I tried to create an example for cond and case and came up with a simple implementation of the fizz buzz problem (see Wikipedia for details).
My initial version is:
(defun is-fizz-buzz (n)
(cond ((and (zerop (mod n 3)) (zerop (mod n 5))) 'fizz-buzz)
((zerop (mod n 3)) 'fizz)
((zerop (mod n 5)) 'buzz)
(t n)))
(defun fizz-buzz (n)
(princ (case (is-fizz-buzz n)
('fizz "Fizz!")
('buzz "Buzz!")
('fizz-buzz "Fizz-Buzz!")
(otherwise n))))
Now, #RainerJoswig pointed out to me that my case is wrong. I was quite surprised, as it had worked as it should, but as he's way more experienced with Lisp than I am, he's most probably right (and in fact, he is).
I tried to read and understand http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/m_case_.htm, but now I'm left with more questions than answers. As I didn't want to discuss things in 140 characters and as it may be helpful for other Lisp beginners, I thought to publish my questions here.
Basically, the syntax of case is described as
case keyform {normal-clause}* [otherwise-clause] => result*
keyform is easy: It's a form that is evaluated to get the key that is being tested. For sure
(is-fizz-buzz n)
is a form and it returns a symbol, hence everything looks fine. Additionally, as I learned from Land of Lisp, case internally works with eq, and as eq is used to compare symbols, this should be fine as well.
Now, the normal-clause: This is defined as
(keys form*)
form* again is simple, it's just a number of forms, basically with an implicit progn. For keys, it tells me that this is a designator for a list of objects. Phew. Here my questions begin…
This document tells me that a designator is:
an object that denotes another object.
Hm. As case is working with eq, I would have expected that I need to give a symbol here. And why is keys a designator for a list of objects, not for a single one? May I have multiple symbols that I can compare against in a single branch? I guess the problem here comes down to not really understanding what is meant by a designator, but maybe someone can help me and push me into the right direction. How would you explain what a designator is in Lisp?
Then, I started playing around with the code, and I noticed that if I remove the ' character, things still work. The code
(defun fizz-buzz (n)
(princ (case (is-fizz-buzz n)
(fizz "Fizz!")
(buzz "Buzz!")
(fizz-buzz "Fizz-Buzz!")
(otherwise n))))
produces the very same result as the code above. Why is this? I would not even have expected this to be executable at all, as (fizz "Fizz!") to me looks like a function call of fizz, which doesn't exist. Why does this work?
And then, the final question is, when I run
(case 'quote ('foo 1) ('bar 2))
it returns 1 (which does not seem to be logical, I would have expected nil). If I change this to
(case 'quote ('foo 1) ('bar 2) (otherwise 3))
it still returns 1, not 3 as I now would have expected. From the documentation I don't get why my otherwise-clause obviously does not what it should do.
Any hints why these two cases behave like they do?
CASE use EQL not EQ. EQL is in most cases the default comparison. Thus case works for identity, numbers and characters.
The keyforms are NOT evaluated. Thus it makes no sense to quote objects. Quoting means stopping evaluation. But there is no evaluation -> no quote.
The keyform is either a single item, or a list of items
(case foo
(bar 'it-is-bar)
((1 2) 'one-or-two)
(1 'one))
((apple banana orange) 'either-apple-banana-or-orange)))
It also means that one the left side are constants, no variables. bar above is the symbol bar, not the variable bar.
Problem:
(case 'quote
('foo 'foo-or-quote))
because it really is
(case 'quote
((quote foo) 'foo-or-quote))
Okay, I was able to figure out some of the problems by myself, primarily by reading this question and the according answers. This explains to me why my otherwise-clause didn't work, and it also explains why
(case 'quote ('foo 1) ('bar 2))
is being evaluated the way it is. So I guess that my fizz-buzz function at least should be:
(defun fizz-buzz (n)
(princ (case (is-fizz-buzz n)
(fizz "Fizz!")
(buzz "Buzz!")
(fizz-buzz "Fizz-Buzz!")
(otherwise n))))
UPDATE
Okay, now after having re-read the aforementioned question and answers multiple times, I think I finally got what is meant by a list of objects, and hence my code should be:
(defun fizz-buzz (n)
(princ (case (is-fizz-buzz n)
((fizz) "Fizz!")
((buzz) "Buzz!")
((fizz-buzz) "Fizz-Buzz!")
(otherwise n))))
For keys, it tells me that this is a designator for a list of
objects. Phew. Here my questions begin…
This document
tells me that a designator is:
an object that denotes another object.
Hm. As case is working with eq, I would have expected that I need
to give a symbol here. And why is keys a designator for a list
of objects, not for a single one? May I have multiple symbols that I
can compare against in a single branch? I guess the problem here comes
down to not really understanding what is meant by a designator, but
maybe someone can help me and push me into the right direction. How
would you explain what a designator is in Lisp?
I originally posted this as a comment, but I think this might stand as a sufficient answer, if it's the core problem in the question, so I'm adding it as an answer.
The text you need is in the HyperSpec. 1.4.1.5 Designators notes
The specific nature of the object denoted by a "<> designator"
or a "designator for a <>" can be found in the Glossary entry
for "<> designator."
The glossary entry for list designator is what you need:
list designator n. a designator for a list of objects; that is,
an object that denotes a list and that is one of: a non-nil atom
(denoting a singleton list whose element is that non-nil atom) or a proper list (denoting itself).
Thus the symbol fizz (a non-nil atom) and the list (fizz) both designate the list (fizz), the list (quote fizz) (often abbreviated as 'fizz) designates itself, etc.
Once you've learned about list designators,they're a very handy concept to use in you own code. Just document that you accept a list designator, and then convert with (if (listp x) x (list x)), and you're in business. It's very helpful, and you'll find more uses for it than you expect. E.g., I used it just the other day in an answer to How to group any consecutive numbers or items of a given series.
Related
I am trying to do Recursive method to find max value in list.
Can anyone explain where I made the mistake on this code and how to approach it next time.
(defun f3 (i)
(setq x (cond (> (car (I)) (cdr (car (I))))
(f3 (cdr (I)))))
)
(f3 '(33 11 44 2) )
also I tried this following method and didn't work:
(defun f3 (i)
(cond ((null I )nil )
(setq x (car (i))
(f3(cdr (i)))
(return-from max x)
)
Thanks a lot for any help. I am coming from java if that helps.
If you're working in Common Lisp, then you do this:
(defun max-item (list)
(loop for item in list
maximizing item))
That's it. The maximizing item clause of loop determines the highest item value seen, and implicitly establishes that as the result value of loop when it terminates.
Note that if list is empty, then this returns nil. If you want some other behavior, you have to work that in:
(if list
(loop for item in list
maximizing item))
(... handle empty here ...))
If the number of elements in the list is known to be small, below your Lisp implementation's limit on the number of arguments that can be passed to a function, you can simply apply the list to the max function:
(defun max-item (list)
(apply #'max list))
If list is empty, then max is misused: it requires one or more arguments. An error condition will likely be signaled. If that doesn't work in your situation, you need to add code to supply the desired behavior.
If the list is expected to be large, so that this approach is to be avoided, you can use reduce, treating max as a binary function:
(defun max-item (list)
(reduce #'max list))
Same remarks regarding empty list. These expressions are so small, many programmers will avoid writing a function and just use them directly.
Regarding recursion, you wouldn't use recursion to solve this problem in production code, only as a homework exercise for learning about recursion.
You are trying to compute the maximum value of a list, so please name your function maximum and your parameter list, not f3 or i. You can't name the function max without having to consider how to avoid shadowing the standard max function, so it is best for now to ignore package issues and use a different name.
There is a corner case to consider when the list is empty, as there is no meaningful value to return. You have to decide if you return nil or signal an error, for example.
The skeleton is thus:
(defun maximum (list)
(if (null list)
...
...))
Notice how closing parentheses are never preceded by spaces (or newlines), and opening parentheses are never followed by spaces (or newlines). Please note also that indentation increases with the current depth . This is the basic rules for Lisp formatting, please try following them for other developers.
(setq x <value>)
You are assigning an unknown place x, you should instead bind a fresh variable if you want to have a temporary variable, something like:
(let ((x <value>))
<body>)
With the above expression, x is bound to <value> inside <body> (one or more expressions), and only there.
(car (i))
Unlike in Java, parentheses are not used to group expressions for readability or to force some evaluation order, in Lisp they enclose compound forms. Here above, in a normal evaluation context (not a macro or binding), (i) means call function i, and this function is unrelated to your local variable i (just like in Java, where you can write int f = f(2) with f denoting both a variable and a method).
If you want to take the car of i, write (car i).
You seem to be using cond as some kind of if:
(cond (<test> <then>) <else>) ;; WRONG
You can have an if as follows:
(if <test> <then> <else>)
For example:
(if (> u v) u v) ;; evaluates to either `u` or `v`, whichever is greater
The cond syntax is a bit more complex but you don't need it yet.
You cannot return-from a block that was undeclared, you probably renamed the function to f3 without renaming that part, or copied that from somewhere else, but in any case return-from is only needed when you have a bigger function and probably a lot more side-effects. Here the computation can be written in a more functionnal way. There is an implicit return in Lisp-like languages, unlike Java, for example below the last (but also single) expression in add evaluates to the function's return value:
(defun add-3 (x)
(+ x 3))
Start with smaller examples and test often, fix any error the compiler or interpreter prints before trying to do more complex things. Also, have a look at the available online resources to learn more about the language: https://common-lisp.net/documentation
Although the other answers are right: you definitely need to learn more CL syntax and you probably would not solve this problem recursively in idiomatic CL (whatever 'idiomatic CL' is), here's how to actually do it, because thinking about how to solve these problems recursively is useful.
First of all let's write a function max/2 which returns the maximum of two numbers. This is pretty easy:
(defun max/2 (a b)
(if (> a b) a b))
Now the trick is this: assume you have some idea of what the maximum of a list of numbers is: call this guess m. Then:
if the list is empty, the maximum is m;
otherwise the list has a first element, so pick a new m which is the maximum of the first element of the list and the current m, and recurse on the rest of the list.
So, we can write this function, which I'll call max/carrying (because it 'carries' the m):
(defun max/carrying (m list)
(if (null list)
m
(max/carrying (max/2 (first list) m)
(rest list))))
And this is now almost all we need. The trick is then to write a little shim around max/carrying which bootstraps it:
to compute the maximum of a list:
if the list is empty it has no maximum, and this is an error;
otherwise the result is max/carrying of the first element of the list and the rest of the list.
I won't write that, but it's pretty easy (to signal an error, the function you want is error).
After making it through the major parts of an introductory Lisp book, I still couldn't understand what the special operator (quote) (or equivalent ') function does, yet this has been all over Lisp code that I've seen.
What does it do?
Short answer
Bypass the default evaluation rules and do not evaluate the expression (symbol or s-exp), passing it along to the function exactly as typed.
Long Answer: The Default Evaluation Rule
When a regular (I'll come to that later) function is invoked, all arguments passed to it are evaluated. This means you can write this:
(* (+ a 2)
3)
Which in turn evaluates (+ a 2), by evaluating a and 2. The value of the symbol a is looked up in the current variable binding set, and then replaced. Say a is currently bound to the value 3:
(let ((a 3))
(* (+ a 2)
3))
We'd get (+ 3 2), + is then invoked on 3 and 2 yielding 5. Our original form is now (* 5 3) yielding 15.
Explain quote Already!
Alright. As seen above, all arguments to a function are evaluated, so if you would like to pass the symbol a and not its value, you don't want to evaluate it. Lisp symbols can double both as their values, and markers where you in other languages would have used strings, such as keys to hash tables.
This is where quote comes in. Say you want to plot resource allocations from a Python application, but rather do the plotting in Lisp. Have your Python app do something like this:
print("'(")
while allocating:
if random.random() > 0.5:
print(f"(allocate {random.randint(0, 20)})")
else:
print(f"(free {random.randint(0, 20)})")
...
print(")")
Giving you output looking like this (slightly prettyfied):
'((allocate 3)
(allocate 7)
(free 14)
(allocate 19)
...)
Remember what I said about quote ("tick") causing the default rule not to apply? Good. What would otherwise happen is that the values of allocate and free are looked up, and we don't want that. In our Lisp, we wish to do:
(dolist (entry allocation-log)
(case (first entry)
(allocate (plot-allocation (second entry)))
(free (plot-free (second entry)))))
For the data given above, the following sequence of function calls would have been made:
(plot-allocation 3)
(plot-allocation 7)
(plot-free 14)
(plot-allocation 19)
But What About list?
Well, sometimes you do want to evaluate the arguments. Say you have a nifty function manipulating a number and a string and returning a list of the resulting ... things. Let's make a false start:
(defun mess-with (number string)
'(value-of-number (1+ number) something-with-string (length string)))
Lisp> (mess-with 20 "foo")
(VALUE-OF-NUMBER (1+ NUMBER) SOMETHING-WITH-STRING (LENGTH STRING))
Hey! That's not what we wanted. We want to selectively evaluate some arguments, and leave the others as symbols. Try #2!
(defun mess-with (number string)
(list 'value-of-number (1+ number) 'something-with-string (length string)))
Lisp> (mess-with 20 "foo")
(VALUE-OF-NUMBER 21 SOMETHING-WITH-STRING 3)
Not Just quote, But backquote
Much better! Incidently, this pattern is so common in (mostly) macros, that there is special syntax for doing just that. The backquote:
(defun mess-with (number string)
`(value-of-number ,(1+ number) something-with-string ,(length string)))
It's like using quote, but with the option to explicitly evaluate some arguments by prefixing them with comma. The result is equivalent to using list, but if you're generating code from a macro you often only want to evaluate small parts of the code returned, so the backquote is more suited. For shorter lists, list can be more readable.
Hey, You Forgot About quote!
So, where does this leave us? Oh right, what does quote actually do? It simply returns its argument(s) unevaluated! Remember what I said in the beginning about regular functions? Turns out that some operators/functions need to not evaluate their arguments. Such as IF -- you wouldn't want the else branch to be evaluated if it wasn't taken, right? So-called special operators, together with macros, work like that. Special operators are also the "axiom" of the language -- minimal set of rules -- upon which you can implement the rest of Lisp by combining them together in different ways.
Back to quote, though:
Lisp> (quote spiffy-symbol)
SPIFFY-SYMBOL
Lisp> 'spiffy-symbol ; ' is just a shorthand ("reader macro"), as shown above
SPIFFY-SYMBOL
Compare to (on Steel-Bank Common Lisp):
Lisp> spiffy-symbol
debugger invoked on a UNBOUND-VARIABLE in thread #<THREAD "initial thread" RUNNING {A69F6A9}>:
The variable SPIFFY-SYMBOL is unbound.
Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL.
restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
0: [ABORT] Exit debugger, returning to top level.
(SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV SPIFFY-SYMBOL #<NULL-LEXENV>)
0]
Because there is no spiffy-symbol in the current scope!
Summing Up
quote, backquote (with comma), and list are some of the tools you use to create lists, that are not only lists of values, but as you seen can be used as lightweight (no need to define a struct) data structures!
If you wish to learn more, I recommend Peter Seibel's book Practical Common Lisp for a practical approach to learning Lisp, if you're already into programming at large. Eventually on your Lisp journey, you'll start using packages too. Ron Garret's The Idiot's Guide to Common Lisp Packages will give you good explanation of those.
Happy hacking!
It says "don't evaluate me". For example, if you wanted to use a list as data, and not as code, you'd put a quote in front of it. For example,
(print '(+ 3 4)) prints "(+ 3 4)", whereas
(print (+ 3 4)) prints "7"
Other people have answered this question admirably, and Matthias Benkard brings up an excellent warning.
DO NOT USE QUOTE TO CREATE LISTS THAT YOU WILL LATER MODIFY. The spec allows the compiler to treat quoted lists as constants. Often, a compiler will optimize constants by creating a single value for them in memory and then referencing that single value from all locations where the constant appears. In other words, it may treat the constant like an anonymous global variable.
This can cause obvious problems. If you modify a constant, it may very well modify other uses of the same constant in completely unrelated code. For example, you may compare some variable to '(1 1) in some function, and in a completely different function, start a list with '(1 1) and then add more stuff to it. Upon running these functions, you may find that the first function doesn't match things properly anymore, because it's now trying to compare the variable to '(1 1 2 3 5 8 13), which is what the second function returned. These two functions are completely unrelated, but they have an effect on each other because of the use of constants. Even crazier bad effects can happen, like a perfectly normal list iteration suddenly infinite looping.
Use quote when you need a constant list, such as for comparison. Use list when you will be modifying the result.
One answer to this question says that QUOTE “creates list data structures”. This isn't quite right. QUOTE is more fundamental than this. In fact, QUOTE is a trivial operator: Its purpose is to prevent anything from happening at all. In particular, it doesn't create anything.
What (QUOTE X) says is basically “don't do anything, just give me X.” X needn't be a list as in (QUOTE (A B C)) or a symbol as in (QUOTE FOO). It can be any object whatever. Indeed, the result of evaluating the list that is produced by (LIST 'QUOTE SOME-OBJECT) will always just return SOME-OBJECT, whatever it is.
Now, the reason that (QUOTE (A B C)) seems as if it created a list whose elements are A, B, and C is that such a list really is what it returns; but at the time the QUOTE form is evaluated, the list has generally already been in existence for a while (as a component of the QUOTE form!), created either by the loader or the reader prior to execution of the code.
One implication of this that tends to trip up newbies fairly often is that it's very unwise to modify a list returned by a QUOTE form. Data returned by QUOTE is, for all intents and purposes, to be considered as part of the code being executed and should therefore be treated as read-only!
The quote prevents execution or evaluation of a form, turning it instead into data. In general you can execute the data by then eval'ing it.
quote creates list data structures, for example, the following are equivalent:
(quote a)
'a
It can also be used to create lists (or trees):
(quote (1 2 3))
'(1 2 3)
You're probably best off getting an introductary book on lisp, such as Practical Common Lisp (which is available to read on-line).
In Emacs Lisp:
What can be quoted ?
Lists and symbols.
Quoting a number evaluates to the number itself:
'5 is the same as 5.
What happens when you quote lists ?
For example:
'(one two) evaluates to
(list 'one 'two) which evaluates to
(list (intern "one") (intern ("two"))).
(intern "one") creates a symbol named "one" and stores it in a "central" hash-map, so anytime you say 'one then the symbol named "one" will be looked up in that central hash-map.
But what is a symbol ?
For example, in OO-languages (Java/Javascript/Python) a symbol could be represented as an object that has a name field, which is the symbol's name like "one" above, and data and/or code can be associated with it this object.
So an symbol in Python could be implemented as:
class Symbol:
def __init__(self,name,code,value):
self.name=name
self.code=code
self.value=value
In Emacs Lisp for example a symbol can have 1) data associated with it AND (at the same time - for the same symbol) 2) code associated with it - depending on the context, either the data or the code gets called.
For example, in Elisp:
(progn
(fset 'add '+ )
(set 'add 2)
(add add add)
)
evaluates to 4.
Because (add add add) evaluates as:
(add add add)
(+ add add)
(+ 2 add)
(+ 2 2)
4
So, for example, using the Symbol class we defined in Python above, this add ELisp-Symbol could be written in Python as Symbol("add",(lambda x,y: x+y),2).
Many thanks for folks on IRC #emacs for explaining symbols and quotes to me.
Code is data and data is code. There is no clear distinction between them.
This is a classical statement any lisp programmer knows.
When you quote a code, that code will be data.
1 ]=> '(+ 2 3 4)
;Value: (+ 2 3 4)
1 ]=> (+ 2 3 4)
;Value: 9
When you quote a code, the result will be data that represent that code. So, when you want to work with data that represents a program you quote that program. This is also valid for atomic expressions, not only for lists:
1 ]=> 'code
;Value: code
1 ]=> '10
;Value: 10
1 ]=> '"ok"
;Value: "ok"
1 ]=> code
;Unbound variable: code
Supposing you want to create a programming language embedded in lisp -- you will work with programs that are quoted in scheme (like '(+ 2 3)) and that are interpreted as code in the language you create, by giving programs a semantic interpretation. In this case you need to use quote to keep the data, otherwise it will be evaluated in external language.
When we want to pass an argument itself instead of passing the value of the argument then we use quote. It is mostly related to the procedure passing during using lists, pairs and atoms
which are not available in C programming Language ( most people start programming using C programming, Hence we get confused)
This is code in Scheme programming language which is a dialect of lisp and I guess you can understand this code.
(define atom? ; defining a procedure atom?
(lambda (x) ; which as one argument x
(and (not (null? x)) (not(pair? x) )))) ; checks if the argument is atom or not
(atom? '(a b c)) ; since it is a list it is false #f
The last line (atom? 'abc) is passing abc as it is to the procedure to check if abc is an atom or not, but when you pass(atom? abc) then it checks for the value of abc and passses the value to it. Since, we haven't provided any value to it
Quote returns the internal representation of its arguments. After plowing through way too many explanations of what quote doesn't do, that's when the light-bulb went on. If the REPL didn't convert function names to UPPER-CASE when I quoted them, it might not have dawned on me.
So. Ordinary Lisp functions convert their arguments into an internal representation, evaluate the arguments, and apply the function. Quote converts its arguments to an internal representation, and just returns that. Technically it's correct to say that quote says, "don't evaluate", but when I was trying to understand what it did, telling me what it doesn't do was frustrating. My toaster doesn't evaluate Lisp functions either; but that's not how you explain what a toaster does.
Anoter short answer:
quote means without evaluating it, and backquote is quote but leave back doors.
A good referrence:
Emacs Lisp Reference Manual make it very clear
9.3 Quoting
The special form quote returns its single argument, as written, without evaluating it. This provides a way to include constant symbols and lists, which are not self-evaluating objects, in a program. (It is not necessary to quote self-evaluating objects such as numbers, strings, and vectors.)
Special Form: quote object
This special form returns object, without evaluating it.
Because quote is used so often in programs, Lisp provides a convenient read syntax for it. An apostrophe character (‘'’) followed by a Lisp object (in read syntax) expands to a list whose first element is quote, and whose second element is the object. Thus, the read syntax 'x is an abbreviation for (quote x).
Here are some examples of expressions that use quote:
(quote (+ 1 2))
⇒ (+ 1 2)
(quote foo)
⇒ foo
'foo
⇒ foo
''foo
⇒ (quote foo)
'(quote foo)
⇒ (quote foo)
9.4 Backquote
Backquote constructs allow you to quote a list, but selectively evaluate elements of that list. In the simplest case, it is identical to the special form quote (described in the previous section; see Quoting). For example, these two forms yield identical results:
`(a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
⇒ (a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
'(a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
⇒ (a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
The special marker ‘,’ inside of the argument to backquote indicates a value that isn’t constant. The Emacs Lisp evaluator evaluates the argument of ‘,’, and puts the value in the list structure:
`(a list of ,(+ 2 3) elements)
⇒ (a list of 5 elements)
Substitution with ‘,’ is allowed at deeper levels of the list structure also. For example:
`(1 2 (3 ,(+ 4 5)))
⇒ (1 2 (3 9))
You can also splice an evaluated value into the resulting list, using the special marker ‘,#’. The elements of the spliced list become elements at the same level as the other elements of the resulting list. The equivalent code without using ‘`’ is often unreadable. Here are some examples:
(setq some-list '(2 3))
⇒ (2 3)
(cons 1 (append some-list '(4) some-list))
⇒ (1 2 3 4 2 3)
`(1 ,#some-list 4 ,#some-list)
⇒ (1 2 3 4 2 3)
It seems like in order to use multiple return values in Racket, I have to either use define-values or collect them into a list with (call-with-values (thunk (values-expr)) list). In the latter case, why would someone to choose to return multiple values instead of a list, if just have to collect them into a list anyway? Additionally, both of these are very wordy and awkward to work into most code. I feel like I must be misunderstanding something very basic about multiple-return-values. For that matter, how do I write a procedure accepting multiple return values?
Although I may be missing some of the Scheme history and other nuances, I'll give you my practical answer.
First, one rule of thumb is if you need to return more than 2 or 3 values, don't use multiple values and don't use a list. Use a struct. That will usually be easier to read and maintain.
Racket's match forms make it much easier to destructure a list return value -- as easy as define-values:
(define (f)
(list 1 2))
(match-define (list a b) (f))
(do-something-with a b)
;; or
(match (f)
[(list a b) (do-something-with a b)])
If you have some other function, g, that takes a (list/c a b), and you want to compose it with f, it's simpler if f returns a list. It's also simpler if both use a two-element struct. Whereas call-with-values is kind of an awkward hot mess, I think.
Allowing multiple return value is an elegant idea, because it makes return values symmetric with arguments. Using multiple values is also faster than lists or structs (in the current implementation of Racket, although it could work otherwise).
However when readability is a higher priority than performance, then in modern Racket it can be more practical to use a list or a struct, IMHO. Having said that I do use multiple values for one-off private helper functions.
Finally, there's a long, interesting discussion on the Racket mailing list.
Racket doc gives us the quintessential example why, in disguise:
> (let-values ([(q r) (quotient/remainder 10 3)])
(if (zero? r)
q
"3 does *not* divide 10 evenly"))
"3 does *not* divide 10 evenly"
We get two values directly, and use them separately in a computation that follows.
update: In Common Lisp, with its decidedly practical, down-to-the-metal, non-functional approach (where they concern themselves with each extra cons cell allocation), it makes much more sense, especially as it allows one to call such procedures in a "normal" way as well, automatically ignoring the "extra" results, kind of like
(let ([q (quotient/remainder 10 3)])
(list q))
But in Racket this is invalid code. So yeah, it looks like an extraneous feature, better to be avoided altogether.
Using list as the consumer defeats the purpose of multiple values so in that case you could just have used lists to begin with. Multiple values is actually a way of optimization.
Semanticly returning a list and several values are similar, but where you return many values in a list effort goes into creation of cons cells to make the list and destructuring accessors to get the values at the other end. In many cases however, you wouldn't notice the difference in performance.
With multiple values the values are on the stack and (call-with-values (lambda () ... (values x y z)) (lambda (x y z) ...) only checks the number to see if it's correct.. If it's ok you just apply the next procedure since the stack has it's arguments all set from the previous call.
You can make syntactic sugar around this and some popular ones are let-values and SRFI-8 receive is a slightly simpler one. Both uses call-with-values as primitive.
values is handy because it
checks that the number of elements returned is correct
destructures
For example, using
(define (out a b) (printf "a=~a b=~a\n" a b))
then
(let ((lst (list 1 2 3)))
(let ((a (first lst)) (b (second lst))) ; destructure
(out a b)))
will work even though lst has 3 elements, but
(let-values (((a b) (values 1 2 3)))
(out a b))
will not.
If you want the same control and destructuring with a list, you can however use match:
(let ((lst (list 1 2)))
(match lst ((list a b) (out a b))))
Note that he creation of the structure, e.g. (list 1 2) vs (values 1 2) is equivalent.
These all work:
(defun testcaseexpr (thecase)
(case thecase
('foo (format t "matched foo"))
(bar (format t "matched bar"))
((funk) (format t "matched funky"))))
Which of these three expressions is considered the idiomatic way? And perhaps as a side point, why are they all working, when clearly they are not the same syntax. In fact in other contexts they have different semantics completely. A list (funk) is certainly not the same as a quoted atom, 'foo. Yet just passing in the words foo bar and funk all work the same.
First, note that you've actually only got two cases here. 'foo is expanded by the reader as (quote foo), so your code is equivalent to
(defun testcaseexpr (thecase)
(case thecase
((quote foo) (format t "matched foo"))
(bar (format t "matched bar"))
((funk) (format t "matched funky"))))
wherein the first and third cases have the same structure; the keys part of the clause is a list of objects.
Perhaps this question is off-topic, since it's asking for the “best”, and that might be primarily opinion based. I agree with the points made in wvxvw's answer, but I tend to use the style you've shown in the third case almost exclusively. I've got a couple reasons for this:
It's the most general form.
It's the most general form. In the documentation for case, we read that in an normal-clause ::= (keys form*) keys is a designator for a list of keys. This means that a clause like (2 (print 'two)) is equivalent to ((2) (print 'two)). You never lose anything by using a list instead of a non-list, but if you have some clauses with multiple objects and some with single objects, you'll have consistent syntax for all of them. E.g., you can have
(case operator
((and or) ...)
((if iff) ...)
((not) ...))
It's harder to mess up.
It makes it harder to mess up the special cases of t and otherwise. The documentation says about keys that (emphasis added):
keys—a designator for a list of objects. In the case of case, the
symbols t and otherwise may not be used as the keys designator. To
refer to these symbols by themselves as keys, the designators (t) and
(otherwise), respectively, must be used instead.
In practice, some implementations will let you use t and otherwise as keys in normal-clauses, even though it seems like this shouldn't be allowed. E.g., in SBCL:
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(case keyform
(otherwise 'a)
(otherwise 'b)))
(LET ((#:G962 KEYFORM))
(DECLARE (IGNORABLE #:G962))
(COND ((EQL #:G962 'OTHERWISE) NIL 'A)
(T NIL 'B)))
Using explicit lists removes any ambiguity about what you're trying to do. Even though t and otherwise are called out specifically, keys is a list designator, which means that nil (an atom and a list) needs some special consideration. Will the following code produce a or b? (Can you tell without testing it or checking the spec? This case is actually highlighted in the examples.)
(case nil
(nil 'a)
(otherwise 'b))
It returns b. To return a, the first normal-clause would have to be ((nil) 'a).
Conclusion
If you always make sure that keys is a list, you'll:
end up with more consistent looking code;
avoid edge-case bugs (especially if you're writing macros that expand into case); and
make your intentions clearer.
Second :)
First is never used, unless you expand a macro into something like it by accident, and third is used when you have more then one matching symbol (a fall-through case).
After making it through the major parts of an introductory Lisp book, I still couldn't understand what the special operator (quote) (or equivalent ') function does, yet this has been all over Lisp code that I've seen.
What does it do?
Short answer
Bypass the default evaluation rules and do not evaluate the expression (symbol or s-exp), passing it along to the function exactly as typed.
Long Answer: The Default Evaluation Rule
When a regular (I'll come to that later) function is invoked, all arguments passed to it are evaluated. This means you can write this:
(* (+ a 2)
3)
Which in turn evaluates (+ a 2), by evaluating a and 2. The value of the symbol a is looked up in the current variable binding set, and then replaced. Say a is currently bound to the value 3:
(let ((a 3))
(* (+ a 2)
3))
We'd get (+ 3 2), + is then invoked on 3 and 2 yielding 5. Our original form is now (* 5 3) yielding 15.
Explain quote Already!
Alright. As seen above, all arguments to a function are evaluated, so if you would like to pass the symbol a and not its value, you don't want to evaluate it. Lisp symbols can double both as their values, and markers where you in other languages would have used strings, such as keys to hash tables.
This is where quote comes in. Say you want to plot resource allocations from a Python application, but rather do the plotting in Lisp. Have your Python app do something like this:
print("'(")
while allocating:
if random.random() > 0.5:
print(f"(allocate {random.randint(0, 20)})")
else:
print(f"(free {random.randint(0, 20)})")
...
print(")")
Giving you output looking like this (slightly prettyfied):
'((allocate 3)
(allocate 7)
(free 14)
(allocate 19)
...)
Remember what I said about quote ("tick") causing the default rule not to apply? Good. What would otherwise happen is that the values of allocate and free are looked up, and we don't want that. In our Lisp, we wish to do:
(dolist (entry allocation-log)
(case (first entry)
(allocate (plot-allocation (second entry)))
(free (plot-free (second entry)))))
For the data given above, the following sequence of function calls would have been made:
(plot-allocation 3)
(plot-allocation 7)
(plot-free 14)
(plot-allocation 19)
But What About list?
Well, sometimes you do want to evaluate the arguments. Say you have a nifty function manipulating a number and a string and returning a list of the resulting ... things. Let's make a false start:
(defun mess-with (number string)
'(value-of-number (1+ number) something-with-string (length string)))
Lisp> (mess-with 20 "foo")
(VALUE-OF-NUMBER (1+ NUMBER) SOMETHING-WITH-STRING (LENGTH STRING))
Hey! That's not what we wanted. We want to selectively evaluate some arguments, and leave the others as symbols. Try #2!
(defun mess-with (number string)
(list 'value-of-number (1+ number) 'something-with-string (length string)))
Lisp> (mess-with 20 "foo")
(VALUE-OF-NUMBER 21 SOMETHING-WITH-STRING 3)
Not Just quote, But backquote
Much better! Incidently, this pattern is so common in (mostly) macros, that there is special syntax for doing just that. The backquote:
(defun mess-with (number string)
`(value-of-number ,(1+ number) something-with-string ,(length string)))
It's like using quote, but with the option to explicitly evaluate some arguments by prefixing them with comma. The result is equivalent to using list, but if you're generating code from a macro you often only want to evaluate small parts of the code returned, so the backquote is more suited. For shorter lists, list can be more readable.
Hey, You Forgot About quote!
So, where does this leave us? Oh right, what does quote actually do? It simply returns its argument(s) unevaluated! Remember what I said in the beginning about regular functions? Turns out that some operators/functions need to not evaluate their arguments. Such as IF -- you wouldn't want the else branch to be evaluated if it wasn't taken, right? So-called special operators, together with macros, work like that. Special operators are also the "axiom" of the language -- minimal set of rules -- upon which you can implement the rest of Lisp by combining them together in different ways.
Back to quote, though:
Lisp> (quote spiffy-symbol)
SPIFFY-SYMBOL
Lisp> 'spiffy-symbol ; ' is just a shorthand ("reader macro"), as shown above
SPIFFY-SYMBOL
Compare to (on Steel-Bank Common Lisp):
Lisp> spiffy-symbol
debugger invoked on a UNBOUND-VARIABLE in thread #<THREAD "initial thread" RUNNING {A69F6A9}>:
The variable SPIFFY-SYMBOL is unbound.
Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL.
restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name):
0: [ABORT] Exit debugger, returning to top level.
(SB-INT:SIMPLE-EVAL-IN-LEXENV SPIFFY-SYMBOL #<NULL-LEXENV>)
0]
Because there is no spiffy-symbol in the current scope!
Summing Up
quote, backquote (with comma), and list are some of the tools you use to create lists, that are not only lists of values, but as you seen can be used as lightweight (no need to define a struct) data structures!
If you wish to learn more, I recommend Peter Seibel's book Practical Common Lisp for a practical approach to learning Lisp, if you're already into programming at large. Eventually on your Lisp journey, you'll start using packages too. Ron Garret's The Idiot's Guide to Common Lisp Packages will give you good explanation of those.
Happy hacking!
It says "don't evaluate me". For example, if you wanted to use a list as data, and not as code, you'd put a quote in front of it. For example,
(print '(+ 3 4)) prints "(+ 3 4)", whereas
(print (+ 3 4)) prints "7"
Other people have answered this question admirably, and Matthias Benkard brings up an excellent warning.
DO NOT USE QUOTE TO CREATE LISTS THAT YOU WILL LATER MODIFY. The spec allows the compiler to treat quoted lists as constants. Often, a compiler will optimize constants by creating a single value for them in memory and then referencing that single value from all locations where the constant appears. In other words, it may treat the constant like an anonymous global variable.
This can cause obvious problems. If you modify a constant, it may very well modify other uses of the same constant in completely unrelated code. For example, you may compare some variable to '(1 1) in some function, and in a completely different function, start a list with '(1 1) and then add more stuff to it. Upon running these functions, you may find that the first function doesn't match things properly anymore, because it's now trying to compare the variable to '(1 1 2 3 5 8 13), which is what the second function returned. These two functions are completely unrelated, but they have an effect on each other because of the use of constants. Even crazier bad effects can happen, like a perfectly normal list iteration suddenly infinite looping.
Use quote when you need a constant list, such as for comparison. Use list when you will be modifying the result.
One answer to this question says that QUOTE “creates list data structures”. This isn't quite right. QUOTE is more fundamental than this. In fact, QUOTE is a trivial operator: Its purpose is to prevent anything from happening at all. In particular, it doesn't create anything.
What (QUOTE X) says is basically “don't do anything, just give me X.” X needn't be a list as in (QUOTE (A B C)) or a symbol as in (QUOTE FOO). It can be any object whatever. Indeed, the result of evaluating the list that is produced by (LIST 'QUOTE SOME-OBJECT) will always just return SOME-OBJECT, whatever it is.
Now, the reason that (QUOTE (A B C)) seems as if it created a list whose elements are A, B, and C is that such a list really is what it returns; but at the time the QUOTE form is evaluated, the list has generally already been in existence for a while (as a component of the QUOTE form!), created either by the loader or the reader prior to execution of the code.
One implication of this that tends to trip up newbies fairly often is that it's very unwise to modify a list returned by a QUOTE form. Data returned by QUOTE is, for all intents and purposes, to be considered as part of the code being executed and should therefore be treated as read-only!
The quote prevents execution or evaluation of a form, turning it instead into data. In general you can execute the data by then eval'ing it.
quote creates list data structures, for example, the following are equivalent:
(quote a)
'a
It can also be used to create lists (or trees):
(quote (1 2 3))
'(1 2 3)
You're probably best off getting an introductary book on lisp, such as Practical Common Lisp (which is available to read on-line).
In Emacs Lisp:
What can be quoted ?
Lists and symbols.
Quoting a number evaluates to the number itself:
'5 is the same as 5.
What happens when you quote lists ?
For example:
'(one two) evaluates to
(list 'one 'two) which evaluates to
(list (intern "one") (intern ("two"))).
(intern "one") creates a symbol named "one" and stores it in a "central" hash-map, so anytime you say 'one then the symbol named "one" will be looked up in that central hash-map.
But what is a symbol ?
For example, in OO-languages (Java/Javascript/Python) a symbol could be represented as an object that has a name field, which is the symbol's name like "one" above, and data and/or code can be associated with it this object.
So an symbol in Python could be implemented as:
class Symbol:
def __init__(self,name,code,value):
self.name=name
self.code=code
self.value=value
In Emacs Lisp for example a symbol can have 1) data associated with it AND (at the same time - for the same symbol) 2) code associated with it - depending on the context, either the data or the code gets called.
For example, in Elisp:
(progn
(fset 'add '+ )
(set 'add 2)
(add add add)
)
evaluates to 4.
Because (add add add) evaluates as:
(add add add)
(+ add add)
(+ 2 add)
(+ 2 2)
4
So, for example, using the Symbol class we defined in Python above, this add ELisp-Symbol could be written in Python as Symbol("add",(lambda x,y: x+y),2).
Many thanks for folks on IRC #emacs for explaining symbols and quotes to me.
Code is data and data is code. There is no clear distinction between them.
This is a classical statement any lisp programmer knows.
When you quote a code, that code will be data.
1 ]=> '(+ 2 3 4)
;Value: (+ 2 3 4)
1 ]=> (+ 2 3 4)
;Value: 9
When you quote a code, the result will be data that represent that code. So, when you want to work with data that represents a program you quote that program. This is also valid for atomic expressions, not only for lists:
1 ]=> 'code
;Value: code
1 ]=> '10
;Value: 10
1 ]=> '"ok"
;Value: "ok"
1 ]=> code
;Unbound variable: code
Supposing you want to create a programming language embedded in lisp -- you will work with programs that are quoted in scheme (like '(+ 2 3)) and that are interpreted as code in the language you create, by giving programs a semantic interpretation. In this case you need to use quote to keep the data, otherwise it will be evaluated in external language.
When we want to pass an argument itself instead of passing the value of the argument then we use quote. It is mostly related to the procedure passing during using lists, pairs and atoms
which are not available in C programming Language ( most people start programming using C programming, Hence we get confused)
This is code in Scheme programming language which is a dialect of lisp and I guess you can understand this code.
(define atom? ; defining a procedure atom?
(lambda (x) ; which as one argument x
(and (not (null? x)) (not(pair? x) )))) ; checks if the argument is atom or not
(atom? '(a b c)) ; since it is a list it is false #f
The last line (atom? 'abc) is passing abc as it is to the procedure to check if abc is an atom or not, but when you pass(atom? abc) then it checks for the value of abc and passses the value to it. Since, we haven't provided any value to it
Quote returns the internal representation of its arguments. After plowing through way too many explanations of what quote doesn't do, that's when the light-bulb went on. If the REPL didn't convert function names to UPPER-CASE when I quoted them, it might not have dawned on me.
So. Ordinary Lisp functions convert their arguments into an internal representation, evaluate the arguments, and apply the function. Quote converts its arguments to an internal representation, and just returns that. Technically it's correct to say that quote says, "don't evaluate", but when I was trying to understand what it did, telling me what it doesn't do was frustrating. My toaster doesn't evaluate Lisp functions either; but that's not how you explain what a toaster does.
Anoter short answer:
quote means without evaluating it, and backquote is quote but leave back doors.
A good referrence:
Emacs Lisp Reference Manual make it very clear
9.3 Quoting
The special form quote returns its single argument, as written, without evaluating it. This provides a way to include constant symbols and lists, which are not self-evaluating objects, in a program. (It is not necessary to quote self-evaluating objects such as numbers, strings, and vectors.)
Special Form: quote object
This special form returns object, without evaluating it.
Because quote is used so often in programs, Lisp provides a convenient read syntax for it. An apostrophe character (‘'’) followed by a Lisp object (in read syntax) expands to a list whose first element is quote, and whose second element is the object. Thus, the read syntax 'x is an abbreviation for (quote x).
Here are some examples of expressions that use quote:
(quote (+ 1 2))
⇒ (+ 1 2)
(quote foo)
⇒ foo
'foo
⇒ foo
''foo
⇒ (quote foo)
'(quote foo)
⇒ (quote foo)
9.4 Backquote
Backquote constructs allow you to quote a list, but selectively evaluate elements of that list. In the simplest case, it is identical to the special form quote (described in the previous section; see Quoting). For example, these two forms yield identical results:
`(a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
⇒ (a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
'(a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
⇒ (a list of (+ 2 3) elements)
The special marker ‘,’ inside of the argument to backquote indicates a value that isn’t constant. The Emacs Lisp evaluator evaluates the argument of ‘,’, and puts the value in the list structure:
`(a list of ,(+ 2 3) elements)
⇒ (a list of 5 elements)
Substitution with ‘,’ is allowed at deeper levels of the list structure also. For example:
`(1 2 (3 ,(+ 4 5)))
⇒ (1 2 (3 9))
You can also splice an evaluated value into the resulting list, using the special marker ‘,#’. The elements of the spliced list become elements at the same level as the other elements of the resulting list. The equivalent code without using ‘`’ is often unreadable. Here are some examples:
(setq some-list '(2 3))
⇒ (2 3)
(cons 1 (append some-list '(4) some-list))
⇒ (1 2 3 4 2 3)
`(1 ,#some-list 4 ,#some-list)
⇒ (1 2 3 4 2 3)