I'm reading Peter Norvig's Paradigms of AI. In chapter 6.2, the author uses code like below (not the original code, I picked out the troubling part):
Code Snippet:
(progv '(op arg) '(1+ 1)
(eval '(op arg)))
As the author's original intent, this code should return 2, but in sbcl 1.1.1, the interpreter is apparently not looking up op in the environment, throwing out op: undefined function.
Is this implementation specific? Since the code must have been tested on some other lisp.
p.s Original code
You probably mean
(progv '(op arg) '(1+ 1)
(eval '(funcall op arg)))
Edit(2013-08-21):
PAIP was written in pre-ANSI-Common-Lisp era, so it's possible the code
there contains a few noncompliances wrt the standard. We can make
the examples work with the following revision:
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
"Test an arbitrary expression involving variables.
The pattern looks like ((?if code) . rest)."
(and (eval (reduce (lambda (code binding)
(destructuring-bind (var . val) binding
(subst val var code)))
bindings :initial-value (second (first pattern))))
(pat-match (rest pattern) input bindings)))
;; CL-USER> (pat-match '(?x ?op ?y is ?z (?if (eql (?op ?x ?y) ?z))) '(3 + 4 is 7))
;; ((?Z . 7) (?Y . 4) (?OP . +) (?X . 3) (T . T))
;; CL-USER> (pat-match '(?x ?op ?y (?if (?op ?x ?y))) '(3 > 4))
;; NIL
Elements in first positions are not looked up as values, but as functions and there is no concept of dynamic binding in the function namespace.
I'd say after a quick look that the original code was designed to evaluate in a context like
(progv '(x y) '(12 34)
(eval '(> (+ x y) 99)))
i.e. evaluating a formula providing substitution for variables, not for function names.
The other answers so far are right, in that the actual form being evaluated is not the variables being bound by progv (simply (op arg)), but none have mentioned what is being evaluated. In fact, the comments in the code you linked to provide a (very) short explanation (this is the only code in that file that uses progv):
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
"Test an arbitrary expression involving variables.
The pattern looks like ((?if code) . rest)."
;; *** fix, rjf 10/1/92 (used to eval binding values)
(and (progv (mapcar #'car bindings)
(mapcar #'cdr bindings)
(eval (second (first pattern))))
(pat-match (rest pattern) input bindings)))
The idea is that a call to match-if gets called like
(match-if '((?if code) . rest) input ((v1 val1) (v2 val2) ...))
and eval is called with (second (first pattern)), which the value of code. However, eval is called within the progv that binds v1, v2, &c., to the corresponding val1, val2, &c., so that if any of those variables appear free in code, then they are bound when code is evaluated.
Problem
The problem that I see here is that, by the code we can't tell if the value is to be saved as the variable's symbol-value or symbol-function. Thus when you put a + as a value to some corresponding variable, say v, then it'll always be saved as the symbol-value of var, not it's symbol-function.
Therefore when you'll try to use it as, say (v 1 2) , it won't work. Because there is no function named v in the functions' namespace(see this).
So, what to do?
A probable solution can be explicit checking for the value that is to be bound to a variable. If the value is a function, then it should be bound to the variable's function value. This checking can be done via fboundp.
So, we can make a macro functioner and a modified version of match-if. functioner checks if the value is a function, and sets it aptly. match-if does the dynamic local bindings, and allows other code in the scope of the bound variables.
(defmacro functioner (var val)
`(if (and (symbolp ',val)
(fboundp ',val))
(setf (symbol-function ',var) #',val)
(setf ,var ,val)))
(defun match-if (pattern input bindings)
(eval `(and (let ,(mapcar #'(lambda (x) (list (car x))) bindings)
(declare (special ,# (mapcar #'car bindings)))
(loop for i in ',bindings
do (eval `(functioner ,(first i) ,(rest i))))
(eval (second (first ',pattern))))
(pat-match (rest ',pattern) ',input ',bindings))))
Related
Looking at Practical Common Lisp, we're looking at a simple automated unit test framework. We're trying to write a macro to be used as such:
(check (= (+ 1 2) 3) (= (- 1 4) 9))
This should expand to something using a previously defined function report-result. The suggested implementation is:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(progn
,#(loop for f in forms collect `(report-result ,f ',f))))
However, that expansion seems rather procedural to me. I wanted to replace the loop with a mapcar to expand to something like this:
(mapcar #'(lambda (form) (report-result form 'form)) (list form-1 ... form-n))
However, I'm clearly lacking the macro-writing skills to do so. Can someone come up with one such macro?
In case it's relevant, this is the definition of report-result:
(defun report-result (result form)
(format t "~:[FAIL~;pass~] ... ~a~%" result form))
It's indeed fairly simple: you just place the collect expression into the body of your mapcar:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(progn
,#(mapcar #'(lambda (form)
`(report-result ,form ',form))
forms)))
You don't really need to know anything about the "macro-y" stuff that's going on, in order to do the replacement you want, which is simply replacing a loop with some other equivalent expression: it will work just as well in a macro context as it would outside.
If you want to expand to a mapcar you can, but there's no real reason to do so, since the list's size is known at compile time. Here's what that would look like:
(defmacro check (&body forms)
`(let ((results (list ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (form)
`(list ,form ',form))
forms))))
(mapcar #'(lambda (result)
(report-result (car result) (cadr result)))
results)))
Which expands like so
> (macroexpand-1 '(check (+ 1 2) (* 2 3)))
(let ((results (list (list (+ 1 2) '(+ 1 2))
(list (* 2 3) '(* 2 3)))))
(mapcar #'(lambda (result) (report-result (car result) (cadr result)))
results))
Which as you can see is rather awkward: the macro already has the forms like (+ 1 2) available to it, but in order to preserve them to runtime for the mapcar lambda to see, you have to emit the input form twice. And you have to produce the whole list to map over, rather than just producing a list that's "finished" to begin with. Additionally, this produces a list as output, and requires having all the inputs and outputs in memory at once: the original macro with progn produced the inputs and outputs one at a time, and discarded them when finished.
In Section 12.4 of On Lisp, Paul Graham writes, "Unfortunately, we can't define a correct _f with define-modify-macro, because the operator to be applied to the generalized variable is given as an argument."
But what's wrong with something like this?
(define-modify-macro _f (op operand)
(lambda (x op operand)
(funcall op x operand)))
(let ((lst '(1 2 3)))
(_f (second lst) #'* 6)
lst)
=> (1 12 3)
Has there perhaps been a change made to define-modify-macro in ANSI Common Lisp that wasn't valid at the time On Lisp was written? Or are there reasons other than the one stated for not using define-modify-macro here?
It appears that Graham want's to be able to make a call such as
(_f * (second lst) 6)
rather than
(_f #'* (second lst) 6)
But surely that's not in keeping with a Lisp2 such as Common Lisp?
According to both Lispworks's Hyperspec and CLtL2 (look for define-modify-macro), the function is assumed to be a symbol (to a function or a macro). As far as I know, the following definition might not be conforming the specification:
(define-modify-macro _f (op operand)
(lambda (x op operand)
(funcall op x operand)))
But of course, it is possible that an implementation allows it.
To be sure you are conforming to the standard, you can define your own function, or even a macro:
(defmacro funcall-1 (val fun &rest args)
`(funcall ,fun ,val ,#args))
(define-modify-macro _ff (&rest args) funcall-1)
(let ((x (list 1 2 3 4)))
(_ff (third x) #'+ 10)
x)
If you wanted to have the function as a second argument, you could define another macro:
(defmacro ff (fun-form place &rest args)
`(_ff ,place ,fun-form ,#args))
Basically, your approach consists in wrapping funcall in define-modify-macro, and give the desired function as an argument of that function. At first sight, it looks like a hack, but as we can see below, this gives the same macroexanded code as the one in On Lisp, assuming we modify the latter a little.
The macroexpansion of the above is:
(LET ((X (LIST 1 2 3 4)))
(LET* ((#:G1164 X) (#:G1165 (FUNCALL #'+ (THIRD #:G1164) 10)))
(SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA (CDDR #:G1164) #:G1165))
X)
The version in On Lisp behaves as follows:
(defmacro _f (op place &rest args)
(multiple-value-bind (vars forms var set access)
(get-setf-expansion
place)
`(let* (,#(mapcar #'list vars forms)
(, (car var) (,op ,access ,#args)))
,set)))
(let ((x (list 1 2 3 4)))
(_f * (third x) 10)
x)
Macroexpansion:
(LET ((X (LIST 1 2 3 4)))
(LET* ((#:G1174 X) (#:G1175 (* (THIRD #:G1174) 10)))
(SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA (CDDR #:G1174) #:G1175))
X)
Here, the * is injected directly by the macroexpansion, which means that the resulting code has no possible runtime overhead (though compilers would probably handle your (funcall #'+ ...) equally well). If you pass #'+ to the macro, it fails to macroexpand. This is the major difference with your approach, but not a big limitation. In order to allow the On Lisp version to accept #'*, or even (create-closure) as an operator, it should be modified as follows:
(defmacro _f (op place &rest args)
(multiple-value-bind (vars forms var set access)
(get-setf-expansion
place)
`(let* (,#(mapcar #'list vars forms)
(, (car var) (funcall ,op ,access ,#args)))
,set)))
(see the call to funcall)
The previous example is then expanded as follows, for #'*:
(LET ((X (LIST 1 2 3 4)))
(LET* ((#:G1180 X) (#:G1181 (FUNCALL #'* (THIRD #:G1180) 10)))
(SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA (CDDR #:G1180) #:G1181))
X)
Now, it is exactly as your version. On Lisp uses _f to demonstrate how to use get-setf-expansion, and _f is a good example for that. But on the other hand, your implementation seems equally good.
On the question of whether one might prefer to pass * or #'*, we can also note that the define-modify-macro version of _f and #coredump's adapted version (with funcall) both accept lambda forms in the op position with or without #' e.g. both (lambda (x y) (* x y)) and #'(lambda (x y) (* x y)), whereas Graham's original version accepts only the former.
Interestingly in his book Let over Lambda, Doug Hoyte draws attention to a remark by Graham in his book ANSI Common Lisp that being able to omit the #' before a lambda form provides "a specious form of elegance at best" before going on to prefer to omit it.
I'm not taking a stand either way, merely pointing out that given Graham's choice for _f, the absence of the #' is no longer specious but necessary.
I'm trying different binding models for macro lambda lists.
Edit: in fact the lambda list for my test macros is always (&rest ...). Which means that I'm 'destructuring' the argument list and not the lambda list. I try to get a solution that works for combining optional with key arguments or rest/body with key arguments - both combinations don't work in the Common Lisp standard implementation.
So I have different functions giving me a list of bindings having the same syntax as used by 'let'.
E.g:
(build-bindings ...) => ((first 1) middle (last "three"))
Now I thought to use a simple macro inside my test macros feeding such a list to 'let'.
This is trivial if I have a literal list:
(defmacro let-list (_list &rest _body)
`(let ,_list ,#_body))
(let-list ((a 236)) a) => 236
But that's the same as a plain 'let'.
What I'd like to have is the same thing with a generated list.
So e.g.
(let-list (build-bindings ...)
(format t "first: ~s~%" first)
last)
with (build-bindings ...), evaluated in the same lexical scope as the call (let-list ...), returning
((first 1) middle (last "three"))
the expansion of the macro should be
(let
((first 1) middle (last "three"))
(format t "first: ~s~%" first)
last)
and should print 1 and return "three".
Any idea how to accomplish that?
Edit (to make the question more general):
If I have a list of (symbol value) pairs, i.e. same syntax that let requires for it's list of bindings, e.g. ((one 1) (two 'two) (three "three")), is there any way to write a macro that creates lexical bindings of the symbols with the supplied values for it's &rest/&body parameter?
This is seems to be a possible solution which Joshua pointed me to:
(let ((list_ '((x 23) (y 6) z)))
(let
((symbols_(loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (car item_) item_)))
(values_ (loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (cadr item_) nil))))
(progv symbols_ values_
(format t "x ~s, y ~s, z ~s~%" x y z))))
evaluates to:
;Compiler warnings :
; In an anonymous lambda form: Undeclared free variable X
; In an anonymous lambda form: Undeclared free variable Y
; In an anonymous lambda form: Undeclared free variable Z
x 23, y 6, z NIL
I could also easily rearrange my build-bindings functions to return the two lists needed.
One problem is, that the compiler spits warnings if the variables have never been declared special.
And the other problem that, if the dynamically bound variables are also used in a surrounding lexical binding, they a shadowed by the lexical binding - again if they have never been declared special:
(let ((x 47) (y 11) (z 0))
(let ((list_ '((x 23) (y 6) z)))
(let
((symbols_(loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (car item_) item_)))
(values_ (loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (cadr item_) nil))))
(progv symbols_ values_
(format t "x ~s, y ~s, z ~s~%" x y z)))))
evaluates to:
x 47, y 11, z 0
A better way could be:
(let ((x 47) (y 11) (z 0))
(locally
(declare (special x y))
(let ((list_ '((x 23) (y 6) z)))
(let
((symbols_(loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (car item_) item_)))
(values_ (loop for item_ in list_
collect (if (listp item_) (cadr item_) nil))))
(progv symbols_ values_
(format t "x ~s, y ~s, z ~s~%" x y z))))))
evaluates to:
;Compiler warnings about unused lexical variables skipped
x 23, y 6, z NIL
I can't see at the moment whether there are other problems with the dynamic progv bindings.
But the whole enchilada of a progv wrapped in locally with all the symbols declared as special cries for a macro again - which is again not possible due to same reasons let-list doesn't work :(
The possiblilty would be a kind of macro-lambda-list destructuring-hook which I'm not aware of.
I have to look into the implementation of destructuring-bind since that macro does kind of what I'd like to do. Perhaps that will enlight me ;)
So a first (incorrect) attempt would look something like this:
(defun build-bindings ()
'((first 1) middle (last "three")))
(defmacro let-list (bindings &body body)
`(let ,bindings
,#body))
Then you could try doing something like:
(let-list (build-bindings)
(print first))
That won't work, of course, because the macro expansion leaves the form (build-bindings) in the resulting let, in a position where it won't be evaluated:
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings)
(print first))))
(LET (BUILD-BINDINGS)
(PRINT FIRST))
Evaluation during Macroexpansion time
The issue is that you want the result of build-bindings at macroexpansion time, and that's before the code as a whole is run. Now, in this example, build-bindings can be run at macroexpansion time, because it's not doing anything with any arguments (remember I asked in a comment what the arguments are?). That means that you could actually eval it in the macroexpansion:
(defmacro let-list (bindings &body body)
`(let ,(eval bindings)
,#body))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings)
(print first))))
(LET ((FIRST 1) MIDDLE (LAST "three"))
(PRINT FIRST))
Now that will work, insofar as it will bind first, middle, and last to 1, nil, and "three", respectively. However, if build-bindings actually needed some arguments that weren't available at macroexpansion time, you'd be out of luck. First, it can take arguments that are available at macroexpansion time (e.g., constants):
(defun build-bindings (a b &rest cs)
`((first ',a) (middle ',b) (last ',cs)))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings 1 2 3 4 5)
(print first))))
(LET ((FIRST '1) (MIDDLE '2) (LAST '(3 4 5)))
(PRINT FIRST))
You could also have some of the variables appear in there:
(defun build-bindings (x ex y why)
`((,x ,ex) (,y ,why)))
CL-USER> (pprint (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings 'a 'ay 'b 'bee)
(print first))))
(LET ((A AY) (B BEE))
(PRINT FIRST))
What you can't do, though, is have the variable names be determined from values that don't exist until runtime. E.g., you can't do something like:
(let ((var1 'a)
(var2 'b))
(let-list (build-bindings var1 'ay var2 'bee)
(print first))
because (let-list (build-bindings …) …) is macroexpanded before any of this code is actually executed. That means that you'd be trying to evaluate (build-bindings var1 'ay var2 'bee) when var1 and var2 aren't bound to any values.
Common Lisp does all its macroexpansion first, and then evaluates code. That means that values that aren't available until runtime are not available at macroexpansion time.
Compilation (and Macroexpansion) at Runtime
Now, even though I said that Common Lisp does all its macroexpansion first, and then evaluates code, the code above actually uses eval at macroexpansion to get some extra evaluation earlier. We can do things in the other direction too; we can use compile at runtime. That means that we can generate a lambda function and compile it based on code (e.g., variable names) provided at runtime. We can actually do this without using a macro:
(defun %dynamic-lambda (bindings body)
(flet ((to-list (x) (if (listp x) x (list x))))
(let* ((bindings (mapcar #'to-list bindings))
(vars (mapcar #'first bindings))
(vals (mapcar #'second bindings)))
(apply (compile nil `(lambda ,vars ,#body)) vals))))
CL-USER> (%dynamic-lambda '((first 1) middle (last "three"))
'((list first middle last)))
;=> (1 NIL "three")
This compiles a lambda expression that is created at runtime from a body and a list of bindings. It's not hard to write a macro that takes some fo the quoting hassle out of the picture:
(defmacro let-list (bindings &body body)
`(%dynamic-lambda ,bindings ',body))
CL-USER> (let-list '((first 1) middle (last "three"))
(list first middle last))
;=> (1 NIL "three")
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(let-list (build-bindings)
(list first middle last)))
;=> (%DYNAMIC-LAMBDA (BUILD-BINDINGS) '((LIST FIRST MIDDLE LAST)))
CL-USER> (flet ((build-bindings ()
'((first 1) middle (last "three"))))
(let-list (build-bindings)
(list first middle last)))
;=> (1 NIL "three")
This gives you genuine lexical variables from a binding list created at runtime. Of course, because the compilation is happening at runtime, you lose access to the lexical environment. That means that the body that you're compiling into a function cannot access the "surrounding" lexical scope. E.g.:
CL-USER> (let ((x 3))
(let-list '((y 4))
(list x y)))
; Evaluation aborted on #<UNBOUND-VARIABLE X {1005B6C2B3}>.
Using PROGV and special variables
If you don't need lexical variables, but can use special (i.e., dynamically scoped) variables instead, you can establish bindings at runtime using progv. That would look something like:
(progv '(a b c) '(1 2 3)
(list c b a))
;;=> (3 2 1)
You'll probably get some warnings with that if run it, because when the form is compiled, there's no way to know that a, b, and c are supposed to be special variables. You can use locally to add some special declarations, though:
(progv '(a b c) '(1 2 3)
(locally
(declare (special a b c))
(list c b a)))
;;=> (3 2 1)
Of course, if you're doing this, then you have to know the variables in advance which is exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place. However, if you're willing to know the names of the variables in advance (and your comments seem like you might be okay with that), then you can actually use lexical variables.
Lexical variables with values computed at run time
If you're willing to state what the variables will be, but still want to compute their values dynamically at run time, you can do that relatively easily. First, lets write the direct version (with no macro):
;; Declare three lexical variables, a, b, and c.
(let (a b c)
;; Iterate through a list of bindings (as for LET)
;; and based on the name in the binding, assign the
;; corresponding value to the lexical variable that
;; is identified by the same symbol in the source:
(dolist (binding '((c 3) (a 1) b))
(destructuring-bind (var &optional value)
(if (listp binding) binding (list binding))
(ecase var
(a (setf a value))
(b (setf b value))
(c (setf c value)))))
;; Do something with the lexical variables:
(list a b c))
;;=> (1 NIL 3)
Now, it's not too hard to write a macrofied version of this. This version isn't perfect, (e.g., there could be hygiene issues with names, and declarations in the body won't work (because the body is being spliced in after some stuff). It's a start, though:
(defmacro computed-let (variables bindings &body body)
(let ((assign (gensym (string '#:assign-))))
`(let ,variables
(flet ((,assign (binding)
(destructuring-bind (variable &optional value)
(if (listp binding) binding (list binding))
(ecase variable
,#(mapcar (lambda (variable)
`(,variable (setf ,variable value)))
variables)))))
(map nil #',assign ,bindings))
,#body)))
(computed-let (a b c) '((a 1) b (c 3))
(list a b c))
;;=> (1 NIL 3)
One way of making this cleaner would be to avoid the assignment altogether, and the computed values to provide the values for the binding directly:
(defmacro computed-let (variables bindings &body body)
(let ((values (gensym (string '#:values-)))
(variable (gensym (string '#:variable-))))
`(apply #'(lambda ,variables ,#body)
(let ((,values (mapcar #'to-list ,bindings)))
(mapcar (lambda (,variable)
(second (find ,variable ,values :key 'first)))
',variables)))))
This version creates a lambda function where the arguments are the specified variables and the body is the provided body (so the declarations in the body are in an appropriate place), and then applies it to a list of values extracted from the result of the computed bindings.
Using LAMBDA or DESTRUCTURING-BIND
since I'm doing some "destructuring" of the arguments (in a bit a different way), I know which arguments must be present or have which
default values in case of missing optional and key arguments. So in
the first step I get a list of values and a flag whether an optional
or key argument was present or defaulted. In the second step I would
like to bind those values and/or present/default flag to local
variables to do some work with them
This is actually starting to sound like you can do what you need to by using a lambda function or destructuring-bind with keyword arguments. First, note that you can use any symbol as a keyword argument indicator. E.g.:
(apply (lambda (&key
((b bee) 'default-bee b?)
((c see) 'default-see c?))
(list bee b? see c?))
'(b 42))
;;=> (42 T DEFAULT-SEE NIL)
(destructuring-bind (&key ((b bee) 'default-bee b?)
((c see) 'default-see c?))
'(b 42)
(list bee b? see c?))
;;=> (42 T DEFAULT-SEE NIL)
So, if you just make your function return bindings as a list of keyword arguments, then in the destructuring or function application you can automatically bind corresponding variables, assign default values, and check whether non-default values were provided.
Acting a bit indirectly:
a solution that works for combining optional with key arguments or
rest/body with key arguments
Have you considered the not-entirely-uncommon paradigm of using a sub-list for the keywords?
e.g.
(defmacro something (&key (first 1) second) &body body) ... )
or, a practical use from Alexandria:
(defmacro with-output-to-file ((stream-name file-name
&rest args
&key (direction nil direction-p)
&allow-other-keys)
&body body)
In Python, I am able to use yield to build up a list without having to define a temporary variable:
def get_chars_skipping_bar(word):
while word:
# Imperative logic which can't be
# replaced with a for loop.
if word[:3] == 'bar':
word = word[3:]
else:
yield foo[0]
foo = foo[1:]
In elisp, I can't see any way of doing this, either built-in or using any pre-existing libraries. I'm forced to manually build a up a list and call nreverse on it. Since this is a common pattern, I've written my own macro:
(require 'dash)
(require 'cl)
(defun replace-calls (form x func)
"Replace all calls to X (a symbol) in FORM,
calling FUNC to generate the replacement."
(--map
(cond
((consp it)
(if (eq (car it) x)
(funcall func it)
(replace-calls it x func)))
(:else it))
form))
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield foo).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to yield."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results (list)))
,#(replace-calls body 'yield
(lambda (form) `(push ,(second form) ,results)))
(nreverse ,results))))
Example usage:
(setq foo "barbazbarbarbiz")
(with-results
(while (not (s-equals? "" foo))
;; Imperative logic which can't be replaced with cl-loop's across.
(if (s-starts-with? "bar" foo)
(setq foo (substring foo 3))
(progn
(yield (substring foo 0 1))
(setq foo (substring foo 1))))))
There must be a better way of doing this, or an existing solution, somewhere in elisp, cl.el, or a library.
The Python function is actually a generator. In ANSI Common Lisp, we would usually reach for a lexical closure to simulate a generator, or else us a library to define generators directly, like Pygen. Maybe these approaches can be ported to Emacs Lisp.
AFAIK, people just use push+nreverse like you do. If you want to define your macro in a more robust way (e.g. so it doesn't misfire on something like (memq sym '(yield stop next))) you could do it as:
(defmacro with-results (&rest body)
"Execute BODY, which may contain forms (yield EXP).
Return a list built up from all the values passed to `yield'."
(let ((results (gensym "results")))
`(let ((,results '()))
(cl-macrolet ((yield (exp) `(push ,exp ,results)))
,#body)
(nreverse ,results))))
Maybe something like this:
(setq foo "barbaz")
(cl-loop for i from 0 to (1- (length foo))
collect (string (aref foo i)))
In any case, there's nothing wrong with push and nreverse.
Lisp is different from Python. yield is not used. I also see the use of coroutine-like constructs for this as a mistake. It's the equivalent of the come-from construct. Suddenly routines have multiple context dependent entry points.
In Lisp use functions/closures instead.
In Common Lisp, the LOOP macro allows efficient mappings over vectors. The following code can be abstracted to some mapping function, if preferred:
CL-USER 17 > (defun chars-without-substring (string substring)
(loop with i = 0
while (< i (length string))
when (and (>= (- (length string) i) (length substring))
(string= substring string
:start2 i
:end2 (+ i (length substring))))
do (incf i (length substring))
else
collect (prog1 (char string i) (incf i))))
CHARS-WITHOUT-SUBSTRING
CL-USER 18 > (chars-without-substring "barbazbarbarbiz" "bar")
(#\b #\a #\z #\b #\i #\z)
I have various functions and I want to call each function with the same value. For instance,
I have these functions:
(defun OP1 (arg) ( + 1 arg) )
(defun OP2 (arg) ( + 2 arg) )
(defun OP3 (arg) ( + 3 arg) )
And a list containing the name of each function:
(defconstant *OPERATORS* '(OP1 OP2 OP3))
So far, I'm trying:
(defun TEST (argument) (dolist (n *OPERATORS*) (n argument) ) )
I've tried using eval, mapcar, and apply, but these haven't worked.
This is just a simplified example; the program that I'm writing has eight functions that are needed to expand nodes in a search tree, but for the moment, this example should suffice.
Other answers have provided some idiomatic solutions with mapcar. One pointed out that you might want a list of functions (which *operators* isn't) instead of a list of symbols (which *operators* is), but it's OK in Common Lisp to funcall a symbol. It's probably more common to use some kind of mapping construction (e.g., mapcar) for this, but since you've provided code using dolist, I think it's worth looking at how you can do this iteratively, too. Let's cover the (probably more idiomatic) solution with mapping first, though.
Mapping
You have a fixed argument, argument, and you want to be able to take a function function and call it with that `argument. We can abstract this as a function:
(lambda (function)
(funcall function argument))
Now, we want to call this function with each of the operations that you've defined. This is simple to do with mapcar:
(defun test (argument)
(mapcar (lambda (function)
(funcall function argument))
*operators*))
Instead of operators, you could also write '(op1 op2 op3) or (list 'op1 'op2 'op3), which are lists of symbols, or (list #'op1 #'op2 #'op3) which is a list of functions. All of these work because funcall takes a function designator as its first argument, and a function designator is
an object that denotes a function and that is one of: a symbol (denoting the function named by that symbol in the global environment), or a function (denoting itself).
Iteratively
You can do this using dolist. The [documentation for actually shows that dolist has a few more tricks up its sleeve. The full syntax is from the documentation
dolist (var list-form [result-form]) declaration* {tag | statement}*
We don't need to worry about declarations here, and we won't be using any tags, but notice that optional result-form. You can specify a form to produce the value that dolist returns; you don't have to accept its default nil. The common idiom for collecting values into a list in an iterative loop is to push each value into a new list, and then return the reverse of that list. Since the new list doesn't share structure with anything else, we usually reverse it destructively using nreverse. Your loop would become
(defun test (argument)
(let ((results '()))
(dolist (op *operators* (nreverse results))
(push (funcall op argument) results))))
Stylistically, I don't like that let that just introduces a single value, and would probably use an &aux variable in the function (but this is a matter of taste, not correctness):
(defun test (argument &aux (results '()))
(dolist (op *operators* (nreverse results))
(push (funcall op argument) results)))
You could also conveniently use loop for this:
(defun test2 (argument)
(loop for op in *operators*
collect (funcall op argument)))
You can also do somewhat succinctly, but perhaps less readably, using do:
(defun test3a (argument)
(do ((results '() (list* (funcall (first operators) argument) results))
(operators *operators* (rest operators)))
((endp operators) (nreverse results))))
This says that on the first iteration, results and operators are initialized with '() and *operators*, respectively. The loop terminates when operators is the empty list, and whenever it terminates, the return value is (nreverse results). On successive iterations, results is a assigned new value, (list* (funcall (first operators) argument) results), which is just like pushing the next value onto results, and operators is updated to (rest operators).
FUNCALL works with symbols.
From the department of silly tricks.
(defconstant *operators* '(op1 op2 o3))
(defun test (&rest arg)
(setf (cdr arg) arg)
(mapcar #'funcall *operators* arg))
There's a library, which is almost mandatory in any anywhat complex project: Alexandria. It has many useful functions, and there's also something that would make your code prettier / less verbose and more conscious.
Say, you wanted to call a number of functions with the same value. Here's how you'd do it:
(ql:quickload "alexandria")
(use-package :alexandria)
(defun example-rcurry (value)
"Calls `listp', `string' and `numberp' with VALUE and returns
a list of results"
(let ((predicates '(listp stringp numberp)))
(mapcar (rcurry #'funcall value) predicates)))
(example-rcurry 42) ;; (NIL NIL T)
(example-rcurry "42") ;; (NIL T NIL)
(defun example-compose (value)
"Calls `complexp' with the result of calling `sqrt'
with the result of calling `parse-integer' on VALUE"
(let ((predicates '(complexp sqrt parse-integer)))
(funcall (apply #'compose predicates) value)))
(example-compose "0") ;; NIL
(example-compose "-1") ;; T
Functions rcurry and compose are from Alexandria package.