I am trying to emulate the single namespace of scheme within common lisp, with a macro (based on Doug Hoyte's) that expands to a lambda, where every use of an f! symbol (similar to Doug Hoyte's o! and g! symbols) in the function position expands to the same expression, but with funcall added in the function position of each invocation. For example:
(fplambda (f!z x) (f!z x x))
would expand to:
(LAMBDA (F!Z X) (FUNCALL F!Z X X))
The macro currently looks like this:
(defmacro fplambda (parms &body body)
(let ((syms (remove-duplicates
(remove-if-not #'f!-symbol-p
(flatten body)))))
`(lambda ,parms
(macrolet ,(mapcar
(lambda (f)
`(,f (&rest parmlist) `(funcall ,',f ',#parmlist)))
syms))
,#body)))
but given the above input, it expands (as far as I can see) to this:
(LAMBDA (F!F X)
(MACROLET ((F!F (&REST PARMLIST) `(FUNCALL ,'F!F ',#PARMLIST))))
(F!F X X))
In the macrolet definition, F!F should not be quoted or unquoted, and parmlist should just be unquoted. What is going on?
Thanks in advance!
Your definition is mostly right. You just made two pretty simple mistakes. The first one being a mismatched paren. The macrolet does not include the body (in the output the macrolet and the body are at the same level of indentation).
As for the nested backquote, the only mistake is the quote before parmlist. Other than that everything else is correct. The comma and quote before F!F is actually correct. From the hyperspec:
"An implementation is free to interpret a backquoted form F1 as any form F2 that, when evaluated, will produce a result that is the same under equal as the result implied by the above definition". Since the inner backquote has not been expanded yet, it does not have to be free of quotes and unquotes. The expression `(,'x) is actually the same as `(x).
Nested backquotes are notoriously complicated. What is probably the easiest way to understand them is to read Steele's explanation of them.
Edit:
The answer to your question about whether it is possible to use a fplambda expression in the function position is no. From the part of the hyperspec that deals with the evaluation of code: "If the car of the compound form is not a symbol, then that car must be a lambda expression, in which case the compound form is a lambda form.". Since the car of the form, (fplambda ...), is not a lambda expression, your code is no longer valid Common Lisp code.
There is a workaround to this that I figured out, but it's kind of ugly. You can define a reader macro that will allow you to write something like ([fplambda ...] ...) and have it read as
((LAMBDA (&REST #:G1030) (APPLY (FPLAMBDA ...) #:G1030)) ...)
which would do what you want. Here is code that will allow you to do that:
(set-macro-character #\[ 'bracket-reader)
(set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\)))
(defun bracket-reader (stream char)
"Read in a bracket."
(declare (ignore char))
(let ((gargs (gensym)))
`(lambda (&rest ,gargs)
(apply ,(read-delimited-list #\] stream t)
,gargs))))
The only other solution I can think of would be to use some sort of code walker (I can't help you there).
Related
In this post, I ask tangentially why when I declare in SBCL
(defun a (&rest x)
x)
and then check what the function cell holds
(describe 'a)
COMMON-LISP-USER::A
[symbol]
A names a compiled function:
Lambda-list: (&REST X)
Derived type: (FUNCTION * (VALUES LIST &OPTIONAL))
Source form:
(LAMBDA (&REST X) (BLOCK A X))
I see this particular breakdown of the original function. Could someone explain what this output means? I'm especially confused by the last line
Source form:
(LAMBDA (&REST X) (BLOCK A X))
This is mysterious because for some reason not clear to me Lisp has transformed the original function into a lambda expression. It would also be nice to know the details of how a function broken down like this is then called. This example is SBCL. In Elisp
(symbol-function 'a)
gives
(lambda (&rest x) x)
again, bizarre. As I said in the other post, this is easier to understand in Scheme -- but that created confusion in the answers. So once more I ask, Why has Lisp taken a normal function declaration and seemingly stored it as a lambda expression?
I'm still a bit unclear what you are confused about, but here is an attempt to explain it. I will stick to CL (and mostly to ANSI CL), because elisp has a lot of historical oddities which just make things hard to understand (there is an appendix on elisp). Pre-ANSI CL was also a lot less clear on various things.
I'll try to explain things by writing a macro which is a simple version of defun: I'll call this defun/simple, and an example of its use will be
(defun/simple foo (x)
(+ x x))
So what I need to do is to work out what the expansion of this macro should be, so that it does something broadly equivalent (but simpler than) defun.
The function namespace & fdefinition
First of all I assume you are comfortable with the idea that, in CL (and elisp) the namespace of functions is different than the namespace of variable bindings: both languages are lisp-2s. So in a form like (f x), f is looked up in the namespace of function bindings, while x is looked up in the namespace of variable bindings. This means that forms like
(let ((sin 0.0))
(sin sin))
are fine in CL or elisp, while in Scheme they would be an error, as 0.0 is not a function, because Scheme is a lisp-1.
So we need some way of accessing that namespace, and in CL the most general way of doing that is fdefinition: (fdefinition <function name>) gets the function definition of <function name>, where <function name> is something which names a function, which for our purposes will be a symbol.
fdefinition is what CL calls an accessor: this means that the setf macro knows what to do with it, so that we can mutate the function binding of a symbol by (setf (fdefinition ...) ...). (This is not true: what we can access and mutate with fdefinition is the top-level function binding of a symbol, we can't access or mutate lexical function bindings, and CL provides no way to do this, but this does not matter here.)
So this tells us what our macro expansion needs to look like: we want to set the (top-level) definition of the name to some function object. The expansion of the macro should be like this:
(defun/simple foo (x)
x)
should expand to something involving
(setf (fdefinition 'foo) <form which makes a function>)
So we can write this bit of the macro now:
(defmacro defun/simple (name arglist &body forms)
`(progn
(setf (fdefinition ',name)
,(make-function-form name arglist forms))
',name))
This is the complete definition of this macro. It uses progn in its expansion so that the result of expanding it is the name of the function being defined, which is the same as defun: the expansion does all its real work by side-effect.
But defun/simple relies on a helper function, called make-function-form, which I haven't defined yet, so you can't actually use it yet.
Function forms
So now we need to write make-function-form. This function is called at macroexpansion time: it's job is not to make a function: it's to return a bit of source code which will make a function, which I'm calling a 'function form'.
So, what do function forms look like in CL? Well, there's really only one such form in portable CL (this might be wrong, but I think it is true), which is a form constructed using the special operator function. So we're going to need to return some form which looks like (function ...). Well, what can ... be? There are two cases for function.
(function <name>) denotes the function named by <name> in the current lexical environment. So (function car) is the function we call when we say (car x).
(function (lambda ...)) denotes a function specified by (lambda ...): a lambda expression.
The second of these is the only (caveats as above) way we can construct a form which denotes a new function. So make-function-form is going to need to return this second variety of function form.
So we can write an initial version of make-function-form:
(defun make-function-form (name arglist forms)
(declare (ignore name))
`(function (lambda ,arglist ,#forms)))
And this is enough for defun/simple to work:
> (defun/simple plus/2 (a b)
(+ a b))
plus/2
> (plus/2 1 2)
3
But it's not quite right yet: one of the things that functions defined by defun can do is return from themselves: they know their own name and can use return-from to return from it:
> (defun silly (x)
(return-from silly 3)
(explode-the-world x))
silly
> (silly 'yes)
3
defun/simple can't do this, yet. To do this, make-function-form needs to insert a suitable block around the body of the function:
(defun make-function-form (name arglist forms)
`(function (lambda ,arglist
(block ,name
,#forms))))
And now:
> (defun/simple silly (x)
(return-from silly 3)
(explode-the-world x))
silly
> (silly 'yes)
3
And all is well.
This is the final definition of defun/simple and its auxiliary function.
Looking at the expansion of defun/simple
We can do this with macroexpand in the usual way:
> (macroexpand '(defun/simple foo (x) x))
(progn
(setf (fdefinition 'foo)
#'(lambda (x)
(block foo
x)))
'foo)
t
The only thing that's confusing here is that, because (function ...) is common in source code, there's syntactic sugar for it which is #'...: this is the same reason that quote has special syntax.
It's worth looking at the macroexpansion of real defun forms: they usually have a bunch of implementation-specific stuff in them, but you can find the same thing there. Here's an example from LW:
> (macroexpand '(defun foo (x) x))
(compiler-let ((dspec::*location* '(:inside (defun foo) :listener)))
(compiler::top-level-form-name (defun foo)
(dspec:install-defun 'foo
(dspec:location)
#'(lambda (x)
(declare (system::source-level
#<eq Hash Table{0} 42101FCD5B>))
(declare (lambda-name foo))
x))))
t
Well, there's a lot of extra stuff in here, and LW obviously has some trick around this (declare (lambda-name ...)) form which lets return-from work without an explicit block. But you can see that basically the same thing is going on.
Conclusion: how you make functions
In conclusion: a macro like defun, or any other function-defining form, needs to expand to a form which, when evaluated, will construct a function. CL offers exactly one such form: (function (lambda ...)): that's how you make functions in CL. So something like defun necessarily has to expand to something like this. (To be precise: any portable version of defun: implementations are somewhat free to do implementation-magic & may do so. However they are not free to add a new special operator.)
What you are seeing when you call describe is that, after SBCL has compiled your function, it's remembered what the source form was, and the source form was exactly the one you would have got from the defun/simple macro given here.
Notes
lambda as a macro
In ANSI CL, lambda is defined as a macro whose expansion is a suitable (function (lambda ...)) form:
> (macroexpand '(lambda (x) x))
#'(lambda (x) x)
t
> (car (macroexpand '(lambda (x) x)))
function
This means that you don't have to write (function (lambda ...)) yourself: you can rely on the macro definition of lambda doing it for you. Historically, lambda wasn't always a macro in CL: I can't find my copy of CLtL1, but I'm pretty certain it was not defined as one there. I'm reasonably sure that the macro definition of lambda arrived so that it was possible to write ISLisp-compatible programs on top of CL. It has to be in the language because lambda is in the CL package and so users can't portably define macros for it (although quite often they did define such a macro, or at least I did). I have not relied on this macro definition above.
defun/simple does not purport to be a proper clone of defun: its only purpose is to show how such a macro can be written. In particular it doesn't deal with declarations properly, I think: they need to be lifted out of the block & are not.
Elisp
Elisp is much more horrible than CL. In particular, in CL there is a well-defined function type, which is disjoint from lists:
> (typep '(lambda ()) 'function)
nil
> (typep '(lambda ()) 'list)
t
> (typep (function (lambda ())) 'function)
t
> (typep (function (lambda ())) 'list)
nil
(Note in particular that (function (lambda ())) is a function, not a list: function is doing its job of making a function.)
In elisp, however, an interpreted function is just a list whose car is lambda (caveat: if lexical binding is on this is not the case: it's then a list whose car is closure). So in elisp (without lexical binding):
ELISP> (function (lambda (x) x))
(lambda (x)
x)
And
ELISP> (defun foo (x) x)
foo
ELISP> (symbol-function 'foo)
(lambda (x)
x)
The elisp intepreter then just interprets this list, in just the way you could yourself. function in elisp is almost the same thing as quote.
But function isn't quite the same as quote in elisp: the byte-compiler knows that, when it comes across a form like (function (lambda ...)) that this is a function form, and it should byte-compile the body. So, we can look at the expansion of defun in elisp:
ELISP> (macroexpand '(defun foo (x) x))
(defalias 'foo
#'(lambda (x)
x))
(It turns out that defalias is the primitive thing now.)
But if I put this definition in a file, which I byte compile and load, then:
ELISP> (symbol-function 'foo)
#[(x)
"\207"
[x]
1]
And you can explore this a bit further: if you put this in a file:
(fset 'foo '(lambda (x) x))
and then byte compile and load that, then
ELISP> (symbol-function 'foo)
(lambda (x)
x)
So the byte compiler didn't do anything with foo because it didn't get the hint that it should. But foo is still a fine function:
ELISP> (foo 1)
1 (#o1, #x1, ?\C-a)
It just isn't compiled. This is also why, if writing elisp code with anonymous functions in it, you should use function (or equivalently #'). (And finally, of course, (function ...) does the right thing if lexical scoping is on.)
Other ways of making functions in CL
Finally, I've said above that function & specifically (function (lambda ...)) is the only primitive way to make new functions in CL. I'm not completely sure that's true, especially given CLOS (almost any CLOS will have some kind of class instances of which are functions but which can be subclassed). But it does not matter: it is a way and that's sufficient.
DEFUN is a defining macro. Macros transform code.
In Common Lisp:
(defun foo (a)
(+ a 42))
Above is a definition form, but it will be transformed by DEFUN into some other code.
The effect is similar to
(setf (symbol-function 'foo)
(lambda (a)
(block foo
(+ a 42))))
Above sets the function cell of the symbol FOO to a function. The BLOCK construct is added by SBCL, since in Common Lisp named functions defined by DEFUN create a BLOCK with the same name as the function name. This block name can then be used by RETURN-FROM to enable a non-local return from a specific function.
Additionally DEFUN does implementation specific things. Implementations also record development information: the source code, the location of the definition, etc.
Scheme has DEFINE:
(define (foo a)
(+ a 10))
This will set FOO to a function object.
In Common Lisp, a macro definition must have been seen before the first use. This allows a macro to refer to itself, but does not allow two macros to refer to each other. The restriction is slightly awkward, but understandable; it makes the macro system quite a bit easier to implement, and to understand how the implementation works.
Is there any Lisp family language in which two macros can refer to each other?
What is a macro?
A macro is just a function which is called on code rather than data.
E.g., when you write
(defmacro report (x)
(let ((var (gensym "REPORT-")))
`(let ((,var ,x))
(format t "~&~S=<~S>~%" ',x ,var)
,var)))
you are actually defining a function which looks something like
(defun macro-report (system::<macro-form> system::<env-arg>)
(declare (cons system::<macro-form>))
(declare (ignore system::<env-arg>))
(if (not (system::list-length-in-bounds-p system::<macro-form> 2 2 nil))
(system::macro-call-error system::<macro-form>)
(let* ((x (cadr system::<macro-form>)))
(block report
(let ((var (gensym "REPORT-")))
`(let ((,var ,x)) (format t "~&~s=<~s>~%" ',x ,var) ,var))))))
I.e., when you write, say,
(report (! 12))
lisp actually passes the form (! 12) as the 1st argument to macro-report which transforms it into:
(LET ((#:REPORT-2836 (! 12)))
(FORMAT T "~&~S=<~S>~%" '(! 12) #:REPORT-2836)
#:REPORT-2836)
and only then evaluates it to print (! 12)=<479001600> and return 479001600.
Recursion in macros
There is a difference whether a macro calls itself in implementation or in expansion.
E.g., a possible implementation of the macro and is:
(defmacro my-and (&rest args)
(cond ((null args) T)
((null (cdr args)) (car args))
(t
`(if ,(car args)
(my-and ,#(cdr args))
nil))))
Note that it may expand into itself:
(macroexpand '(my-and x y z))
==> (IF X (MY-AND Y Z) NIL) ; T
As you can see, the macroexpansion contains the macro being defined.
This is not a problem, e.g., (my-and 1 2 3) correctly evaluates to 3.
However, if we try to implement a macro using itself, e.g.,
(defmacro bad-macro (code)
(1+ (bad-macro code)))
you will get an error (a stack overflow or undefined function or ...) when you try to use it, depending on the implementation.
Here's why mutually recursive macros can't work in any useful way.
Consider what a system which wants to evaluate (or compile) Lisp code for a slightly simpler Lisp than CL (so I'm avoiding some of the subtleties that happen in CL), such as the definition of a function, needs to do. It has a very small number of things it knows how to do:
it knows how to call functions;
it knows how to evaluate a few sorts of literal objects;
it has some special rules for a few sorts of forms – what CL calls 'special forms', which (again in CL-speak) are forms whose car is a special operator;
finally it knows how to look to see whether forms correspond to functions which it can call to transform the code it is trying to evaluate or compile – some of these functions are predefined but additional ones can be defined.
So the way the evaluator works is by walking over the thing it needs to evaluate looking for these source-code-transforming things, aka macros (the last case), calling their functions and then recursing on the results until it ends up with code which has none left. What's left should consist only of instances of the first three cases, which it then knows how to deal with.
So now think about what the evaluator has to do if it is evaluating the definition of the function corresponding to a macro, called a. In Cl-speak it is evaluating or compiling a's macro function (which you can get at via (macro-function 'a) in CL). Let's assume that at some point there is a form (b ...) in this code, and that b is known also to correspond to a macro.
So at some point it comes to (b ...), and it knows that in order to do this it needs to call b's macro function. It binds suitable arguments and now it needs to evaluate the definition of the body of that function ...
... and when it does this it comes across an expression like (a ...). What should it do? It needs to call a's macro function, but it can't, because it doesn't yet know what it is, because it's in the middle of working that out: it could start trying to work it out again, but this is just a loop: it's not going to get anywhere where it hasn't already been.
Well, there's a horrible trick you could do to avoid this. The infinite regress above happens because the evaluator is trying to expand all of the macros ahead of time, and so there's no base to the recursion. But let's assume that the definition of a's macro function has code which looks like this:
(if <something>
(b ...)
<something not involving b>)
Rather than doing the expand-all-the-macros-first trick, what you could do is to expand only the macros you need, just before you need their results. And if <something> turned out always to be false, then you never need to expand (b ...), so you never get into this vicious loop: the recursion bottoms out.
But this means you must always expand macros on demand: you can never do it ahead of time, and because macros expand to source code you can never compile. In other words a strategy like this is not compatible with compilation. It also means that if <something> ever turns out to be true then you'll end up in the infinite regress again.
Note that this is completely different to macros which expand to code which involves the same macro, or another macro which expands into code which uses it. Here's a definition of a macro called et which does that (it doesn't need to do this of course, this is just to see it happen):
(defmacro et (&rest forms)
(if (null forms)
't
`(et1 ,(first forms) ,(rest forms))))
(defmacro et1 (form more)
(let ((rn (make-symbol "R")))
`(let ((,rn ,form))
(if ,rn
,rn
(et ,#more)))))
Now (et a b c) expands to (et1 a (b c)) which expands to (let ((#:r a)) (if #:r #:r (et b c))) (where all the uninterned things are the same thing) and so on until you get
(let ((#:r a))
(if #:r
#:r
(let ((#:r b))
(if #:r
#:r
(let ((#:r c))
(if #:r
#:r
t))))))
Where now not all the uninterned symbols are the same
And with a plausible macro for let (let is in fact a special operator in CL) this can get turned even further into
((lambda (#:r)
(if #:r
#:r
((lambda (#:r)
(if #:r
#:r
((lambda (#:r)
(if #:r
#:r
t))
c)))
b)))
a)
And this is an example of 'things the system knows how to deal with': all that's left here is variables, lambda, a primitive conditional and function calls.
One of the nice things about CL is that, although there is a lot of useful sugar, you can still poke around in the guts of things if you like. And in particular, you still see that macros are just functions that transform source code. The following does exactly what the defmacro versions do (not quite: defmacro does the necessary cleverness to make sure the macros are available early enough: I'd need to use eval-when to do that with the below):
(setf (macro-function 'et)
(lambda (expression environment)
(declare (ignore environment))
(let ((forms (rest expression)))
(if (null forms)
't
`(et1 ,(first forms) ,(rest forms))))))
(setf (macro-function 'et1)
(lambda (expression environment)
(declare (ignore environment))
(destructuring-bind (_ form more) expression
(declare (ignore _))
(let ((rn (make-symbol "R")))
`(let ((,rn ,form))
(if ,rn
,rn
(et ,#more)))))))
There have been historic Lisp systems that allow this, at least in interpreted code.
We can allow a macro to use itself for its own definition, or two or more macros to mutually use each other, if we follow an extremely late expansion strategy.
That is to say, our macro system expands a macro call just before it is evaluated (and does that each time that same expression is evaluated).
(Such a macro expansion strategy is good for interactive development with macros. If you fix a buggy macro, then all code depending on it automatically benefits from the change, without having to be re-processed in any way.)
Under such a macro system, suppose we have a conditional like this:
(if (condition)
(macro1 ...)
(macro2 ...))
When (condition) is evaluated, then if it yields true, (macro1 ...) is evaluated, otherwise (macro2 ...). But evaluation also means expansion. Thus only one of these two macros is expanded.
This is the key to why mutual references among macros can work: we are able rely on the conditional logic to give us not only conditional evaluation, but conditional expansion also, which then allows the recursion to have ways of terminating.
For example, suppose macro A's body of code is defined with the help of macro B, and vice versa. And when a particular invocation of A is executed, it happens to hit the particular case that requires B, and so that B call is expanded by invocation of macro B. B also hits the code case that depends on A, and so it recurses into A to obtain the needed expansion. But, this time, A is called in a way that avoids requiring, again, an expansion of B; it avoids evaluating any sub-expression containing the B macro. Thus, it calculates the expansion, and returns it to B, which then calculates its expansion returns to the outermost A. A finally expands and the recursion terminates; all is well.
What blocks macros from using each other is the unconditional expansion strategy: the strategy of fully expanding entire top-level forms after they are read, so that the definitions of functions and macros contain only expanded code. In that situation there is no possibility of conditional expansion that would allow for the recursion to terminate.
Note, by the way, that a macro system which expands late doesn't recursively expand macros in a macro expansion. Suppose (mac1 x y) expands into (if x (mac2 y) (mac3 y)). Well, that's all the expansion that is done for now: the if that pops out is not a macro, so expansion stops, and evaluation proceeds. If x yields true, then mac2 is expanded, and mac3 is not.
I am trying to make a list of callback functions, which could look like this:
(("command1" . 'callback1)
("command2" . 'callback2)
etc)
I'd like it if I could could do something like:
(define-callback callback1 "command1" args
(whatever the function does))
Rather than
(defun callback1 (args)
(whatever the function does))
(add-to-list 'callback-info ("command1" . 'callback1))
Is there a convenient way of doing this, e.g., with macros?
This is a good example of a place where it's nice to use a two-layered approach, with an explicit function-based layer, and then a prettier macro layer on top of that.
Note the following assumes Common Lisp: it looks just possible from your question that you are asking about elisp, in which case something like this can be made to work but it's all much more painful.
First of all, we'll keep callbacks in an alist called *callbacks*:
(defvar *callbacks* '())
Here's a function which clears the alist of callbacks
(defun initialize-callbacks ()
(setf *callbacks* '())
(values)
Here is the function that installs a callback. It does this by searching the list to see if there is a callback with the given name, and if there is then replacing it, and otherwise installing a new one. Like all the functions in the functional layer lets us specify the test function which will let us know if two callback names are the same: by default this is #'eql which will work for symbols and numbers, but not for strings. Symbols are probably a better choice for the names of callbacks than strings, but we'll cope with that below.
(defun install-callback (name function &key (test #'eql))
(let ((found (assoc name *callbacks* :test test)))
(if found
(setf (cdr found) function)
(push (cons name function) *callbacks*)))
name)
Here is a function to find a callback, returning the function object, or nil if there is no callback with that name.
(defun find-callback (name &key (test #'eql))
(cdr (assoc name *callbacks* :test test)))
And a function to remove a named callback. This doesn't tell you if it did anything: perhaps it should.
(defun remove-callback (name &key (test #'eql))
(setf *callbacks* (delete name *callbacks* :key #'car :test test))
name)
Now comes the macro layer. The syntax of this is going to be (define-callback name arguments ...), so it looks a bit like a function definition.
There are three things to know about this macro.
It is a bit clever: because you can know at macro-expansion time what sort of thing the name of the callback is, you can decide then and there what test to use when installing the callback, and it does this. If the name is a symbol it also wraps a block named by the symbol around the body of the function definition, so it smells a bit more like a function defined by defun: in particular you can use return-from in the body. It does not do this if the name is not a symbol.
It is not quite clever enough: in particular it does not deal with docstrings in any useful way (it ought to pull them out of the block I think). I am not sure this matters.
The switch to decide the test uses expressions like '#'eql which reads as (quote (function eql)): that is to avoid wiring in functions into the expansion because functions are not externalisable objects in CL. However I am not sure I have got this right: I think what is there is safe but it may not be needed.
So, here it is
(defmacro define-callback (name arguments &body body)
`(install-callback ',name
,(if (symbolp name)
`(lambda ,arguments
(block ,name
,#body))
`(lambda ,arguments
,#body))
:test ,(typecase name
(string '#'string=)
(symbol '#'eql)
(number '#'=)
(t '#'equal))))
And finally here are two different callbacks being defined:
(define-callback "foo" (x)
(+ x 3))
(define-callback foo (x)
(return-from foo (+ x 1)))
These lists are called assoc lists in Lisp.
CL-USER 120 > (defvar *foo* '(("c1" . c1) ("c2" . c2)))
*FOO*
CL-USER 121 > (setf *foo* (acons "c0" `c1 *foo*))
(("c0" . C1) ("c1" . C1) ("c2" . C2))
CL-USER 122 > (assoc "c1" *foo* :test #'equal)
("c1" . C1)
You can write macros for that, but why? Macros are advanced Lisp and you might want to get the basics right, first.
Some issues with you example you might want to check out:
what are assoc lists?
what are useful key types in assoc lists?
why you don't need to quote symbols in data lists
variables are not quoted
data lists need to be quoted
You can just as easy create such lists for callbacks without macros. We can imagine a function create-callback, which would be used like this:
(create-callback 'callback1 "command1"
(lambda (arg)
(whatever the function does)))
Now, why would you use a macro instead of a plain function?
In the end, assisted by the responders above, I got it down to something like:
(defmacro mk-make-command (name &rest body)
(let ((func-sym (intern (format "mk-cmd-%s" name))))
(mk-register-command name func-sym)
`(defun ,func-sym (args &rest rest)
(progn
,#body))))
I've written a macro that works as intended. The problem is that it contains an eval. I'd like to get rid of it but try as I might, I can't find the correct combination of backquotes and commas to do so.
(defmacro mymacro (x &body body)
`(myothermacro ,(fun1 (eval x))
,#body))
Here myothermacro is a macro and fun1 is a function.
Here is the desired behaviour:
(defvar v 88)
(defun fun1 (z) (1+ z))
(defmacro mymacro (x &body body)
`(myothermacro ,(fun1 (eval x))
,#body))
(macroexpand-1 '(mymacro v 42 43 44))
=> (MYOTHERMACRO 89 42 43 44)
There is no amount of backquotes that can help you here. In a scenario you have more than one backquote there are equally as many quasiquote and thus you can get different layers of quoted data but not data evaluated more than once.
It's important to understand that a macro does not do anything runtime. Thus if you are to use a macro eg (mymacro variable (my-function x)) the macro function mymacro is fed variable and (my-function x) right away and the result in put in place. variable might not exist yet so evaluating it would be premature. When you define a function that uses the macro it will most likely expand the macros before storing the function. When in runtime there are no macros because they are all expanded, but this is the very first time it's possible to make conclusions if the arguments passed to the macro and its expansion actually makes sense according to the lexical environment and global bindings.
Perhaps if you added more information would there be a way to help you solve your actual problem since I get a feeling this is a XY problem.
You need to use use read-time evaluation if I got your idea right.
Something like this:
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
(defparameter *foo* "foo"))
(defmacro bar (arg)
`(list #.*foo* ,arg))
CL-USER> (macroexpand '(bar "bar"))
(LIST "foo" "bar")
You may be better with defconstant instead of defparameter because it's clearer about intentions.
I am having a problem with a lisp macro. I would like to create a macro
which generate a switch case according to an array.
Here is the code to generate the switch-case:
(defun split-elem(val)
`(,(car val) ',(cdr val)))
(defmacro generate-switch-case (var opts)
`(case ,var
,(mapcar #'split-elem opts)))
I can use it with a code like this:
(generate-switch-case onevar ((a . A) (b . B)))
But when I try to do something like this:
(defparameter *operators* '((+ . OPERATOR-PLUS)
(- . OPERATOR-MINUS)
(/ . OPERATOR-DIVIDE)
(= . OPERATOR-EQUAL)
(* . OPERATOR-MULT)))
(defmacro tokenize (data ops)
(let ((sym (string->list data)))
(mapcan (lambda (x) (generate-switch-case x ops)) sym)))
(tokenize data *operators*)
I got this error: *** - MAPCAR: A proper list must not end with OPS, but I don't understand why.
When I print the type of ops I get SYMBOL I was expecting CONS, is it related?
Also, for my function tokenize, how many times is the lambda evaluated (or the macro expanded)?
Thanks.
This makes no sense. You trying to use macros, where functions are sufficient.
What you want is similar to this:
(defun tokenize (data ops)
(mapcar (lambda (d)
(cdr (assoc d ops)))
(string->list data)))
CASE is a macro that expects a bunch of fixed clauses. It does not take clauses that are computed at runtime. If list data should drive computation, then use functions like ASSOC.
GENERATE-SWITCH-CASE is also an odd name, since the macro IS a switch case.
GENERATE-SWITCH-CASE also does expect a list as a second argument. But in TOKENIZE you call it with a symbol OPS. Remember, macros compute with Lisp source code.
Next, there are also no ARRAYs involved. Lisp has arrays, but in your example is none.
Typical advice:
if you want to write a MACRO, think again. Write it as a function.
if you still want to write a macro, Go to 1.