Clojure's ->> macro thread the form from the last argument, when -> form from the first.
user=> (->> a (+ 5) (let [a 5]))
10
However, I get an exception when I used the operations exchanged.
user=> (-> a (let [a 5]) (+ 5))
CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: let requires a vector for its binding in user:1, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1:7)
Furthermore, I expect these two operations will get me the same results, which is not.
user=> (-> 0 (Math/cos) (Math/sin))
0.8414709848078965
user=> (->> 0 (Math/sin) (Math/cos))
1.0
What's wrong? How's the -> and ->> macros work?
The -> macro inserts the argument as the first argument for the given function, not giving the argument to the last function.
Likewise ->> inserts as the last argument.
user=> (macroexpand '(-> x (- 1)))
(- x 1)
user=> (macroexpand '(->> x (- 1)))
(- 1 x)
Two simple examples:
user=> (-> 1 (- 1) (- 2))
-2
user=> (->> 1 (- 1) (- 2))
2
As for the first example, -2 == (- (- 1 1) 2), and for the second 2 == (- 2 (-1 1))
As a result, we get the same results for the unary functions.
user=> (macroexpand '(-> 0 Math/sin Math/cos))
(. Math cos (clojure.core/-> 0 Math/sin))
user=> (macroexpand '(->> 0 Math/sin Math/cos))
(. Math cos (clojure.core/->> 0 Math/sin))
So, only ->> makes sense in the question.
user=> (macroexpand '(->> a (+ 5) (let [a 5])))
(let* [a 5] (clojure.core/->> a (+ 5)))
user=> (macroexpand '(-> a (+ 5) (let [a 5])))
IllegalArgumentException let requires a vector for its binding in user:1 clojure.core/let (core.clj:4043)
Related
So using common lisp, I want to be able to do something of the sorts of:
(defmacro foo (count &rest someExpression)
`(do
((,count 0 (+ ,count 1)))
((= ,count 5) T)
`(eval ,someExpression)
)
)
(foo (print 1) temp)
With the result of it printing 1 5 times. I do not want to simply call (print 1) directly, but by passing the expression through a macro parameter and calling it via the macro. In other words, the macro foo should handle any expression(s) as input and run it. This case does not seem to work.
Edited to clarify an explicit script and intended function.
Starting with your recent version, which is at least a reasonable candidate for a macro unlike the older one:
(defmacro foo (someExpression count-var)
`(do ((,count-var 0 (+ ,count 1)))
((= ,count-var 5) T)
`(eval (,someExpression))))
Well what is the expansion of (foo (print 1) c)?
(foo (print 1) x)
-> (do ((x 0 (+ x 1))) ((= x 5) t)
`(eval (,someexpression)))
Well, that's a disaster: what is that nested backquote doing? Let's just remove it:
(defmacro foo (someExpression count-var)
`(do ((,count-var 0 (+ ,count 1)))
((= ,count-var 5) T)
(eval (,someExpression))))
(foo (print 1) x)
-> (do ((x 0 (+ x 1))) ((= x 5) t)
(eval ((print 1))))
That's less disastrous, but the eval form is entirely bogus. We can make that 'work' by changing it to be at least syntactically legal:
(defmacro foo (someExpression count)
`(do ((,count 0 (+ ,count 1)))
((= ,count 5) T)
(eval ,someExpression)))
And now
(foo (print 1) x)
-> (do ((x 0 (+ x 1))) ((= x 5) t)
(eval (print 1)))
And this will 'work' but it will work purely by coincidence: because (print 1) returns 1 and the value of 1 is 1.
(foo (print 'foo) x)
-> (do ((x 0 (+ x 1))) ((= x 5) t)
(eval (print 'foo)))
and that's a run-time error.
But ... why are you using eval? eval is a terrible, terrible solution to almost any problem you can think of, unless the solution to the problem is called 'code injection attack', and in this case it's not just terrible: it's wrong. So we just remove it.
(defmacro foo (someExpression count)
`(do ((,count 0 (+ ,count 1)))
((= ,count 5) T)
,someExpression))
And now
(foo (print 'foo) x)
-> (do ((x 0 (+ x 1))) ((= x 5) t)
(print 'foo))
Which looks like the code transformation we want. So, finally:
> (foo (print 'foo) x)
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
t
Which is, finally, fine. And this works:
> (foo (print x) x)
0
1
2
3
4
t
As with yet another edit to the question it probably is more useful to put the variable name first and allow a bunch of expressions:
(defmacro foo (count-var &body forms)
`(do ((,count-var 0 (+ ,count-var 1)))
((= ,count-var 5))
,#forms))
This will now allow multiple expressions in the body. And we could go further: we could allow it to specify the number of iterations and the return value`:
(defmacro foo ((count-var &optional (count 1) (value 'nil)) &body forms)
`(do ((,count-var 0 (1+ ,count-var)))
((= ,count-var ,count) ,value)
,#forms))
And now
> (foo (x 2)
(print x)
(print (* x 2)))
0
0
1
2
nil
Well, the name of this macro is dotimes of course.
I have two lists: (1 2 3) and (a b) and I need to create something like this (1 2 3 1 2 3). The result is a concatenation of the first list as many times as there are elements in the second. I should use some of the functions (maplist/mapcar/mapcon, etc.). This is exactly what I need, although I need to pass first list as argument:
(mapcan #'(lambda (x) (list 1 2 3)) (list 'a 'b))
;=> (1 2 3 1 2 3)
When I try to abstract it into a function, though, Allegro freezes:
(defun foo (a b)
(mapcan #'(lambda (x) a) b))
(foo (list 1 2 3) (list 'a 'b))
; <freeze>
Why doesn't this definition work?
There's already an accepted answer, but I think some more explanation about what's going wrong in the original code is in order. mapcan applies a function to each element of a list to generate a bunch of lists which are destructively concatenated together. If you destructively concatenate a list with itself, you get a circular list. E.g.,
(let ((x (list 1 2 3)))
(nconc x x))
;=> (1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 ...)
Now, if you have more concatenations than one, you can't finish, because to concatenate something to the end of a list requires walking to the end of the list. So
(let ((x (list 1 2 3)))
(nconc (nconc x x) x))
; ----------- (a)
; --------------------- (b)
(a) terminates, and returns the list (1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 ...), but (b) can't terminate since we can't get to the end of (1 2 3 1 2 3 ...) in order to add things to the end.
Now that leaves the question of why
(defun foo (a b)
(mapcan #'(lambda (x) a) b))
(foo (list 1 2 3) '(a b))
leads to a freeze. Since there are only two elements in (a b), this amounts to:
(let ((x (list 1 2 3)))
(nconc x x))
That should terminate and return an infinite list (1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 ...). In fact, it does. The problem is that printing that list in the REPL will hang. For instance, in SBCL:
CL-USER> (let ((x (list 1 2 3)))
(nconc x x))
; <I manually stopped this, because it hung.
CL-USER> (let ((x (list 1 2 3)))
(nconc x x) ; terminates
nil) ; return nil, which is easy to print
NIL
If you set *print-circle* to true, you can see the result from the first form, though:
CL-USER> (setf *print-circle* t)
T
CL-USER> (let ((x (list 1 2 3)))
(nconc x x))
#1=(1 2 3 . #1#) ; special notation for reading and
; writing circular structures
The simplest way (i.e., fewest number of changes) to adjust your code to remove the problematic behavior is to use copy-list in the lambda function:
(defun foo (a b)
(mapcan #'(lambda (x)
(copy-list a))
b))
This also has an advantage over a (reduce 'append (mapcar ...) :from-end t) solution in that it doesn't necessarily allocate an intermediate list of results.
You could
(defun f (lst1 lst2)
(reduce #'append (mapcar (lambda (e) lst1) lst2)))
then
? (f '(1 2 3) '(a b))
(1 2 3 1 2 3)
Rule of thumb is to make sure the function supplied to mapcan (and destructive friends) creates the list or else you'll make a loop. The same applies to arguments supplied to other destructive functions. Usually it's best if the function has made them which makes it only a linear update.
This will work:
(defun foo (a b)
(mapcan #'(lambda (x) (copy-list a)) b))
Here is some alternatives:
(defun foo (a b)
;; NB! apply sets restrictions on the length of b. Stack might blow
(apply #'append (mapcar #'(lambda (x) a) b))
(defun foo (a b)
;; uses loop macro
(loop for i in b
append a))
I really don't understand why b cannot be a number? You're really using it as church numbers so I think I would have done this instead:
(defun x (list multiplier)
;; uses loop
(loop for i from 1 to multiplier
append list))
(x '(a b c) 0) ; ==> nil
(x '(a b c) 1) ; ==> (a b c)
(x '(a b c) 2) ; ==> (a b c a b c)
;; you can still do the same:
(x '(1 2 3) (length '(a b))) ; ==> (1 2 3 1 2 3)
I am trying to write a function that takes one or more integers and returns a list of all the arguments that have the same even-odd parity as the first argument, for example
(same-parity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)->(1 3 5 7)
(same-parity 2 3 4 5 6)->(2 4 6).
my code is
(define (same-parity g . w)
(define (iter-parity items)
(if (= (length items) 1)
(if (= (remainder items 2) (remainder g 2))
item
'())
(if (= (remainder g 2) (remainder (car items) 2))
(cons (car items) (iter-parity (cdr items)))
(iter-parity (cdr items)))))
(cons g (iter-parity w)))
when try this (same-parity (list 1 2 3 4)), I got an error message:
the object (), passed as the first argument to car, is not the correct type.
Can I somebody tell me what is going on?
Your code
Here's a refactoring proposal, keeping with your basic structure:
(define (same-parity g . w)
(define filter-predicate? (if (odd? g) odd? even?))
(define (iter-parity items)
(if (null? items)
'()
(if (filter-predicate? (car items))
(cons (car items) (iter-parity (cdr items)))
(iter-parity (cdr items)))))
(cons g (iter-parity w)))
Note that it is more idiomatic
to use the procedures odd? and even? rather than remainder
to have as a base case when the list is empty, not when it has only one item (in your code this clearly avoids repetition as a positive effect).
Also, since there is a built-in filter procedure in Scheme, you could express it as follows:
(define (same-parity g . w)
(cons g (filter (if (odd? g) odd? even?) w)))
Your question
As for your question regarding (same-parity (list 1 2 3 4)): you need either (as described in your specification) use your procedure like so
(same-parity 1 2 3 4)
or to use apply here:
> (apply same-parity (list 1 2 3 4))
'(1 3)
because apply will transform (same-parity (list 1 2 3 4)) (1 parameter, a list) into (same-parity 1 2 3 4) (4 parameters).
In Arc there's a macro called in
> (let x 1
(in x 4 5 6))
nil
> (let x 1
(in x 1 5 6))
t
that checks if its first parameter is equal to any of the rest. I want a version of this that takes a parameter plus a list (semantically identical to Python's in), so I wrote:
(assign weak-tens* '(11 12))
(mac in? (elt lst)
(cons 'in (cons elt lst)))
(def transform-deck (deck)
(map [if (in? _ weak-tens*) #\T _] deck))
output:
arc> (load "main.arc")
*** redefining in?
map: contract violation
expected: list?
given: '(_ . weak-tens*)
argument position: 2nd
other arguments...:
#<procedure:ac-niltree>
To answer your immediate question, you can use mem, as follows:
arc> (let x 3
(mem x '(1 2 3 4)))
(3 4)
Also, there's no reason this should be a macro. It doesn't do anything that requires a macro.
But let's look at why the macro doesn't work:
arc> (macex1 '(in? 1 '(1 2 3)))
(in 1 quote (1 2 3))
Ah, we're putting the value "quote".
Here's how we want the code to expand:
(in? 1 '(1 2 3))
should expand to:
(in 1 1 2 3)
But as mentioned, we don't even want this to be a macro in the first place. Ignoring mem, it could be written as follows:
(def in? (elt lst)
(if (no lst)
nil
(is elt ;;if we've found the element
(car lst))
t
(in? elt (cdr lst)))) ;;otherwise recurse
I'm pretty fresh to the Common Lisp scene and I can't seem to find an quick way to get the nth element from a list and remove it from said list at the same time. I've done it, but it ain't pretty, what I'd really like is something like "pop" but took a second parameter:
(setf x '(a b c d))
(setf y (popnth 2 x))
; x is '(a b d)
; y is 'c
I'm pretty sure that "popnth" would have to be a macro, in case the parameter was 0 and it had to behave like "pop".
EDIT: Here's my crap first version:
(defmacro popnth (n lst)
(let ((tempvar (gensym)))
`(if (eql ,n 0)
(pop ,lst)
(let ((,tempvar (nth ,n ,lst)))
(setf (cdr (nthcdr ,(- n 1) ,lst)) (nthcdr ,(+ n 1) ,lst))
,tempvar))))
Something like this:
Removing the nth element of a list:
(defun remove-nth (list n)
(remove-if (constantly t) list :start n :end (1+ n)))
constantly returns a function, that always returns its argument.
As a macro that accepts a place, using define-modify-macro:
(define-modify-macro remove-nth-f (n) remove-nth "Remove the nth element")
POP-NTH
(defmacro pop-nth (list n)
(let ((n-var (gensym)))
`(let ((,n-var ,n))
(prog1 (nth ,n-var ,list)
(remove-nth-f ,list ,n-var)))))
Example:
CL-USER 26 > (defparameter *list* (list 1 2 3 4))
*LIST*
CL-USER 27 > (pop-nth *list* 0)
1
CL-USER 28 > *list*
(2 3 4)
CL-USER 29 > (pop-nth *list* 2)
4
CL-USER 30 > *list*
(2 3)
Yes, Lisp has a macro for popping the N-th element of a list: it is called pop.
$ clisp -q
[1]> (defvar list (list 0 1 2 3 4 5))
LIST
[2]> (pop (cdddr list))
3
[3]> list
(0 1 2 4 5)
[4]>
pop works with any form that denotes a place.
The problem is that, unlike cddr, nthcdr isn't an accessor; a form like (nthcdr 3 list) does not denote a place; it works only as a function call.
Writing a specialized form of pop is not the best answer; rather, we can achieve a more general fix by writing a clone of nthcdr which behaves like a place accessor. Then the pop macro will work, and so will every other macro that works with places like setf and rotatef.
;; our clone of nthcdr called cdnth
(defun cdnth (idx list)
(nthcdr idx list))
;; support for (cdnth <idx> <list>) as an assignable place
(define-setf-expander cdnth (idx list &environment env)
(multiple-value-bind (dummies vals newval setter getter)
(get-setf-expansion list env)
(let ((store (gensym))
(idx-temp (gensym)))
(values dummies
vals
`(,store)
`(let ((,idx-temp ,idx))
(progn
(if (zerop ,idx-temp)
(progn (setf ,getter ,store))
(progn (rplacd (nthcdr (1- ,idx-temp) ,getter) ,store)))
,store))
`(nthcdr ,idx ,getter)))))
Test:
$ clisp -q -i cdnth.lisp
;; Loading file cdnth.lisp ...
;; Loaded file cdnth.lisp
[1]> (defvar list (list 0 1 2 3 4 5))
LIST
[2]> (pop (cdnth 2 list))
2
[3]> list
(0 1 3 4 5)
[4]> (pop (cdnth 0 list))
0
[5]> list
(1 3 4 5)
[6]> (pop (cdnth 3 list))
5
[7]> list
(1 3 4)
[8]> (pop (cdnth 1 list))
3
[9]> list
(1 4)
[10]> (pop (cdnth 1 list))
4
[11]> list
(1)
[12]> (pop (cdnth 0 list))
1
[13]> list
NIL
[14]>
A possible improvement to the implementation is to analyze the idx form and optimize away the generated code that implements the run-time check on the value of idx. That is to say, if idx is a constant expression, there is no need to emit the code which tests whether idx is zero. The appropriate code variant can just be emitted. Not only that, but for small values of idx, the code can emit special variants based on the "cadavers": cddr, cdddr, rather than the general nthcdr. However, some of these optimizations might be done by the Lisp compiler and thus redundant.
I came up with a solution that is a little more efficient than my first attempt:
(defmacro popnth (n lst)
(let ((t1 (gensym))(t2 (gensym)))
`(if (eql ,n 0)
(pop ,lst)
(let* ((,t1 (nthcdr (- ,n 1) ,lst))
(,t2 (car (cdr ,t1))))
(setf (cdr ,t1) (cddr ,t1))
,t2))))
Here is it in action:
[2]> (defparameter *list* '(a b c d e f g))
*LIST*
[3]> (popnth 3 *list*)
D
[4]> *list*
(A B C E F G)
[5]> (popnth 0 *list*)
A
[6]> *list*
(B C E F G)
I have same suspicion as #6502...If I remember right...Neither push nor pop can be defined as modify-macros, the former because the place is not its first argument, and the latter because its return value is not the modified object.
Definition of define-modify-macro
An expression of the form (define-modify-macro m (p1 ... pn) f) defines a new macro m, such that a call of the form (m place a1 ... an) will cause place to be set to (f val a1 ... an), where val represents the value of place. The parameters may also include rest and optional parameters. The string, if present, becomes the documentation of the new macro.
I have this popnth works just fine:
(defun nthpop (index lst)
(pop (nthcdr (1- index) lst)))
> *list*
(1 2 3 4 5)
> (nthpop 2 *list*)
2
> *list*
(1 3 4 5)