I am trying to write a source file for DrRacket that specifies one of the languages from How to Design Programs Teaching Languages (see the Racket documentation). I know I can select such a language in the DrRacket menu, but I would like to specify it using a #lang directive and have DrRacket recognize the language automatically.
I cannot find any documentation about the strings that I need to use instead of racket in the initial line
#lang racket
Where can I find the documentation on this? Or can these languages only be selected from DrRacket's menu?
You should be able to use
#lang htdp/bsl
(or htdp/bsl+, htdp/isl, htdp/isl+, or htdp/asl) but it's "not in a complete shape, yet".
Related
When writing in the Pie language within racket (i.e., a file starting with #lang pie) is there a way to include another file into the current file? I.e., something like #include "common.pie".
This more a question about pie than about racket.
According to the documentation of #lang pie the answer is no.
https://docs.racket-lang.org/pie/index.html
There is neither an include or an require in the list of available forms.
Consider sending a feature request to the authors of Pie.
I have created a module which provides various functions, including #%module-begin. I want to use it with at-exp syntax, which I can do using the following #lang line:
#lang at-exp s-exp "my-library.rkt"
However, this does not read unknown symbols as strings, as would happen for example when using the scribble/text language. How can I provide this functionality from my library, to save me writing quote marks around all my strings?
I think it may have something to do with the #%top function. Perhaps I can require it somehow from scribble/text and then provide it from my library?
What scribble/text does, is it starts reading the file in "text" mode, whereas at-exp starts reading the file in "racket" mode. Messing with #%top is not what you want here. To do the same thing as scribble/text, you would need a version of at-exp that starts in text mode. That doesn't exist (yet) though.
The function read-syntax-inside from scribble/reader does this. However, you will have to define your own #lang language that uses it. For that, you might find this documentation helpful, but there's no quick answer.
Update:
I looked at the implementation of scribble/text, and the answer seems a lot quicker than I thought it would be. Something like this should work:
my-library/lang/reader.rkt:
#lang s-exp syntax/module-reader
my-library/main
#:read scribble:read-inside
#:read-syntax scribble:read-syntax-inside
#:whole-body-readers? #t
#:info (scribble-base-reader-info)
(require (prefix-in scribble: scribble/reader)
(only-in scribble/base/reader scribble-base-reader-info))
Testing it:
#lang my-library
This is text
#(list 'but 'this 'is 'not)
I tested this with my-library/main.rkt re-providing everything from racket/base.
In C, if I want to see a function that how to work, I open the library which provides the function and analyze the code. How can be implementations of the lisp functions seen? For example, intersection function
You can also look at the source code of lisp functions.
For example, the source files for CLISP, one Common Lisp implementation, are available here: http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/src-files.html
If you want to examine the implementation of functions related to lists, you can look at the file: http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/src/list.d
The usual answer is "M-."
Assuming you have a properly configured IDE, and the source code of the function, clicking on its name and pressing M-. (that's Meta, or Alt or Option or Escape, and dot/period; or whatever key your IDE uses) should reveal its definition (or, for a generic function, definitions, plural; including any compiler macros that might optimize out some cases). Sometimes it's on a right-click or other mouse menu or toolbar.
If the source isn't available, you can often see the actual compiled form by evaluating (disassemble 'function)
Most IDE's, including perennial favourite Emacs+Slime, have other Inspection operations on the menu as well.
In a non-IDE environment, most compilers have reflection tools of their own (compiler-dependant) which are usually also mapped by the Swank library that Slime uses; one might find useful function in that package.
And this really should be documented in your IDE's manual.
I should postscript this that:
You really shouldn't care about the implementation of the core library functions; their contractual behavior is very well documented in the CLHS standard, which is available online and eg, Quicklisp has an utility to link it to Slime (C-c C-d h on a symbol in the COMMON-LISP package); for all well-written Lisp libraries, there should be documentation attached to functions, variables, classes, etc. accessible via the documentation function in the REPL or the IDE's menus and Inspection windows.
Core library functions are often highly optimized and far more complex than most user-level code should want to be, and often call down into compiler-specific "guts" that one should avoid doing in application code.
I would like to know the best way to customize auto-formatting/auto-indenting in vim for Common Lisp.
Auto-formatting (I usually do this by typing '==' in command mode per line) works very well for the base lisp language in vim (e.g., defmacro, defun, lambda, if, with-output-to-string), but any time that new language constructs are defined (e.g., using macros), I find that the formatting for the new construct is often not what I'd like it to be.
For example, here's how vim formats 'when (standard lisp construct) and 'awhen (commonly-used anaphoric version of 'when; not part of lisp standard)
(when 'this
(process 'this))
(awhen 'this
(process it))
I would like 'awhen to auto-format like 'when. Any ideas how I can do this?
Edit: Thanks Gilligan and Tamas for the Slimv recommendation. As a test, I downloaded MacVim (will need this working with terminal vim, but that's a different problem) and slimv, rsynched the slimv download into ~/.vim, launched MacVim, and loaded a .lisp file.
I then started up the lisp server (done through a GUI with MacVim), which loaded up my default lisp executable and core file.
And* since my core file is already loaded with the language extensions that I commonly use (awhen being one of them), awhen formatted correctly right out of the box.
I really like this solution. Instead of [1] having to learn how to tell vim to indent particular functions properly, and [2] writing the code that does this explicitly for each language extension that I define, and [3] updating that code every time I add a new language construct. Instead I leverage slimv to do the formatting for me. And slimv can 'learn' new language extensions, as long as those macros are already loaded into the lisp core that the server session is using. Pretty slick!
I have found that this works well for a particular class of language extensions. Usually ones defined as a macro, using the &body keyword. This seems to 'do the right thing' most of the time, but there are macros I use that still don't properly auto-format. Although I'd say that this is more likely to be an issue with how the macro is written (non-standard language extension) than anything else.
So, this solution works well for me for most cases, and I didn't have to code (and maintain) anything. Great stuff!
This might not be a direct answer to your question but I strongly suggest that you install
the slimv plugin: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2531
Its a great plugin which integrates SLIME functionality into vim and besides many other things it also comes with an improved indentation for clisp&clojure. It won't indent awhen the way you want though.
For those who are looking for this topic and don't want to run Slimv, because they aren't working with Common Lisp or other reasons, here is the scoop.
Vim's Lisp indentation is not like that for other languages; it has a special "Lisp mode". This mode is turned on by
:set lisp
which is done automatically for .lisp files. Lisp mode isn't a Vim invention; classic Vi implementations have a Lisp mode turned on with :set lisp. (It's not described by POSIX, unfortunately).
Vim's Lisp mode has a simple mechanism for recognizing forms that require operator-style indentation: namely, there is a parameter called lispwords which holds a comma-separated list of identifiers.
You can prove to yourself that this is the identifier list which is used, even when you're editing a Common Lisp .lisp file with syntax highlighting and all. Simply do :set listwords[TAB] and edit the list to remove something from it, such as defun. Then try to reindent a defun: you will see the function-style indentation now instead of the operator-style.
The syntax highlighting support for Common Lisp is separate from Lisp mode's lispwords parameter; it has its own list of identifiers. For example, in Vim 7.3 if you enter this:
(symbol-macrolet ((foo bar))
you get indented out to here!)
This is in spite of the fact that symbol-macrolet is recognized and colored. Why? It's because symbol-macrolet does not appear in the rather scanty lispwords list, whereas it does appear in the lisp.vim syntax highlighting definition file.
The upshot is that you can cob together some script which scans your directory of .lisp files for macros and generates a set lispwords=... command that is placed into a directory .vimrc.
Or if you are working on a custom Lisp dialect, you can just make its Vim syntax highlighting file customize lispwords when it loads.
Here is an implementation oversight: the lispwords option has no local value; you cannot use setlocal lispwords ... to give it a buffer-specific value. In other words, it appears that (at least in the Vim 7.3 I'm using under Ubuntu) you can't have two or more buffers open holding different dialects of Lisp with different identifiers for indentation. The default contents of lispwords contains a smattering of Lisp and Scheme symbols to try to be a kind of "one size almost fits all" solution.
If you filetype is 'lisp' then I think you need to add indenting rules for your special case in the 'lisp.vim' file in the '/vim7x/indent' directory. You can find a bit more info in help at :h indent-expr and :h indentexpr.
Someone may be able to tell you better, but I believe the default lisp.vim indent file basically does nothing because the built-in function lispindent() is used to get indent values. You will want to:
(1) set function used to get indent values (i.e., indentexpr) to a function in your own indent/lisp.vim file, e.g., GetLispIndent().
(2) in your your GetLispIndent() function you will use lispindent() to get indent values to return for all lines except your special case. See other languages' indent files and read the docs to get an idea for how indentexpr works, e.g, java.vim.
#Kaz's answer is completely correct, but they don't go all the way to answering the original question. Vim's lispwords config string is a comma-delimited list of words; when any of the words in lispwords is found at the beginning of an S-expression, Vim will change the way that S-expression is indented. In other words, it defines the "standard lisp constructs" to which the OP refers. If you view your current lispwords config with :set lispwords, you'll see "when" is included, but "awhen" is not, resulting in the following indentation:
(when 'this
(process 'this))
(awhen 'this
(process it))
To fix this, simply add "awhen" to the config string somewhere in your config, like so:
set lispwords+=awhen,
The trailing comma isn't strictly necessary, but the default value includes it, and is probably wise in case you or a plugin modifier elsewhere. That would turn the original formatting into this:
(when 'this
(process 'this))
(awhen 'this
(process it))
(Tested on my current installation of Vim 9.0)
Note that, as #Kaz points out, this config string is universal, so if you have different dialects of lisp their indentation will all be controlled by this setting. Vim is pretty good about auto-detecting lisps, but you may need so :set lisp if it doesn't recognize your filetype or dialect.
What language should I select in DrRacket in order to do SICP exercises?
If you're using SICP with DrRacket, Neil Van Dyke has put together an excellent software package to help with this. Alternatively, you might be able to use the "Pretty Big" language (under Legacy languages).
The best language for using DrRacket in is the "Determine language from source" option, with #lang racket at the top, but SICP programs may not work perfectly in that context.