I can't figure, is there any way to put something like _ in erlang, for "unused value" in destructuring-bind?
For example there we have something like that:
(destructuring-bind ((_SNIPPET
(_TITLE . title)
(_DESCRIPTION . description)
_RESOURCE-ID (_VIDEO-ID . video-id)))) entry
(declare (ignore
_SNIPPET _TITLE _DESCRIPTION _RESOURCE-ID _VIDEO-ID))
(list video-id title description)))
It'll be great not to put specific variable for every unused value, and write something like that:
(destructuring-bind ((_
(_ . title)
(_ . description)
(_ (_ . video-id)))) entry
(list video-id title description)))
Is there any way to get such behavior with standart destructuring-bind or any other standart macros? Or I have to use some ML-like pattern matching library, and if so - which one?
It's not possible with DESTRUCTURING-BIND (you can't use a variable more than once, some compiler will complain). You can enumerate the variables, _1, _2, ... But then you have to ignore each of them.
LOOP can do it:
CL-USER 23 > (loop for ((a b nil c) nil d) in '(((1 2 3 4) 5 6)
((1 2 3 4) 5 6))
collect (list a b c d))
((1 2 4 6) (1 2 4 6))
NIL is used as the wildcard variable.
You can reuse the LOOP macro:
(defmacro match-bind (pattern object &body body)
`(loop with ,pattern = ,object
while nil
finally (return (progn ,#body))))
CL-USER 37 > (match-bind ((a b nil c) nil d)
'((1 2 3 4) 5 6)
(list a b c d))
(1 2 4 6)
You can use some LET-MATCH from some library. For example: https://github.com/schani/clickr/blob/master/let-match.lisp
There are probably more fancy versions.
There's nothing built into the language for this. Rainer Joswig's answer points out that loop can do some destructuring, but it doesn't do nearly as much. In an earlier version of this answer, I suggested traversing the destructuring lambda list and collecting a list of all the symbols that begin with _ and adding a declaration to the form to ignore those variables. A safer version replaces each one with a fresh variable (so that there are no repeated variables), and ignores them all. Thus something like
(destructuring-bind (_a (_b c)) object
c)
would expand into
(destructuring-bind (#:g1 (#:g2 c)) object
(declare (ignore #:g1 #:g2))
c)
This approach will work OK if you're only using the "data-directed" described in 3.4.4.1.1 Data-directed Destructuring by Lambda Lists. However, if you're using "lambda-list-directed" approach described in 3.4.4.1.2 Lambda-list-directed Destructuring by Lambda Lists, where you can use lambda-list keywords like &optional, &key, etc., then things are much more complicated, because you shouldn't replace variables in some parts of those. For instance, if you have
&optional (_x '_default-x)
then it might be OK to replace _x with something, but not _default-x, because the latter isn't a pattern. But, in Lisp, code is data, so we can still write a macro that maps over the destructuring-lambda-list and replaces only in locations that are patterns. Here's somewhat hairy code that does just that. This takes a function and a destructuring lambda list, and calls the function for each pattern variable in the lambda list, along with the type of the argument (whole, required, optional, etc.).
(defun map-dll (fn list)
(let ((result '())
(orig list)
(keywords '(&allow-other-keys &aux &body
&key &optional &rest &whole)))
(labels ((save (x)
(push x result))
(handle (type parameter)
(etypecase parameter
(list (map-dll fn parameter))
(symbol (funcall fn type parameter)))))
(macrolet ((parse-keyword ((&rest symbols) &body body)
`(progn
(when (and (not (atom list))
(member (first list) ',symbols))
(save (pop list))
,#body)))
(doparameters ((var) &body body)
`(do () ((or (atom list) (member (first list) keywords)))
(save (let ((,var (pop list)))
,#body)))))
(parse-keyword (&whole)
(save (handle :whole (pop list))))
(doparameters (required)
(handle :required required))
(parse-keyword (&optional)
(doparameters (opt)
(if (symbolp opt)
(handle :optional opt)
(list* (handle :optional (first opt)) (rest opt)))))
(when (and (atom list) (not (null list))) ; turn (... . REST)
(setq list (list '&rest list))) ; into (... &rest REST)
(parse-keyword (&rest &body)
(save (handle :rest (pop list))))
(parse-keyword (&key)
(doparameters (key)
(if (symbolp key)
(handle :key key)
(destructuring-bind (keyspec . more) key
(if (symbolp keyspec)
(list* (handle :key keyspec) more)
(destructuring-bind (keyword var) keyspec
(list* (list keyword (handle :key var)) more)))))))
(parse-keyword (&allow-other-keys))
(parse-keyword (&aux)
(doparameters (aux) aux))
(unless (null list)
(error "Bad destructuring lambda list: ~A." orig))
(nreverse result)))))
Using this, it's pretty easy to write a destructuring-bind* that replaces each pattern variable beginning with _ with a fresh variable that will be ignored in the body.
(defmacro destructuring-bind* (lambda-list object &body body)
(let* ((ignores '())
(lambda-list (map-dll (lambda (type var)
(declare (ignore type))
(if (and (> (length (symbol-name var)) 0)
(char= #\_ (char (symbol-name var) 0)))
(let ((var (gensym)))
(push var ignores)
var)
var))
lambda-list)))
`(destructuring-bind ,lambda-list ,object
(declare (ignore ,#(nreverse ignores)))
,#body)))
Now we should look at the expansions it produces:
(macroexpand-1
'(destructuring-bind* (&whole (a _ . b)
c _ d
&optional e (f '_f)
&key g _h
&aux (_i '_j))
object
(list a b c d e f g)))
;=>
(DESTRUCTURING-BIND
(&WHOLE (A #:G1041 &REST B) C #:G1042 D
&OPTIONAL E (F '_F)
&KEY G #:G1043
&AUX (_I '_J))
OBJECT
(DECLARE (IGNORE #:G1041 #:G1042 #:G1043))
(LIST A B C D E F G))
We haven't replaced anywhere we shouldn't (init forms, aux variables, etc.), but we've taken care of the places that we should. We can see this work in your example too:
(macroexpand-1
'(destructuring-bind* ((_ (_ . title)
(_ . description)
_
(_ . video-id)))
entry
(list video-id title description)))
;=>
(DESTRUCTURING-BIND ((#:G1044 (#:G1045 &REST TITLE)
(#:G1046 &REST DESCRIPTION)
#:G1047
(#:G1048 &REST VIDEO-ID)))
ENTRY
(DECLARE (IGNORE #:G1044 #:G1045 #:G1046 #:G1047 #:G1048))
(LIST VIDEO-ID TITLE DESCRIPTION))
Related
say I have two lists in lisp
(setq a '(p q))
(setq b '(1 2))
(car a) is p
(car b) is 1
now I want to define a symbol '(test p 1) but if I use below
(setq c '(test (car a) (car b)))
I get '(test (car a) (car b))
it is understandable, but I just want to know how can I substitute those (car a) to p and (car b) to 1 and form a new symbol of '(test p 1)
Thanks
First off, setq should not be used on unbound variables. You can use setq on established variables. Also for global variables you should use *earmuffs*.
(defparameter *a* '(p q))
(defparameter *b* '(1 2))
(car *a*) ; ==> p
(car *b*) ; ==> 1
The quote will use the quotes structure as data. That means everything expr where you write 'expr will never be evaluated beyond taking the data verbatim. New lists are created with cons. eg.
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* (cons 'test
(cons (car *a*)
(cons (car *b*)
'()))))
cons is the primitive, but CL has several other ways to create lists. eg. the same with the function list:
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* (list 'test (car *a*) (car *b*)))
The second the structure becomes more complex using quasiquote/unquote/unquote-splice is a lot easier.
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* `(test ,(car *a*) ,(car *b*)))
;; more complex example
(defmacro my-let ((&rest bindings) &body body)
`((lambda ,(mapcar #'car bindings)
,#body)
,(mapcar #'cadr bindings)))
(macroexpand-1 '(my-let ((a 10) (b 20)) (print "hello") (+ (* a a) (* b b))))
; ==> ((lambda (a b)
; (print "hello")
; (+ (* a a) (* b b)))
; (10 20))
Note that this is just sugar for the identical structure made with cons, list, and append. It might be optimized for minimal memory use so will share structure. eg. `(,x b c) in a procedure will do (cons x '(b c)) which means if you create two versions their cdr will be eq and you should refrain from mutating these parts.
If you want to make a list the function you want is list:
(list 'test (car a) (car b))`
Will be the list (test p 1).
Note that the purpose of quote (abbreviated ', so '(x) is identical to (quote (x))) is simply to tell the evaluator that what follows is literal data, not code. So, in (list 'test ...), which is the same as (list (quote test) ...) then quote tells the evaluator that test is being used as a literal datum, rather than as the name of a binding, and similarly '(p q) means 'this is a literal list with elements p and q', while (p q) means 'this is a form for evaluation, whose meaning depends on what p is')
To complete the answer from tfb, you can write
`(test ,(car a) ,(car b)
This is strictly the same of
(list 'test (car a) (car b)
I found myself calling lots of methods whose first argument is a complex object from a given class.
Whilst with-slots and with-accessors are useful, generic methods cannot be bound in this way. So I thought: if we could locally curry any functions, slots + accessors + generic functions + functions could all be addressed with the same construct.
Example of code I want to clean up:
(defun clox-string (scanner)
"Parse string into a token and add it to tokens"
(loop while (and (char/= #\" (peek scanner))
(not (at-end-p scanner)))
do
(if (char= #\Newline (peek scanner)) (incf (line scanner))
(advance scanner)))
(when (at-end-p scanner)
(clox.error::clox-error (line scanner) "Unterminated string.")
(return-from clox-string nil))
(advance scanner) ;; consume closing "
(add-token scanner 'STRING (subseq (source scanner)
(1+ (start scanner))
(1- (current scanner)))))
This would be cleaner (I'm imitating this in CL https://craftinginterpreters.com/scanning.html#reserved-words-and-identifiers but I often end up with more verbose and less readable code than in Java - specially when using this classes a lot). As in CL methods don't belong to classes you end up declaring such arguments over and over. This would be a bit better:
(defun clox-string (scanner)
"Parse string into a token and add it to tokens"
(let-curry scanner (peek at-end-p line source start current advance add-token)
(loop while (and (char/= #\" (peek))
(not (at-end-p)))
do
(if (char= #\Newline (peek)) (incf (line))
(advance)))
(when (at-end-p)
(clox.error::clox-error (line) "Unterminated string.")
(return-from clox-string nil))
(advance) ;; consume closing "
(add-token 'STRING (subseq (source)
(1+ (start))
(1- (current)))))
sketch of macro (not working):
;; Clearly not as I don't understand macros very well :) non-working code:
(defmacro let-curry (obj functions &body body)
"Locally curry all functions"
(let ((fn (gensym)))
`(flet (loop
for ,fn in ,functions
collect (list ,fn (&rest args)
(funcall ,fn ,obj args)))
,#body)))
EDIT (ADD): Notice that scanner is a class; start, source, line, etc., accessors to the slots with the same name; add-token a generic function of more than one argument, advance a generic method of one argument:
(defclass scanner ()
((source
:initarg :source
:accessor source)
...
(...)))
(defmethod advance ((scanner scanner)) ...)
(defmethod add-token ((scanner scanner) token-type) ...)
Simpler Example with error:
;; With
(defun add (x y) (+ x y))
(defun mul (x y) (* x y))
;; I want to have this:
(let-curry 1000 (add mul)
(print (add 3))
(print (mul 3)))
;; expanding to:
(flet ((add (y) (add 1000 y))
(mul (y) (mul 1000 y)))
(print (add 3))
(print (mul 3)))
;; but instead I'm getting:
Execution of a form compiled with errors.
Form:
(FLET (LOOP
FOR
#1=#:G777
IN
(ADD MUL
)
COLLECT
(LIST #1#
(&REST ARGS)
(FUNCALL #1# 1000 ARGS)))
(PRINT (ADD 3))
(PRINT (MUL 3)))
Compile-time error:
The FLET definition spec LOOP is malformed.
[Condition of type SB-INT:COMPILED-PROGRAM-ERROR]
Thanks! The basic question is: is it possible to make such macro work?
Your version didn't expand to what you wanted but:
(flet (loop for #:g8307 in (add mul) collect (list #:g8307 (&rest args) (funcall #:g8307 1000 args)))
(print (add 3)) (print (mul 3)))
Now the loop needs to be done at macro expansion time.
Here is a working version:
(defmacro let-curry (obj (&rest functions) &body body)
"Locally curry all functions"
`(flet ,(loop for fn in functions
collect `(,fn (&rest args)
(apply #',fn ,obj args)))
,#body))
;; test it using add and mul from OP
(macroexpand-1 '(let-curry 10 (add mul) (list (add 5) (mul 5))))
;; ==>
(flet ((add (&rest args) (apply #'add 10 args))
(mul (&rest args) (apply #'mul 10 args)))
(list (add 5) (mul 5)))
(let-curry 10 (add mul) (list (add 5) (mul 5)))
;; ==> (15 50)
Using gensym is only needed if you are in danger of shadowing/colliding something or to ensure evaluation order is least surprising, but in your case you actually want to shadow the original names with the curried version so it makes sense to just use the original name.
If you want to have more than one argument you should use apply
since you know the function is in the function namespace you need to call #'symbol instead of symbol.
I've done (&rest functions) instead of functions in the prototype that with bad usage (not a list) you get a compile time error and it is more preciese.
I'm currently experimenting with macro's in Lisp and I would like to write a macro which can handle syntax as follows:
(my-macro (args1) (args2))
The macro should take two lists which would then be available within my macro to do further processing. The catch, however, is that the lists are unquoted to mimic the syntax of some real Lisp/CLOS functions. Is this possible?
Currently I get the following error when attempting to do something like this:
Undefined function ARGS1 called with arguments ().
Thanks in advance!
I think you need to show what you have tried to do. Here is an example of a (silly) macro which has an argument pattern pretty much what yours is:
(defmacro stupid-let ((&rest vars) (&rest values) &body forms)
;; Like LET but with a terrible syntax
(unless (= (length vars) (length values))
(error "need exactly one value for each variable"))
(unless (every #'symbolp vars)
(error "not every variable is a symbol"))
`(let ,(mapcar #'list vars values) ,#forms))
Then
> (macroexpand '(stupid-let (a b c) (1 2 3) (+ a b c)))
(let ((a 1) (b 2) (c 3)) (+ a b c))
The above macro depends on defmacro's arglist-destructuring, but you don't have to do that:
(defun proper-list-p (l)
;; elaborate version with an occurs check, quadratic.
(labels ((plp (tail tails)
(if (member tail tails)
nil
(typecase tail
(null t)
(cons (plp (rest tail) (cons tail tails)))
(t nil)))))
(plp l '())))
(defmacro stupid-let (vars values &body forms)
;; Like LET but with a terrible syntax
(unless (and (proper-list-p vars) (proper-list-p values))
(error "need lists of variables and values"))
(unless (= (length vars) (length values))
(error "need exactly one value for each variable"))
(unless (every #'symbolp vars)
(error "not every variable is a symbol"))
`(let ,(mapcar #'list vars values) ,#forms))
As a slightly more useful example, here is a macro which is a bit like the CLOS with-slots / with-accessors macros:
(defmacro with-mindless-accessors ((&rest accessor-specifications) thing
&body forms)
"Use SYMBOL-MACROLET to define mindless accessors for THING.
Each accessor specification is either a symbol which names the symbol
macro and the accessor, or a list (macroname accessorname) which binds
macroname to a symbol macro which calls accessornam. THING is
evaluated once only."
(multiple-value-bind (accessors functions)
(loop for accessor-specification in accessor-specifications
if (symbolp accessor-specification)
collect accessor-specification into acs
and collect accessor-specification into fns
else if (and (proper-list-p accessor-specification)
(= (length accessor-specification) 2)
(every #'symbolp accessor-specification))
collect (first accessor-specification) into acs
and collect (second accessor-specification) into fns
else do (error "bad accessor specification ~A" accessor-specification)
end
finally (return (values acs fns)))
(let ((thingn (make-symbol "THING")))
`(let ((,thingn ,thing))
(symbol-macrolet ,(loop for accessor in accessors
for function in functions
collect `(,accessor (,function ,thingn)))
,#forms)))))
So now we can write this somewhat useless code:
> (with-mindless-accessors (car cdr) (cons 1 2)
(setf cdr 3)
(+ car cdr))
4
And this:
> (let ((l (list 1 2)))
(with-mindless-accessors (second) l
(setf second 4)
l))
(1 4)
I need to write the lisp macro in scheme (please on hygienic macros and syntax-rules etc) that will have function call and Alist as argument
I want function and macro that call that function to have syntax like this:
(foo '(10 (a (lambda () (display "10")) b (lambda () (display "20"))))
or macro without quotes.
My last code is working, but not sure if this is how you suppose to write function/macro like this. It seems that I need double backquote but don't know how to write it. (I'm right now reading On Lips by Paul Graham and he said that double backquote is very hard and only need by macros defining macros, but It seems that this is what I need).
(define (foo expr)
`(list ,(car expr)
(,(string->symbol "quasiquote") ,(pair-map (lambda (a b)
(cons (symbol->string a)
(list 'unquote b)))
(cadr expr)))))
(define-macro (bar expr)
(foo expr))
(define xx (bar (10 (a 20 b (lambda () (display "x") (newline))))))
;; (list 10 `((a . ,20) (b . ,(lambda () (display "x") (newline))))
(define bfn (cdr (assoc "b" (cadr xx)))))
(bfn)
;; "x"
and here is definition of pair-map
(define (pair-map fn seq-list)
"(seq-map fn list)
Function call fn argument for pairs in a list and return combined list with
values returned from function fn. It work like the map but take two items from list"
(let iter ((seq-list seq-list) (result '()))
(if (null? seq-list)
result
(if (and (pair? seq-list) (pair? (cdr seq-list)))
(let* ((first (car seq-list))
(second (cadr seq-list))
(value (fn first second)))
(if (null? value)
(iter (cddr seq-list) result)
(iter (cddr seq-list) (cons value result))))))))
with (string->symbol "quasiquote") I was able not to use double backquote, can this be written with double backquote/quasiquote? How this should look like?
I'm asking if this can be written different way so I can fix few issues in my own lisp interpreter (not sure if is working correctly but it seems that this final version works the same in guile).
I came up with shorter quasiquote version, but still it require inserting symbols:
(define (foo expr)
`(list ,(car expr)
(,'quasiquote ,(pair-map (lambda (a b)
`(,(symbol->string a) . (,'unquote ,b)))
(cadr expr)))))
When I compile the following code, SBCL complains that g!-unit-value and g!-unit are undefined. I'm not sure how to debug this. As far as I can tell, flatten is failing.
When flatten reaches the unquoted part of defunits, it seems like the entire part is being treated as an atom. Does that sound correct?
The following uses code from the book Let over Lambda:
Paul Graham Utilities
(defun symb (&rest args)
(values (intern (apply #'mkstr args))))
(defun mkstr (&rest args)
(with-output-to-string (s)
(dolist (a args) (princ a s))))
(defun group (source n)
(if (zerop n) (error "zero length"))
(labels ((rec (source acc)
(let ((rest (nthcdr n source)))
(if (consp rest)
(rec rest (cons (subseq source 0 n) acc))
(nreverse (cons source acc))))))
(if source (rec source nil) nil)))
(defun flatten (x)
(labels ((rec (x acc)
(cond ((null x) acc)
((atom x) (cons x acc))
(t (rec (car x) (rec (cdr x) acc))))))
(rec x nil)))
Let Over Lambda Utilities - Chapter 3
(defmacro defmacro/g! (name args &rest body)
(let ((g!-symbols (remove-duplicates
(remove-if-not #'g!-symbol-p
(flatten body)))))
`(defmacro ,name ,args
(let ,(mapcar
(lambda (g!-symbol)
`(,g!-symbol (gensym ,(subseq
(symbol-name g!-symbol)
2))))
g!-symbols)
,#body))))
(defun g!-symbol-p (symbol-to-test)
(and (symbolp symbol-to-test)
(> (length (symbol-name symbol-to-test)) 2)
(string= (symbol-name symbol-to-test)
"G!"
:start1 0
:end1 2)))
(defmacro defmacro! (name args &rest body)
(let* ((o!-symbols (remove-if-not #'o!-symbol-p args))
(g!-symbols (mapcar #'o!-symbol-to-g!-symbol o!-symbols)))
`(defmacro/g! ,name ,args
`(let ,(mapcar #'list (list ,#g!-symbols) (list ,#o!-symbols))
,(progn ,#body)))))
(defun o!-symbol-p (symbol-to-test)
(and (symbolp symbol-to-test)
(> (length (symbol-name symbol-to-test)) 2)
(string= (symbol-name symbol-to-test)
"O!"
:start1 0
:end1 2)))
(defun o!-symbol-to-g!-symbol (o!-symbol)
(symb "G!" (subseq (symbol-name o!-symbol) 2)))
Let Over Lambda - Chapter 5
(defun defunits-chaining (u units prev)
(if (member u prev)
(error "~{ ~a~^ depends on~}"
(cons u prev)))
(let ((spec (find u units :key #'car)))
(if (null spec)
(error "Unknown unit ~a" u)
(let ((chain (second spec)))
(if (listp chain)
(* (car chain)
(defunits-chaining
(second chain)
units
(cons u prev)))
chain)))))
(defmacro! defunits (quantity base-unit &rest units)
`(defmacro ,(symb 'unit-of- quantity)
(,g!-unit-value ,g!-unit)
`(* ,,g!-unit-value
,(case ,g!-unit
((,base-unit) 1)
,#(mapcar (lambda (x)
`((,(car x))
,(defunits-chaining
(car x)
(cons
`(,base-unit 1)
(group units 2))
nil)))
(group units 2))))))
This is kind of tricky:
Problem: you assume that backquote/comma expressions are plain lists.
You need to ask yourself this question:
What is the representation of a backquote/comma expression?
Is it a list?
Actually the full representation is unspecified. See here: CLHS: Section 2.4.6.1 Notes about Backquote
We are using SBCL. See this:
* (setf *print-pretty* nil)
NIL
* '`(a ,b)
(SB-INT:QUASIQUOTE (A #S(SB-IMPL::COMMA :EXPR B :KIND 0)))
So a comma expression is represented by a structure of type SB-IMPL::COMMA. The SBCL developers thought that this representation helps when such backquote lists need to be printed by the pretty printer.
Since your flatten treats structures as atoms, it won't look inside...
But this is the specific representation of SBCL. Clozure CL does something else and LispWorks again does something else.
Clozure CL:
? '`(a ,b)
(LIST* 'A (LIST B))
LispWorks:
CL-USER 87 > '`(a ,b)
(SYSTEM::BQ-LIST (QUOTE A) B)
Debugging
Since you found out that somehow flatten was involved, the next debugging steps are:
First: trace the function flatten and see with which data it is called and what it returns.
Since we are not sure what the data actually is, one can INSPECT it.
A debugging example using SBCL:
* (defun flatten (x)
(inspect x)
(labels ((rec (x acc)
(cond ((null x) acc)
((atom x) (cons x acc))
(t (rec (car x) (rec (cdr x) acc))))))
(rec x nil)))
STYLE-WARNING: redefining COMMON-LISP-USER::FLATTEN in DEFUN
FLATTEN
Above calls INSPECT on the argument data. In Common Lisp, the Inspector usually is something where one can interactively inspect data structures.
As an example we are calling flatten with a backquote expression:
* (flatten '`(a ,b))
The object is a proper list of length 2.
0. 0: SB-INT:QUASIQUOTE
1. 1: (A ,B)
We are in the interactive Inspector. The commands now available:
> help
help for INSPECT:
Q, E - Quit the inspector.
<integer> - Inspect the numbered slot.
R - Redisplay current inspected object.
U - Move upward/backward to previous inspected object.
?, H, Help - Show this help.
<other> - Evaluate the input as an expression.
Within the inspector, the special variable SB-EXT:*INSPECTED* is bound
to the current inspected object, so that it can be referred to in
evaluated expressions.
So the command 1 walks into the data structure, here a list.
> 1
The object is a proper list of length 2.
0. 0: A
1. 1: ,B
Walk in further:
> 1
The object is a STRUCTURE-OBJECT of type SB-IMPL::COMMA.
0. EXPR: B
1. KIND: 0
Here the Inspector tells us that the object is a structure of a certain type. That's what we wanted to know.
We now leave the Inspector using the command q and the flatten function continues and returns a value:
> q
(SB-INT:QUASIQUOTE A ,B)
For anyone else who is trying to get defmacro! to work on SBCL, a temporary solution to this problem is to grope inside the unquote structure during the flatten procedure recursively flatten its contents:
(defun flatten (x)
(labels ((flatten-recursively (x flattening-list)
(cond ((null x) flattening-list)
((eq (type-of x) 'SB-IMPL::COMMA) (flatten-recursively (sb-impl::comma-expr x) flattening-list))
((atom x) (cons x flattening-list))
(t (flatten-recursively (car x) (flatten-recursively (cdr x) flattening-list))))))
(flatten-recursively x nil)))
But this is horribly platform dependant. If I find a better way, I'll post it.
In case anyone's still interested in this one, here are my three cents. My objection to the above modification of flatten is that it might be more naturally useful as it were originally, while the problem with representations of unquote is rather endemic to defmacro/g!. I came up with a not-too-pretty modification of defmacro/g! using features to decide what to do. Namely, when dealing with non-SBCL implementations (#-sbcl) we proceed as before, while in the case of SBCL (#+sbcl) we dig into the sb-impl::comma structure, use its expr attribute when necessary and use equalp in remove-duplicates, as we are now dealing with structures, not symbols. Here's the code:
(defmacro defmacro/g! (name args &rest body)
(let ((syms (remove-duplicates
(remove-if-not #-sbcl #'g!-symbol-p
#+sbcl #'(lambda (s)
(and (sb-impl::comma-p s)
(g!-symbol-p (sb-impl::comma-expr s))))
(flatten body))
:test #-sbcl #'eql #+sbcl #'equalp)))
`(defmacro ,name ,args
(let ,(mapcar
(lambda (s)
`(#-sbcl ,s #+sbcl ,(sb-impl::comma-expr s)
(gensym ,(subseq
#-sbcl
(symbol-name s)
#+sbcl
(symbol-name (sb-impl::comma-expr s))
2))))
syms)
,#body))))
It works with SBCL. I have yet to test it thoroughly on other implementations.