not so simple but hooking it into the lisp reader is.