Related
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)
I have been programming in common lisp for a little while now, and throughout my experience using lisp, I have yet to see any function/macro that acts anything similar to function prototypes in C or C++.
Currently I have to very careful about the ordering of my functions, otherwise, when I try to call a function from another, Lisp says the function "does not exist" because it is defined later in the file. Is there a way to get around this? Can I declare all my function prototypes at the top of the file, and the full definitions below?
Declaim and Proclaim
You can use declaim to globally declare that a certain thing has a certain function type. For instance, look at what happens first if you define foo1 that calls undefined baz (in SBCL):
CL-USER> (defun foo1 ()
(baz))
; in: DEFUN FOO1
; (BAZ)
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: BAZ
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined function:
; BAZ
; caught 1 STYLE-WARNING condition
FOO1
Now, let's add a declamation that says that baz is a function of no arguments, and returns something. You could obviously add more type information if you wanted to, but this will at least provide the arity and the knowledge that baz is a function.
CL-USER> (declaim (ftype (function () t) baz))
; No value
Now when you define foo2 that also calls baz, you'll get no warning:
CL-USER> (defun foo2 ()
(baz))
FOO2
Declaim is a macro, but if you need to be able to generate some of these things at runtime, you can use proclaim, which is a function. E.g.,
CL-USER> (dolist (f '(square cube))
(proclaim `(ftype (function (number) number) ,f)))
NIL
CL-USER> (defun add-square-and-cube (x y)
(+ (square x) (cube y)))
ADD-SQUARE-AND-CUBE
That said, this is not very idiomatic Common Lisp. It's much more common to put the code you need into a file and then to compile that file and load it. If that's not possible for some reason, this will work, but it's worth considering other options of loading your code if they're available.
Muffling warnings
It's also worth noting that while SBCL will take the hint from proclaim or declaim and silence the undefined function warning, the function is still actually undefined. Other implementations (e.g., CLISP) will still issue a warning about the undefined function.
I don't really recommend the following approach, because warnings are around for a reason, but you can choose to muffle warnings when you evaluate code. E.g., in CLISP, we get a warning when we compile with undefined functions:
CL-USER> (compile nil (lambda () (baz)))
WARNING: Function BAZ is not defined
#<COMPILED-FUNCTION NIL>
1
1
We can bind a handler that will muffle any warnings that occur when the form is evaluated, though:
CL-USER> (handler-bind ((warning
(lambda (x)
(muffle-warning x))))
(compile nil (lambda () (baz))))
#<COMPILED-FUNCTION NIL>
1
1
This has its ow caveats, too, since the type of warning that you might get for compiling a reference to an undefined function might vary, and what muffling the warning does may vary.
As Rainer pointed out you can ignore this issue if the forward reference is within a single compilation unit. But that won't help if the forward reference crosses compilation units. Usually that's a sign that your code is poorly layered. Low level code makes calls to higher level code? Well, people will say the low level code is providing a hook for the high level code.
That said I certainly have seen and written code that had this problem. Spaghetti code, yum! It can arise when you start breaking huge source files into smaller ones. A compilation unit is usually a single file. But take a look at with-compilation-unit. I don't recall asdf doesn't provide easy access that though.
I don't know if Joshua's solution of using providing a declaration will work across all CL implementations. My memory is that when I had to solve this problem many many years ago we had to implement something more crude, we would give the function a stand in definition, and then hack together a way to suppress the definition warnings.
No doubt cl-launch could be used to see if Joshua's solution works across the spectrum of implementations.
You can define something to be a generic function before you define any of its methods. So, if you write
(defgeneric foo (x y z))
then any function calling FOO will see a defined function (although one without any methods). The body of the function can then be added later as a method
(defmethod foo (x y z)
;; The body of the function
...)
I'm familiar with Emacs Lisp, but not Common (or any other) Lisp. Some Lisp programmers suggest (e.g. A basic function for emacs) that it's good to use #' in front of function arguments in Lisp code. For example:
(mapc #'my-fun '(1 2 3))
In Emacs Lisp, I believe that this is equivalent to
(mapc 'my-fun '(1 2 3))
From the elisp manual, section 12.7.
The read syntax #' is a short-hand for using function. The
following forms are all equivalent:
(lambda (x) (* x x))
(function (lambda (x) (* x x)))
#'(lambda (x) (* x x))
and the help for function
function is a special form in eval.c.
(function ARG)
Like quote, but preferred for objects which are functions. In byte
compilation, function causes its argument to be compiled. quote
cannot do that.
So it seems like a potential optimization, but no more. Moreover, coming from an ML/Haskell background, it seems strange to treat a function differently from any other data.
Question:
Do you agree that #' should be used in emacs-lisp function arguments?
(A brief explanation of why they're needed in Common Lisp would be great as well.)
Notes:
I thought it may read a different cell when the #' is omitted (value vs function). But
this seems wrong because the documentation for function doesn't say anything about grabbing the function cell. This is achieved by using symbol-function.
Related questions are
The #' in common lisp
Writing lambda expressions in common lisp
Why #' is used before lambda in Common Lisp?
but they seem to suggest that the #' is unnecessary, at least in lambdas.
The quote character in #'foo has nothing to do with the one in 'foo.
#'foo is replaced at read time by (function foo). When that is compiled and executed, it looks up the functional definition named by foo (by defun, flet, labels or similar).
'foo is replaced at read time by (quote foo). When that is compiled and executed, it is simply replaced by the symbol foo.
Funcall and apply (and thus generally higher order functions) take function designators as arguments. A function designator can be a function or a symbol naming a function, so both #'foo and 'foo are function designators.
Therefore, the forms 'foo and #'foo seem interchangable at first glance. However, the lookup of the real function is done at different times—#'foo is looked up where it is invoked, while the function named by 'foo would only be looked up when it is finally applied.
If you use a function designator many times over, it is much more efficient to do the lookup just once, or even just at compile time. That can be a really big timesaver, and translates to a smoother user experience in an editor.
This question already has answers here:
What can you do with Lisp macros that you can't do with first-class functions?
(8 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
In my quest to fully understand the so powerful lisp macros a question came to my mind. I know that a golden rule about macros is the one saying "Never use a macro when a function will do the work".
However reading Chapter 9 - Practical: Building a Unit Test Framework - from the book Practical Common Lisp I was introduced to the below macro whose purpose was to get rid of the duplication of the test case expression, with its attendant risk of mislabeling of results.
;; Function defintion.
(defun report-result (result form)
(format t "~:[FAIL~;pass~] ... ~a~%" result form))
;; Macro Definition
(defmacro check (form)
`(report-result ,form ',form))
OK, I understand its purpose but I could have done it using a function instead of a macro, for instance:
(setf unevaluated.form '(= 2 (+ 2 3)))
(defun my-func (unevaluated.form)
(report-result (eval unevaluated.form) unevaluated.form))
Is this only possible because the given macro is too simple ?
Furthermore, is Lisp Macro System so powerful relatively its opponents due to the code itself - like control structures, functions, etc - is represented as a LIST ?
But if it were a macro you, could have done:
(check (= 2 (+ 2 3)))
With a function, you have to do:
(check '(= 2 (+ 2 3)))
Also, with the macro the (= 2 (+ 2 3)) is actually compiled by the compiler, whereas with the function it's evaluated by the eval function, not necessarily the same thing.
Addenda:
Yes, it's just evaluating the function. Now what that means is dependent upon the implementation. Some can interpret it, others can compile and execute it. But the simple matter is that you don't know from system to system.
The null lexical environment that others are mentioning is also a big deal.
Consider:
(defun add3f (form)
(eval `(+ 3 ,form)))
(demacro add3m (form)
`(+ 3 ,form))
Then observe:
[28]> (add3m (+ 2 3))
8
[29]> (add3f '(+ 2 3))
8
[30]> (let ((x 2)) (add3m (+ x 3)))
8
[31]> (let ((x 2)) (add3f '(+ x 3)))
*** - EVAL: variable X has no value
The following restarts are available:
USE-VALUE :R1 Input a value to be used instead of X.
STORE-VALUE :R2 Input a new value for X.
ABORT :R3 Abort main loop
Break 1 [32]> :a
That's really quite damning for most use cases. Since the eval has no lexical environment, it can not "see" the x from the enclosing let.
The better substitution would be not with eval, which won't perform as expected for all cases (for example, it doesn't have access to the lexical environment), and is also overkill (see here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2571549/977052), but something using anonymous functions, like this:
(defun check (fn)
(report-result (funcall fn) (function-body fn)))
CL-USER> (check (lambda () (= 2 (+ 2 3))))
By the way, this is how such things are accomplished in Ruby (anonymous functions are called procs there).
But, as you see, it becomes somewhat less elegant (unless you add syntax sugar) and, there's actually a bigger problem: ther's no function-body function in Lisp (although there may be non-standard ways to get at it). Overall, as you see, for this particular task the alternative solutions are substantially worse, although in some cases such approach could work.
In general, though, if you want to do something with the source code of the expressions passed into the macro (and usually this is the primary reason of using macros), functions would not be sufficient.
The report-result function needs both the source code and the result of the execution.
The macro CHECK provides both from a single source form.
If you put a bunch of check forms into the file, they are easily compiled using the usual process of compiling Lisp files. You'll get a compiled version of the checking code.
Using a function and EVAL (better use COMPILE) you would have deferred the source evaluation to a later time. It would also not be clear if it is interpreted or compiled. In case of compilation, you would then later get the compiler's checks.
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)