I'm writing a toy interpreter for a Lisp language, in which I have the following CL code:
(defun mal-list (&rest args)
(make-mal :type 'list
:value args))
(register-fun '|list| #'mal-list)
(defun mal-list? (arg)
(eq (mal-type arg) 'list))
(register-fun '|list?| #'mal-list?)
However, I'd rather simply write something like this:
(defmal list (&rest args)
(make-mal :type 'list
:value args))
(defmal list? (arg)
(eq (mal-type arg) 'list))
I tried to write a macro to do this, but I had problems with the symbols with the bars (I'm pretty confused as to what this is!). This is what I tried:
(defmacro defmal (name args &body body )
(let ((funsym (intern (format nil "~{~a~}" `(mal- ,name)))))
`(register-fun `|,name| (defun ,funsym ,args ,#body))))
which didn't work out, because `|,name| literaly meant |,name|, and not |list|
I'm guessing this is an XY problem, but I'm not sure how to approach this otherwise.
The |...| syntax is just one of the ways that the Lisp printer can print symbols that have characters in their name that need to be escaped (and that the reader can read symbols with those kinds of characters in their names):
(print (intern "foo"))
;=> |foo|
There are other ways, too, including escaping individual characters:
(print '|FOO|)
;=> FOO
(print '\f\o\o)
;=> |foo|
What you're trying to do is simply create a symbol whose name includes lower case letters. That's easy enough, as shown above. Part of your issue, though, is that you're getting as input a symbol whose name is full of capital letters, so you'll need to downcase first:
CL-USER> (symbol-name 'FOO)
;=> "FOO"
CL-USER> (intern (symbol-name 'FOO))
;=> FOO
CL-USER> (string-downcase (symbol-name 'FOO))
;=> "foo"
CL-USER> (intern (string-downcase (symbol-name 'FOO)))
;=> |foo|
In fact, because string-downcase takes string designators, not just strings, you can pass the symbol in directly:
CL-USER> (intern (string-downcase 'BaR))
;=> |bar|
So, after all that string processing, we can move to the macro.
It sounds like you're looking for something like this:
(defmacro defmal (name lambda-list &body body)
(let ((mal-name (intern (concatenate 'string "MAL-" (symbol-name name))))
(mal-norm (intern (string-downcase name))))
`(progn
(defun ,mal-name ,lambda-list
,#body)
(register-function ',mal-norm #',mal-name))))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(defmal list? (arg)
(eq (mal-type arg) 'list))))
(PROGN
(DEFUN MAL-LIST? (ARG) (EQ (MAL-TYPE ARG) 'LIST))
(REGISTER-FUNCTION '|list?| #'MAL-LIST?))
It's generally a good idea to avoid using format in generating symbol names, because the specific output can change, depending on other variables. E.g.:
(loop for case in '(:upcase :downcase :capitalize)
collect (let ((*print-case* case))
(format nil "~a" 'foo)))
;=> ("FOO" "foo" "Foo")
Instead, you can use concatenate with a string (or the symbol name of a symbol). Because the reader can also have different settings for case sensitivity, sometimes I'll even do (but not everyone likes this):
(concatenate 'string (symbol-name '#:mal-) (symbol-name name))
This way, if the reader does anything unusual (e.g., preserves case, so that the symbol name of mal- is "mal-), you can preserve it in your own generated symbol, too.
In addition to Joshua's detailed answer, consider using a function from the Alexandria library:
format-symbol is like format, but inside with-standard-io-syntax. Here, t stands for the current package and name is downcased:
(format-symbol t "mal-~(~A~)" name)
=> |mal-list|
symbolicate concatenates and interns in current package:
(symbolicate '#:mal- name)
You can end-up with either |MAL-LIST| or |mal-list| if your current readtable preserves case or not. For completeness, note that readtable-case can be set to the following values: :upcase, :downcase, :preserve or :invert (this one I find quite interesting).
Related
What is the fundamental difference in the functions defined using defun and setf as below and is one method preferred over another outside of style considerations?
Using defun:
* (defun myfirst (l)
(car l) )
MYFIRST
* (myfirst '(A B C))
A
Using setf:
* (setf (fdefinition 'myfirst) #'(lambda (l) (car l)))
#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (L)) {10021B477B}>
* (myfirst '(A B C))
A
If, as according to Wikipedia:
named functions are created by storing a lambda expression in a symbol using the defun macro
Using setf to create a variable in a different way requires the use of funcall:
* (defvar myfirst)
MYFIRST
* (setf myfirst (lambda (l) (car l)))
#<Interpreted Function (LAMBDA (X) (+ X X)) {48035001}>
* (funcall myfirst '(A B C))
A
My understanding is that this type of variable is different than the previous in that this variable is not found in the same namespace as the defun bound symbol as described in Why multiple namespaces?.
First of all, one should never underestimate the importance of style.
We write code not just for computers to run, but, much more importantly, for people to read.
Making code readable and understandable for people is a very important aspect of software development.
Second, yes, there is a big difference between (setf fdefinition) and defun.
The "small" differences are that defun can also set the doc string of the function name (actually, depending on how your imeplementation works, it might do that with lambda also), and creates a named block (seen in the macroexpansions below) which you would otherwise have to create yourself if you want to.
The big difference is that the compiler "knows" about defun and will process it appropriately.
E.g., if your file is
(defun foo (x)
(+ (* x x) x 1))
(defun bar (x)
(+ (foo 1 2 x) x))
then the compiler will probably warn you that you call foo in bar with the wrong number of arguments:
WARNING: in BAR in lines 3..4 : FOO was called with 3 arguments, but it requires 1
argument.
[FOO was defined in lines 1..2 ]
If you replace the defun foo with (setf (fdefinition 'foo) (lambda ...)), the compiler is unlikely to handle it as carefully. Moreover, you will probably get a warning along the lines of
The following functions were used but not defined:
FOO
You might want to examine what defun does in your implementation by macroexpanding it:
(macroexpand-1 '(defun foo (x) "doc" (print x)))
CLISP expands it to
(LET NIL (SYSTEM::REMOVE-OLD-DEFINITIONS 'FOO)
(SYSTEM::EVAL-WHEN-COMPILE
(SYSTEM::C-DEFUN 'FOO (SYSTEM::LAMBDA-LIST-TO-SIGNATURE '(X))))
(SYSTEM::%PUTD 'FOO
(FUNCTION FOO
(LAMBDA (X) "doc" (DECLARE (SYSTEM::IN-DEFUN FOO)) (BLOCK FOO (PRINT X)))))
(EVAL-WHEN (EVAL)
(SYSTEM::%PUT 'FOO 'SYSTEM::DEFINITION
(CONS '(DEFUN FOO (X) "doc" (PRINT X)) (THE-ENVIRONMENT))))
'FOO)
SBCL does:
(PROGN
(EVAL-WHEN (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) (SB-C:%COMPILER-DEFUN 'FOO NIL T))
(SB-IMPL::%DEFUN 'FOO
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA FOO
(X)
"doc"
(BLOCK FOO (PRINT X)))
(SB-C:SOURCE-LOCATION)))
The point here is that defun has a lot "under the hood", and for a reason. setf fdefinition is, on the other hand, more of "what you see is what you get", i.e., no magic involved.
This does not mean that setf fdefinition has no place in a modern lisp codebase. You can use it, e.g., to implement a "poor man's trace" (UNTESTED):
(defun trace (symbol)
(setf (get symbol 'old-def) (fdefinition symbol)
(fdefinition symbol)
(lambda (&rest args)
(print (cons symbol args))
(apply (get symbol 'old-def) args))))
(defun untrace (symbol)
(setf (fdefinition symbol) (get symbol 'old-def))
(remprop symbol 'odd-def))
I'm trying to write an ELisp macro to generate a multiple functions based on some common data. For example, when I want to compute the fn names I write something like (I'm ignoring hygiene for the moment, I'm passing a symbol literal into the macro so evaluation shouldn't matter):
(cl-defmacro def-fns (sym)
"SYM."
(let ((s1 (make-symbol (concat (symbol-name sym) "-1")))
(s2 (make-symbol (concat (symbol-name sym) "-2"))))
`(progn (defun ,s1 () (+ 1 2 3))
(defun ,s2 () "six"))))
which I expect to generate 2 fns when invoked, called foo-1 and foo-2.
I should then be able to invoke the macro and fns like so:
(def-fns foo)
(foo-1)
;; => 6
(foo-2)
;; -> "six
Even the macroexpansion of (def-fns foo) in Emacs suggests that this should be the case:
(progn
(defun foo-1 nil (+ 1 2 3))
(defun foo-2 nil "six"))
However, when I evaluate the def-fns definition and invoke it it does not generate those functions. Why is this the case? This technique works in Common Lisp and in Clojure (which have very similar macro systems), so why not in ELisp?
Your code would not work in CL either.
The problem is with make-symbol - it creates a new symbol, so that
(eq (make-symbol "A") (make-symbol "A"))
==> nil
This means that your macro creates the functions but binds them to symbols which you no longer have a handle on.
When you evaluate (foo-1), Emacs Lisp reader tries to find the function binding of the interned symbol foo-1, not the fresh uninterned symbol your macro created.
You need to use intern instead: it makes the symbol "generally available", so to speak:
(eq (intern "a") (intern "a))
==> t
So, the corrected code looks like this:
(defmacro def-fns (sym)
"SYM."
(let ((s1 (intern (concat (symbol-name sym) "-1")))
(s2 (intern (concat (symbol-name sym) "-2"))))
`(progn (defun ,s1 () (+ 1 2 3))
(defun ,s2 () "six"))))
(def-fns foo)
(foo-1)
==> 6
(foo-2)
==> "six"
Notes:
If you were using CL, the uninterned symbols would have been printed as #:foo-1 and the source of your problem would have been obvious to you.
It is exceedingly rare that you really need to use make-symbol. Usually, you want to use either intern or gensym.
I was toying around with macros and clos, where I created an "object" macro to create instances
(defmacro object (class &rest args)
`(make-instance ',class ,#args))
Now doing this, I also ended up kind of wanting to do something similar for accessor functions created by clos. Example:
(defclass person () ((name :accessor person-name :initarg :name)))
then creating the instance
(setf p1 (object person :name "tom"))
now to get the name from the object obviously I would call person-name, however just as with the object macro, I wanted to create a "gets" macro to do this. So ideally:
(gets person name p1) which then would return the name.
The problem then is the binding of person and name (person-name) and how to do that. Is there anyway to get those two arguments bound together in the macro? sort of like:
(defmacro gets (class var object)
`(,class-,var ,object))
I think I may have misunderstood the original intent. At first I thought you were asking how to generate the accessor names for the class definition, which third part of the answer addresses. After reading through a second time, it actually sounds like you want to generate a new symbol and call it with some argument. That's easy enough too, and is given in the second part of this answer. Both the second and third parts depend on being able to create a symbol with a name that's built from the names of other symbols, and that's what we start with.
"Concatenating" symbols
Each symbol has a name (a string) that you can obtain with symbol-name. You can use concatenate to create a new string from some old strings, and then use intern to get a symbol with the new name.
(intern (concatenate 'string
(symbol-name 'person)
"-"
(symbol-name 'name)))
;=> PERSON-NAME
Reconstructing an accessor name
(defmacro gets (class-name slot-name object)
(let ((accessor-name
(intern (concatenate 'string
(symbol-name class-name)
"-"
(symbol-name slot-name))
(symbol-package class-name))))
`(,accessor-name ,object)))
(macroexpand-1 '(gets person name some-person))
;=> (PERSON-NAME SOME-PERSON)
For a number of reasons, though, this isn't very robust. (i) You don't know whether or not the slot has an accessor of the form <class-name>-<slot-name>. (ii) Even if the slot does have an accessor of the form <class-name>-<slot-name>, you don't know what package it's in. In the code above, I made the reasonable assumption that it's the same as the package of the class name, but that's not at all required. You could have, for instance:
(defclass a:person ()
((b:name :accessor c:person-name)))
and then this approach wouldn't work at all. (iii) This doesn't work with inheritance very well. If you subclass person, say with north-american-person, then you can still call person-name with a north-american-person, but you can't call north-american-person-name with anything. (iv) This seems to be reïnventing slot-value. You can already access the value of a slot using the name of the slot alone with (slot-value object slot-name), and I don't see any reason that your gets macro shouldn't just expand to that. There you wouldn't have to worry about the particular name of the accessor (if it even has one), or the package of the class name, but just the actual name of the slot.
Generating accessor names
You just need to extract the names of the symbols and to generate a new symbol with the desired name.
If you want to automatically generate accessors with defstruct style names, you can do it like this:
(defmacro define-class (name direct-superclasses slots &rest options)
(flet ((%slot (slot)
(destructuring-bind (slot-name &rest options)
(if (listp slot) slot (list slot))
`(,slot-name ,#options :accessor ,(intern (concatenate 'string
(symbol-name name)
"-"
(symbol-name slot-name)))))))
`(defclass ,name ,direct-superclasses
,(mapcar #'%slot slots)
,#options)))
You can check that this produces the kind of code that you'd expect by looking at the macroexpansion:
(pprint (macroexpand-1 '(define-class person ()
((name :type string :initarg :name)
(age :type integer :initarg :age)
home))))
(DEFCLASS PERSON NIL
((NAME :TYPE STRING :INITARG :NAME :ACCESSOR PERSON-NAME)
(AGE :TYPE INTEGER :INITARG :AGE :ACCESSOR PERSON-AGE)
(HOME :ACCESSOR PERSON-HOME)))
And we can see that it works as expected:
(define-class person ()
((name :type string :initarg :name)
(age :type integer :initarg :age)
home))
(person-name (make-instance 'person :name "John"))
;=> "John"
Other comments on your code
(defmacro object (class &rest args)
`(make-instance ',class ,#args))
As Rainer pointed out this isn't very useful. For most cases, it's the same as
(defun object (class &rest args)
(apply 'make-instance class args))
except that you can (funcall #'object …) and (apply #'object …) with the function, but you can't with the macro.
Your gets macro isn't really any more useful than slot-value, which takes an object and the name of a slot. It doesn't require the name of the class, and it will work even if the class doesn't have a reader or accessor.
Don't (naïvely) create symbol names with format
I've been creating symbol names with concatenate and symbol-name. Sometimes you'll see people use format to construct the names, e.g., (format nil "~A-~A" 'person 'name), but that's prone to issues with capitalization settings that can be changed. For instance, in the following, we define a function foo-bar, and note that the format based approach fails, but the concatenate based approach works.
CL-USER> (defun foo-bar ()
(print 'hello))
FOO-BAR
CL-USER> (foo-bar)
HELLO
HELLO
CL-USER> (setf *print-case* :capitalize)
:Capitalize
CL-USER> (funcall (intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name 'foo) "-" (symbol-name 'bar))))
Hello
Hello
CL-USER> (format nil "~a-~a" 'foo 'bar)
"Foo-Bar"
CL-USER> (intern (format nil "~a-~a" 'foo 'bar))
|Foo-Bar|
Nil
CL-USER> (funcall (intern (format nil "~a-~a" 'foo 'bar)))
; Evaluation aborted on #<Undefined-Function Foo-Bar {1002BF8AF1}>.
The issue here is that we're not preserving the case of the symbol names of the arguments. To preserve the case, we need to explicitly extract the symbol names, rather than letting the print functions map the symbol name to some other string. To illustrate the problem, consider:
CL-USER> (setf (readtable-case *readtable*) :preserve)
PRESERVE
;; The symbol-names of foo and bar are "foo" and "bar", but
;; you're upcasing them, so you end up with the name "FOO-BAR".
CL-USER> (FORMAT NIL "~{~A~^-~}" (MAPCAR 'STRING-UPCASE '(foo bar)))
"FOO-BAR"
;; If you just concatenate their symbol-names, though, you
;; end up with "foo-bar".
CL-USER> (CONCATENATE 'STRING (SYMBOL-NAME 'foo) "-" (SYMBOL-NAME 'bar))
"foo-bar"
;; You can map symbol-name instead of string-upcase, though, and
;; then you'll get the desired result, "foo-bar"
CL-USER> (FORMAT NIL "~{~A~^-~}" (MAPCAR 'SYMBOL-NAME '(foo bar)))
"foo-bar"
This function creates symbols from string designators:
(defun symb (&rest args)
(intern (format nil "~{~a~^-~}" (mapcar #'string args))))
The function uses format, yet passes Joshua's test:
CL-USER> (symb 'foo :bar "BAZ")
FOO-BAR-BAZ
NIL
CL-USER> (defun foo-bar ()
(print 'hello))
FOO-BAR
CL-USER> (foo-bar)
HELLO
HELLO
CL-USER> (setf *print-case* :capitalize)
:Capitalize
CL-USER> (funcall (symb 'foo 'bar))
Hello
Hello
If you want your gets to use accessor methods:
(defmacro gets (class var object)
`(,(intern (format nil "~a-~a" (symbol-name class) (symbol-name var))) ,object))
In general, what you're trying to accomplish is not really useful. make-instance is a well known symbol, easily greppable, part of the standard and optimized by some implementations when the class name is constant. So with your object macro, you're just saving a few characters and a single-quote. Usually, one hides make-instance in specific cases where you don't want to provide a direct way to initialize instances, or more likely, when you want to provide layers of initialization (e.g. phases of initialization, Lisp slots and foreign objects).
PS: I remember vaguely that someone prominent in the standardization of Common Lisp argued in favor of always wrapping/hiding make-instance in a function (e.g. make-<class-name>), but I can't find either a reference or the reasoning.
PPS: Here's a rather old discussion (2004) about it in comp.lang.lisp (and another one from 2002). The main reasons people cite in favor of constructor functions are:
Required arguments; achievable at runtime instead of at compile-time with :initform (error ...) in a slot that requires a provided initial value
Generally, hide implementation details: class instance, structure instance, cons, something else
2.1. Not wanting to export the actual class name
2.2. Being able to return an instance of some other class, usually a subclass
Convenient shorthand for a specific class
I striked always, because it seems proponents to constructor functions for CLOS objects don't necessarily want to hide the protocol that make-instance follows (allocate-instance, initialize-instance → shared-initialize) to implementers or extenders of the API or framework, although they might want to hide it to the consumers of the API or framework.
For something faster, you might want to access slots directly, but that doesn't use accessor methods, and hence doesn't support side-effects, e.g. :before and :after methods:
(defmacro gets (class var object)
(let ((object-var (gensym)))
`(let ((,object-var ,object))
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0))
(type ,class ,object-var))
(slot-value ,object-var ',var))))
This might be a direct slot access on some implementations.
Finally, you also have with-slots and with-accessors in the standard.
Try playing with something like this:
(let ((a 'a)
(dash '-)
(b 'b))
`(,a,dash,b))
The other possibilities is to use intern, or more user friendly, alexandria's symbolicate.
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)
I would like to initiate dynamically a hash table with defmethod or defun using one of the arguments to create the name. For instance:
(defun foo (arg)
(let ((NAME (read-from-string (format nil "\*~S\*" arg))))
(defparameter NAME (make-hash-table))))
Of course, foo create hash table with the symbol NAME, instead of the value of NAME in let. What can I do to get the value of NAME to create this hash table?
General Remarks
It is almost always wrong to create global variables in functions.
It is also almost always wrong to create new symbols using read-from-string instead of intern.
Use a Macro
What you probably want is
(defmacro def-ht (name)
(let ((var (intern (concatenate 'string "*" (symbol-name name) "*")
(symbol-package name))))
`(defparameter ,var (make-hash-table))))
(def-ht foo)
Use a Function
You might be able to do it in a function too - by inspecting the macroexpansion of a defparameter form and placing the needed stuff in the function:
(defun make-ht-var (name)
(let ((var (intern (concatenate 'string "*" (symbol-name name) "*")
(symbol-package name))))
(setf (symbol-value var) (make-hash-table))
(proclaim (list var 'special))))
(make-ht-var 'foo)
Note that the argument to the function is quoted, but the argument to the macro is not.
You need to use a macro instead of a function. DEFPARAMETER will bind value of MAKE-HASH-TABLE to the symbol NAME because it evaluates at macro-expansion time which occurs earlier than run-time, which is when the function FOO binds the lexical value of NAME.
Look up the CL evaluation model for a deeper understanding.
(defmacro foo (arg)
(let ((name (read-from-string (format nil "*~S*" arg))))
`(defparameter ,name (make-hash-table))))
(foo "my-hash")
=> <hash-table 0x121>
*my-hash*
=> <hash-table 0x121>