Could someone please have a brief explanation on (defadvice ...), I'm not getting when is the suitable context to use it, seems it's not common in C/C++/Java languages? Such as the example shown in the figure attached. Many thanks.
Advising a function (whether using defadvice or the more recent advice-add etc.) is an alternative to redefining it.
If you are not the author of a function, and if it might already be used in various places beyond your code, you can either redefine it or advise it, and thereafter each use of that function will use your redefinition or your advice. And this is reversible: you can disable your advice.
Redefining a function does not, in general, play well with other libraries, which themselves might want to redefine or extend it in some way.
The point of advice is that it allows multiple libraries to alter or enhance a function definition in a reasonably controlled way, so that there is less chance of the different libraries stepping on each others' toes. Or at least so that it is easy to remove the effect of any of the library changes to the function.
Related
I am new to Emacs Lisp and the feeling is like it lacks strictness (and namespaces, and more...).
To be more comfortable with it I need a
way to make interpreter/byte compiler complain a lot if I use deprecated or obsolete function or variable (even better - hide them). Why this is not looks so simple and removing corresponding .el packages will not work is obvious - they may be needed by some legacy code.
Also, if it is possible, turning off all aliases would be nice. In my opinion they are there only for backwards compatibility, which I do not need. Because of setting this one globally can ruin something, I hope there is something like use strict in JavaScript, which can be applied to the inner body, so the effect is neatly localized.
Do not get me wrong, I think that global namespace of the Elisp is like a dump and if it could be any cleaner, why not?
To put in one sentence: how to make Elisp global namespace obsoleteless and deprecateless, as slim as possible?
I don't know of an Emacs Lisp linter that is built in to Emacs.
I do two things for my own code to try to ensure some level of cleanliness.
First, I make sure that byte-compiling the code doesn't give any errors or warnings. The byte compiler does a certain amount of checking.
Second, I enable lexical binding. This lets the byte compiler detect a few more possible warnings.
This is about the best you can do with the built-in tools. If you want to go further you could write your own tree walker to perform whatever other tests you like.
I have seen one answer of How does Lisp let you redefine the language itself?
Stack Overflow question (answered by Noah Lavine):
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.
After reading this I am curious about whether there are "whole-program-transforming macros" in Lisp or Scheme (or some other language).
If not then why?
It is not useful and never required?
Same thing could be achieved by some other ways?
It is not possible to implement it even in Lisp?
It is possible, but not tried or implemented ever?
Update
One kind of use case
e.g.
As in stumpwm code
here are some functions all in different lisp source files
uses a dynamic/global defvar variable *screen-list* that is defined in primitives.lisp , but used in screen.lisp, user.lisp, window.lisp.
(Here each files have functions, class, vars related to one aspect or object)
Now I wanted to define these functions under the closure where
*screen-list* variable available by let form, it should not be
dynamic/global variable, But without moving these all functions into
one place (because I do not want these functions to lose place from their
related file)
So that this variable will be accessible to only these functions.
Above e.g. equally apply to label and flet, so that it will further possible
that we could make it like that only required variable, function will be available,
to those who require it.
Note one way might be
implement and use some macro defun_with_context for defun where first argument is
context where let, flet variables definend.
But apart from it could it be achieved by reader-macro as
Vatine and Gareth Rees answered.
You quoted Noah Lavine as saying:
A macro can only take a single subtree of your code, and generate a single subtree to replace it
This is the case for ordinary macros, but reader macros get access to the input stream and can do whatever they like with it.
See the Hyperspec section 2.2 and the set-macro-character function.
In Racket, you can implement whole-program-transforming macros. See the section in the documentation about defining new languages. There are many examples of this in Racket, for example the lazy language and Typed Racket.
Off the top of my head, a few approaches:
First, you can. Norvig points out that:
We can write a compiler as a set of macros.
so you can transform an entire program, if you want to. I've only seen it done rarely, because typically the intersection between "things you want to do to every part of your program" and "things that you need macro/AST-type transformations for" is a pretty small set. One example is Parenscript, which transforms your Lisp code ("an extended subset of CL") into Javascript. I've used it to compile entire files of Lisp code into Javascript which is served directly to web clients. It's not my favorite environment, but it does what it advertises.
Another related feature is "advice", which Yegge describes as:
Great systems also have advice. There's no universally accepted name for this feature. Sometimes it's called hooks, or filters, or aspect-oriented programming. As far as I know, Lisp had it first, and it's called advice in Lisp. Advice is a mini-framework that provides before, around, and after hooks by which you can programmatically modify the behavior of some action or function call in the system.
Another is special variables. Typically macros (and other constructs) apply to lexical scope. By declaring a variable to be special, you're telling it to apply to dynamic scope (I think of it as "temporal scope"). I can't think of any other language that lets you (the programmer) choose between these two. And, apart from the compiler case, these two really span the space that I'm interested in as a programmer.
A typical approach is to write your own module system. If you just want access to all the code, you can have some sort of pre-processor or reader extension wrap source files with your own module annotation. If you then write your own require or import form, you will ultimately be able to see all the code in scope.
To get started, you could write your own module form that lets you define several functions which you then compile in some clever way before emitting optimized code.
There's always the choice of using compiler macros (they can do whole-function transformation based on a lew of criteria, but shouldn't change the value returned, as that would be confusing).
There's reader macros, they transform the input "as it is read" (or "before it is read", if you prefer). I haven't done much large-scale reader-macro hacking, but I have written some code to allow elisp sourec to be (mostly) read in Common Lisp, with quite a few subtle differences in syntactic sugar between the two.
I believe those sorts of macros are called code-walking macros. I haven't implemented a code walker myself, so I am not familiar with the limits.
In Common LISP, at least, you may wrap top-level forms in PROGN and they still retain their status as top-level forms (see CLTL2, section 5.3). Therefore, the limitation of a macro generating a single subtree is not much of a limitation since it could wrap any number of resulting subtrees within PROGN. This makes whole-program macros quite possible.
E.g.
(my-whole-program-macro ...)
= expands to =>
(progn
(load-system ...)
(defvar ...)
(defconstant ...)
(defmacro ...)
(defclass ...)
(defstruct ...)
(defun ...)
(defun ...)
...
)
I wrote a Lisp function earlier that had an error. The first challenge was to figure out how to view the function again. That challenge is solved. Now that I see WHAT I have done wrong, I want to modify the contents of the defined function without rewriting the whole thing?
Seems like as intelligent as Lisp is, there HAS to be a way to do this, I just don't know what it is because I am fairly new to the language. Can this be done?
Judging from the question, I think that you have a strange setup. It seems to indicate that you are writing your functions directly at the REPL. Don't do that.
The usual setup is to have an IDE (for example, Emacs with Slime) where you edit a source file, and then "send" top-level forms (like function definitions) to the REPL.
Every useful REPL has a history functionality. It allows you to move in the history of your input backwards and forwards.
When I write code in the REPL simple keystrokes like m-p gets back earlier code. Some IDEs might even be able to locate source code in a Lisp listener with m-. .
In most REPLS you can also search incrementally backwards.
If you want a log of your input use the function DRIBBLE..
There are some more options, like retrieving the code from the function - when a Lisp IDE supports that.
There is the advice functionality in many Lisps, which lets you run additional code before or after or around an existing function. But the comment is right, why wouldn't you rewrite a function if you're still learning and trying things out? Do they charge you by the compile cycle?
I can read the documentation, so I'm not asking for a cut-and-paste of that.
I'm trying to understand the motivation for this function.
When would I want to use it?
The documentation in the Emacs lisp manual does have some example situations that seem to answer your question (as opposed to the doc string).
From looking at the Emacs source code, eval-and-compile is used to quiet the compiler, to make macros/functions available during compilation (and evaluation), or to make feature/version specific variants of macros/functions available during compilation.
One usage I found helpful to see was in ezimage.el. In there, an if statement was put inside the eval-and-compile to conditionally define macros depending on whether the package was compiled/eval'ed in Emacs or XEmacs, and additionally whether a particular feature was present. By wrapping that conditional inside the eval-and-compile you enable the appropriate macro usage during compilation. A similar situation can be found in mwheel.el.
Similarly, if you want to define a function via fset and have it available during compilation, you need to have the call to fset wrapped with eval-and-compile because otherwise the symbol -> function association isn't available until the file is evaluated (because compilation of a call to fset just optimizes the assignment, it doesn't actually do the assignment). Why would you want this assignment during compilation? To quiet the compiler. Note: this is just my re-wording of what is in the elisp documentation.
I did notice a lot of uses in Emacs code which just wrapped calls to require, which sounds redundant when you read the documentation. I'm at a loss as to how to explain those.
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.