Related
Short version:
I want to change the #+ and #- reader macros to apply to all immediately subsequent tokens starting with ##, in addition to the following token. Therefore, the following code...
#+somefeature
##someattribute1
##someattribute2
(defun ...)
...would, in the absence of somefeature, result in no code.
Long version:
I have written my own readtable-macros which apply transformations to subsequent code. For example:
##traced
(defun ...)
This yields a function that writes its arguments and return values to a file, for debugging.
This fails, however, when used in conjunction with the #+ reader macro:
#+somefeature
##traced
(defun ...)
In the absence of somefeature, the function continues to be defined, albeit without the ##traced modification. This is obviously not the desired outcome.
One possible solution would be to use progn, as follows:
#+somefeature
(progn
##traced
(defun ...))
But that's kind of ugly.
I would like to modify the #+ and #- reader macros, such that they may consume more than one token. Something like this:
(defun conditional-syntax-reader (stream subchar arg)
; If the conditional fails, consume subsequent tokens while they
; start with ##, then consume the next token.
)
(setf *readtable* (copy-readtable))
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\+ #'conditional-syntax-reader)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\- #'conditional-syntax-reader)
The problem is, I don't know how to "delegate" to the original reader macros; and I don't understand enough about how they were implemented to re-implement them myself in their entirety.
A naive approach would be:
(defun consume-tokens-recursively (stream)
(let ((token (read stream t nil t)))
(when (string= "##" (subseq (symbol-string token) 0 2))
(consume-tokens-recursively stream)))) ; recurse
(defun conditional-syntax-reader (stream subchar arg)
(unless (member (read stream t nil t) *features*)
(consume-tokens-recursively stream)))
However, I'm given to believe that this wouldn't be sufficient:
The #+ syntax operates by first reading the feature specification and then skipping over the form if the feature is false. This skipping of a form is a bit tricky because of the possibility of user-defined macro characters and side effects caused by the #. and #, constructions. It is accomplished by binding the variable read-suppress to a non-nil value and then calling the read function.
This seems to imply that I can just let ((*read-suppress* t)) when using read to solve the issue. Is that right?
EDIT 1
Upon further analysis, it seems the problem is caused by not knowing how many tokens to consume. Consider the following attributes:
##export expects one argument: the (defun ...) to export.
##traced expects two arguments: the debug level and the (defun ...) to trace.
Example:
#+somefeature
##export
##traced 3
(defun ...)
It turns out that #+ and #- are capable of suppressing all these tokens; but there is a huge problem!
When under a suppressing #+ or #-, (read) returns NIL!
Example:
(defun annotation-syntax-reader (stream subchar arg)
(case (read stream t nil t)
('export
(let ((defun-form (read stream t nil t)))))
; do something
('traced
(let* ((debug-level (read stream t nil t))
(defun-form (read stream t nil t)))))))
; do something
(setf *readtable* (copy-readtable))
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\# #'annotation-syntax-reader)
#+(or) ##traced 3 (defun ...)
The ##traced token is being suppressed by the #+. In this situation, all the (read) calls in (annotation-syntax-reader) consume real tokens but return NIL!
Therefore, the traced token is consumed, but the case fails. No additional tokens are thus consumed; and control leaves the scope of the #+.
The (defun ...) clause is executed as normal, and the function comes into being. Clearly not the desired outcome.
The standard readtable
Changing the macros for #+ and #- is a bit excessive solution I think, but in any case remember to not actually change the standard readtable (as you did, but its important to repeat in the answer)
The consequences are undefined if an attempt is made to modify the standard readtable. To achieve the effect of altering or extending standard syntax, a copy of the standard readtable can be created; see the function copy-readtable.
§2.1.1.2 The Standard Readtable
Now, maybe I'm missing something (please give us a hint about how your reader macro is defined if so), but I think it is possible to avoid that and write your custom macros in a way that works for your use case.
Reader macro
Let's define a simple macro as follows:
CL-USER> (defun my-reader (stream char)
(declare (ignore char))
(let ((name (read stream)
(form (read stream))
(unless *read-suppress*
`(with-decoration ,name ,form)))
MY-READER
[NB: This was edited to take into account *read-suppress*: the code always read two forms, but returns nil in case it is being ignored. In the comments you say that you may need to read an indefinite number of forms based on the name of the decoration, but with *read-suppress* the recursive calls to read return nil for symbols, so you don't know which decoration is being applied. In that case it might be better to wrap some arguments in a literal list, or parse the stream manually (read-char, etc.). Also, since you are using a dispatching macro, maybe you can add a numerical argument if you want the decoration to be applied to more than one form (#2#inline), but that could be a bad idea when later the decorated code is being modified.]
Here the reader does a minimal job, namely build a form that is intended to be macroexpanded later. I don't even need to define with-decoration for now, as I'm interested in the read step. The intent is to read the next token (presumably a symbol that indicates what decoration is being applied, and a form to decorate).
I'm binding this macro to a unused character:
CL-USER> (set-macro-character #\§ 'my-reader)
T
Here when I test the macro it wraps the following form:
CL-USER> (read-from-string "§test (defun)")
(WITH-DECORATION TEST (DEFUN))
13 (4 bits, #xD, #o15, #b1101)
And here it works with a preceding QUOTE too, the apostrophe reader grabs the next form, which recursively reads two forms:
CL-USER> '§test (defun)
(WITH-DECORATION TEST (DEFUN))
Likewise, a conditional reader macro will ignore all the next lines:
CL-USER> #+(or) t
; No values
CL-USER> #+(or) §test (defun)
; No values
CL-USER> #+(or) §one §two §three (defun)
; No values
Decoration macro
If you use this syntax, you'll have nested decorated forms:
CL-USER> '§one §two (defun test ())
(WITH-DECORATION ONE (WITH-DECORATION TWO (DEFUN TEST ())))
With respect to defun in toplevel positions, you can arrange for your macros to unwrap the nesting (not completely tested, there might be bugs):
(defun unwrap-decorations (form stack)
(etypecase form
(cons (destructuring-bind (head . tail) form
(case head
(with-decoration (destructuring-bind (token form) tail
(unwrap-decorations form (cons token stack))))
(t `(with-decorations ,(reverse stack) ,form)))))))
CL-USER> (unwrap-decorations ** nil)
(WITH-DECORATIONS (ONE TWO) (DEFUN TEST ()))
And in turn, with-decorations might know about DEFUN forms and how to annotate them as necessary.
For the moment, our original macro is only the following (it needs more error checking):
(defmacro with-decoration (&whole whole &rest args)
(unwrap-decorations whole nil))
For the sake of our example, let's define a generic annotation mechanism:
CL-USER> (defgeneric expand-decoration (type name rest))
#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION COMMON-LISP-USER::EXPAND-DECORATION (0)>
It is used in with-decorations to dispatch on an appropriate expander for each decoration. Keep in mind that all the efforts here are to keep defun in a top-level positions (under a progn), a recursive annotation would let evaluation happens (in the case of defun, it would result in the name of the function being defined), and the annotation could be done on the result.
The main macro is then here, with a kind of fold (reduce) mechanism where the forms are decorated using the resulting expansion so far. This allows for expanders to place code before or after the main form (or do other fancy things):
(defmacro with-decorations ((&rest decorations) form)
(etypecase form
(cons (destructuring-bind (head . tail) form
(ecase head
(defun (destructuring-bind (name args . body) tail
`(progn
,#(loop
for b = `((defun ,name ,args ,#body)) then forms
for d in decorations
for forms = (expand-decoration d name b)
finally (return forms))))))))))
(nb. here above we only care about defun but the loop should probably be done outside of the dispatching thing, along with a way to indicate to expander methods that a function is being expanded; well, it could be better)
Say, for example, you want to declare a function as inline, then the declaration must happen before (so that the compiler can know the source code must be kept):
(defmethod expand-decoration ((_ (eql 'inline)) name rest)
`((declaim (inline ,name)) ,#rest))
Likewise, if you want to export the name of the function being defined, you can export it after the function is defined (order is not really important here):
(defmethod expand-decoration ((_ (eql 'export)) name rest)
`(,#rest (export ',name)))
The resulting code allows you to have a single (progn ...) form with a defun in toplevel position:
CL-USER> (macroexpand '§inline §export (defun my-test-fn () "hello"))
(PROGN
(DECLAIM (INLINE MY-TEST-FN))
(DEFUN MY-TEST-FN () "hello")
(EXPORT 'MY-TEST-FN))
I would like a more detailed explanation of how macro expansion works, at least in Emacs Lisp but an overview of other Lisps would be appreciated. The way I usually see it explained is that the arguments of the macro are passed unevaluated to the body, which is then executed and returns a new LISP form. However, if I do
(defun check-one (arg)
(eq arg 1))
(defmacro check-foo (checker foo)
(if (checker 1)
`(,foo "yes")
`(,foo "no")))
I would expect
(check-foo check-one print)
to first expand to
(if (check-one 1)
`(print "yes")
`(print "no))
and then finally to
(print "yes")
but instead I get a "checker" function is void error. On the other hand, if I had defined
(defmacro check-foo (checker foo)
(if (funcall checker 1)
`(,foo "yes")
`(,foo "no")))
then I would have the expected behavior. So the expressions do get replaced in the body unevaluated, but for some reason functions do not work? What is the step-by-step procedure the interpreter follows when macroexpanding? Is there a good text-book that explains this rigorously?
Macros are functions ...
A good way to think about macros is that they are simply functions, like any other function.
... which operate on source code
But they are functions whose arguments are source code, and whose value is also source code.
Looking at macro functions
Macros being functions is not quite explicit in elisp: some of the lower-level functionality is, I think, not exposed. But in Common Lisp this is quite literally how macros are implemented: a macro has an associated function, and this function gets called to expand the macro, with its value being the new source code. For instance, if you are so minded you could write macros in Common Lisp like this.
(defun expand-fn (form environment)
;; not talking about environment
(declare (ignore environment))
(let ((name (second form))
(arglist (third form))
(body (cdddr form)))
`(function (lambda ,arglist
(block ,name
,#body)))))
(setf (macro-function 'fn) #'expand-fn)
And now fn is a macro which will construct a function which 'knows its name', so you could write
(fn foo (x) ... (return-from foo x) ...)
which turns into
(function (lambda (x) (block foo ... (return-from foo x))))
In Common Lisp, defmacro is then itself a macro which arranges for a suitable macro function to be installed and also deals with making the macro available at compile time &c.
In elisp, it looks as if this lower layer is not specified by the language, but I think it's safe to assume that things work the same way.
So then the job of a macro is to take a bunch of source code and compute from it another bunch of source code which is the expansion of the macro. And of course the really neat trick is that, because source code (both arguments and values) is represented as s-expressions, Lisp is a superb language for manipulating s-expressions, you can write macros in Lisp itself.
Macroexpansion
There are a fair number of fiddly corner cases here such as local macros and so on. But here is, pretty much, how this works.
Start with some form <f>:
If <f> is (<a> ...) where <a> is a symbol, check for a macro function for <a>. If it has one, call it on the whole form, and call the value it returns <f'>: now simply recurse on <f'>.
If <f> is (<a> ...) where <a> is a symbol which names a special operator (something like if) then recurse on the subforms of the special operator which its rules say must be macroexpanded. As an example, in a form like (if <x> <y> <z>) all of <x>, <y>, & <z> need to be macroexpanded, while in (setq <a> <b>), only <b> would be subject to macroexpansion, and so on: these rules are hard-wired, which is why special operators are special.
If <f> is (<a> ...) where <a> is a symbol which is neither of the above cases, then it's a function call, and the forms in the body of the form are macroexpanded, and that's it.
If <f> is ((lambda (...) ...) ...) then the forms in the body of the lambda (but not its arguments!) are macroexpanded and then the case is the same as the last one.
Finally <f> might not be a compound form: nothing to do here.
I think that's all the cases. This is not a complete description of the process because there are complications like local macros and so on. But it's enough I think.
Order of macroexpansion
Note that macroexpansion happens 'outside in': a form like (a ...) is expanded until you get something which isn't a macro form, and only then is the body, perhaps, expanded. That's because, until the macro is completely expanded, you have no idea which, if any, of the subforms are even eligible for macroexpansion.
Your code
My guess is that what you want to happen is that (check-foo bog foo) should turn into (if (bog 1) (foo yes) (foo no)). So the way to get this is that this form is what the macro function needs to return. We could write this using the CL low-level facilities:
(defun check-foo-expander (form environment)
;; form is like (check-foo pred-name function-name)
(declare (ignore environment)) ;still not talking about environment
`(if (,(second form) 1)
(,(third form) "yes")
(,(third form) "no")))
And we can check:
> (check-foo-expander '(check-foo bog foo) nil)
(if (bog 1) (foo "yes") (foo "no"))
And then install it as a macro:
> (setf (macro-function 'check-foo) #'check-foo-expander)
And now
> (check-foo evenp print)
"no"
"no"
> (check-foo oddp print)
"yes"
"yes"
But it's easier to write it using defmacro:
(defmacro check-foo (predicate function)
`(if (,predicate 1)
(,function "yes")
(,function "no")))
This is the same thing (more-or-less), but easier to read.
AND and OR are macros and since macros aren't first class in scheme/racket they cannot be passed as arguments to other functions. A partial solution is to use and-map or or-map. Is it possible to write a function that would take arbitrary macro and turn it into a function so that it can be passed as an argument to another function? Are there any languages that have first class macros?
In general, no. Consider that let is (or could be) implemented as a macro on top of lambda:
(let ((x 1))
(foo x))
could be a macro that expands to
((lambda (x) (foo x)) 1)
Now, what would it look like to convert let to a function? Clearly it is nonsense. What would its inputs be? Its return value?
Many macros will be like this. In fact, any macro that could be routinely turned into a function without losing any functionality is a bad macro! Such a macro should have been a function to begin with.
I agree with #amalloy. If something is written as a macro, it probably does something that functions can't do (e.g., introduce bindings, change evaluation order). So automatically converting arbitrary macro into a function is a really bad idea even if it is possible.
Is it possible to write a function that would take arbitrary macro and turn it into a function so that it can be passed as an argument to another function?
No, but it is somewhat doable to write a macro that would take some macro and turn it into a function.
#lang racket
(require (for-syntax racket/list))
(define-syntax (->proc stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ mac #:arity arity)
(with-syntax ([(args ...) (generate-temporaries (range (syntax-e #'arity)))])
#'(λ (args ...) (mac args ...)))]))
((->proc and #:arity 2) 42 12)
(apply (->proc and #:arity 2) '(#f 12))
((->proc and #:arity 2) #f (error 'not-short-circuit))
You might also be interested in identifier macro, which allows us to use an identifier as a macro in some context and function in another context. This could be used to create a first class and/or which short-circuits when it's used as a macro, but could be passed as a function value in non-transformer position.
On the topic of first class macro, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fexpr. It's known to be a bad idea.
Not in the way you probably expect
To see why, here is a way of thinking about macros: A macro is a function which takes a bit of source code and turns it into another bit of source code: the expansion of the macro. In other words a macro is a function whose domain and range are source code.
Once the source code is fully expanded, then it's fed to either an evaluator or a compiler. Let's assume it's fed to a compiler because it makes the question easier to answer: a compiler itself is simply a function whose domain is source code and whose range is some sequence of instructions for a machine (which may or may not be a real machine) to execute. Those instructions might include things like 'call this function on these arguments'.
So, what you are asking is: can the 'this function' in 'call this function on these arguments' be some kind of macro? Well, yes, it could be, but whatever source code it is going to transform certainly can not be the source code of the program you are executing, because that is gone: all that's left is the sequence of instructions that was the return value of the compiler.
So you might say: OK, let's say we disallow compilers: can we do it now? Well, leaving aside that 'disallowing compilers' is kind of a serious limitation, this was, in fact, something that very old dialects of Lisp sort-of did, using a construct called a FEXPR, as mentioned in another answer. It's important to realise that FEXPRs existed because people had not yet invented macros. Pretty soon, people did invent macros, and although FEXPRs and macros coexisted for a while – mostly because people had written code which used FEXPRs which they wanted to keep running, and because writing macros was a serious pain before things like backquote existed – FEXPRs died out. And they died out because they were semantically horrible: even by the standards of 1960s Lisps they were semantically horrible.
Here's one small example of why FEXPRs are so horrible: Let's say I write this function in a language with FEXPRs:
(define (foo f g x)
(apply f (g x)))
Now: what happens when I call foo? In particular, what happens if f might be a FEXPR?. Well, the answer is that I can't compile foo at all: I have to wait until run-time and make some on-the-fly decision about what to do.
Of course this isn't what these old Lisps with FEXPRs probably did: they would just silently have assumed that f was a normal function (which they would have called an EXPR) and compiled accordingly (and yes, even very old Lisps had compilers). If you passed something which was a FEXPR you just lost: either the thing detected that, or more likely it fall over horribly or gave you some junk answer.
And this kind of horribleness is why macros were invented: macros provide a semantically sane approach to processing Lisp code which allows (eventually, this took a long time to actually happen) minor details like compilation being possible at all, code having reasonable semantics and compiled code having the same semantics as interpreted code. These are features people like in their languages, it turns out.
Incidentally, in both Racket and Common Lisp, macros are explicitly functions. In Racket they are functions which operate on special 'syntax' objects because that's how you get hygiene, but in Common Lisp, which is much less hygienic, they're just functions which operate on CL source code, where the source code is simply made up of lists, symbols &c.
Here's an example of this in Racket:
> (define foo (syntax-rules ()
[(_ x) x]))
> foo
#<procedure:foo>
OK, foo is now just an ordinary function. But it's a function whose domain & range are Racket source code: it expects a syntax object as an argument and returns another one:
> (foo 1)
; ?: bad syntax
; in: 1
; [,bt for context]
This is because 1 is not a syntax object.
> (foo #'(x 1))
#<syntax:readline-input:5:10 1>
> (syntax-e (foo #'(x 1)))
1
And in CL this is even easier to see: Here's a macro definition:
(defmacro foo (form) form)
And now I can get hold of the macro's function and call it on some CL source code:
> (macro-function 'foo)
#<Function foo 4060000B6C>
> (funcall (macro-function 'foo) '(x 1) nil)
1
In both Racket and CL, macros are, in fact, first-class (or, in the case of Racket: almost first-class, I think): they are functions which operate on source code, which itself is first-class: you can write Racket and CL programs which construct and manipulate source code in arbitrary ways: that's what macros are in these languages.
In the case of Racket I have said 'almost first-class', because I can't see a way, in Racket, to retrieve the function which sits behind a macro defined with define-syntax &c.
I've created something like this in Scheme, it's macro that return lambda that use eval to execute the macro:
(define-macro (macron m)
(let ((x (gensym)))
`(lambda (,x)
(eval `(,',m ,#,x)))))
Example usage:
;; normal eval
(define x (map (lambda (x)
(eval `(lambda ,#x)))
'(((x) (display x)) ((y) (+ y y)))))
;; using macron macro
(define x (map (macron lambda)
'(((x) (display x)) ((y) (+ y y)))))
and x in both cases is list of two functions.
another example:
(define-macro (+++ . args)
`(+ ,#args))
((macron +++) '(1 2 3))
In Common Lisp, a macro definition must have been seen before the first use. This allows a macro to refer to itself, but does not allow two macros to refer to each other. The restriction is slightly awkward, but understandable; it makes the macro system quite a bit easier to implement, and to understand how the implementation works.
Is there any Lisp family language in which two macros can refer to each other?
What is a macro?
A macro is just a function which is called on code rather than data.
E.g., when you write
(defmacro report (x)
(let ((var (gensym "REPORT-")))
`(let ((,var ,x))
(format t "~&~S=<~S>~%" ',x ,var)
,var)))
you are actually defining a function which looks something like
(defun macro-report (system::<macro-form> system::<env-arg>)
(declare (cons system::<macro-form>))
(declare (ignore system::<env-arg>))
(if (not (system::list-length-in-bounds-p system::<macro-form> 2 2 nil))
(system::macro-call-error system::<macro-form>)
(let* ((x (cadr system::<macro-form>)))
(block report
(let ((var (gensym "REPORT-")))
`(let ((,var ,x)) (format t "~&~s=<~s>~%" ',x ,var) ,var))))))
I.e., when you write, say,
(report (! 12))
lisp actually passes the form (! 12) as the 1st argument to macro-report which transforms it into:
(LET ((#:REPORT-2836 (! 12)))
(FORMAT T "~&~S=<~S>~%" '(! 12) #:REPORT-2836)
#:REPORT-2836)
and only then evaluates it to print (! 12)=<479001600> and return 479001600.
Recursion in macros
There is a difference whether a macro calls itself in implementation or in expansion.
E.g., a possible implementation of the macro and is:
(defmacro my-and (&rest args)
(cond ((null args) T)
((null (cdr args)) (car args))
(t
`(if ,(car args)
(my-and ,#(cdr args))
nil))))
Note that it may expand into itself:
(macroexpand '(my-and x y z))
==> (IF X (MY-AND Y Z) NIL) ; T
As you can see, the macroexpansion contains the macro being defined.
This is not a problem, e.g., (my-and 1 2 3) correctly evaluates to 3.
However, if we try to implement a macro using itself, e.g.,
(defmacro bad-macro (code)
(1+ (bad-macro code)))
you will get an error (a stack overflow or undefined function or ...) when you try to use it, depending on the implementation.
Here's why mutually recursive macros can't work in any useful way.
Consider what a system which wants to evaluate (or compile) Lisp code for a slightly simpler Lisp than CL (so I'm avoiding some of the subtleties that happen in CL), such as the definition of a function, needs to do. It has a very small number of things it knows how to do:
it knows how to call functions;
it knows how to evaluate a few sorts of literal objects;
it has some special rules for a few sorts of forms – what CL calls 'special forms', which (again in CL-speak) are forms whose car is a special operator;
finally it knows how to look to see whether forms correspond to functions which it can call to transform the code it is trying to evaluate or compile – some of these functions are predefined but additional ones can be defined.
So the way the evaluator works is by walking over the thing it needs to evaluate looking for these source-code-transforming things, aka macros (the last case), calling their functions and then recursing on the results until it ends up with code which has none left. What's left should consist only of instances of the first three cases, which it then knows how to deal with.
So now think about what the evaluator has to do if it is evaluating the definition of the function corresponding to a macro, called a. In Cl-speak it is evaluating or compiling a's macro function (which you can get at via (macro-function 'a) in CL). Let's assume that at some point there is a form (b ...) in this code, and that b is known also to correspond to a macro.
So at some point it comes to (b ...), and it knows that in order to do this it needs to call b's macro function. It binds suitable arguments and now it needs to evaluate the definition of the body of that function ...
... and when it does this it comes across an expression like (a ...). What should it do? It needs to call a's macro function, but it can't, because it doesn't yet know what it is, because it's in the middle of working that out: it could start trying to work it out again, but this is just a loop: it's not going to get anywhere where it hasn't already been.
Well, there's a horrible trick you could do to avoid this. The infinite regress above happens because the evaluator is trying to expand all of the macros ahead of time, and so there's no base to the recursion. But let's assume that the definition of a's macro function has code which looks like this:
(if <something>
(b ...)
<something not involving b>)
Rather than doing the expand-all-the-macros-first trick, what you could do is to expand only the macros you need, just before you need their results. And if <something> turned out always to be false, then you never need to expand (b ...), so you never get into this vicious loop: the recursion bottoms out.
But this means you must always expand macros on demand: you can never do it ahead of time, and because macros expand to source code you can never compile. In other words a strategy like this is not compatible with compilation. It also means that if <something> ever turns out to be true then you'll end up in the infinite regress again.
Note that this is completely different to macros which expand to code which involves the same macro, or another macro which expands into code which uses it. Here's a definition of a macro called et which does that (it doesn't need to do this of course, this is just to see it happen):
(defmacro et (&rest forms)
(if (null forms)
't
`(et1 ,(first forms) ,(rest forms))))
(defmacro et1 (form more)
(let ((rn (make-symbol "R")))
`(let ((,rn ,form))
(if ,rn
,rn
(et ,#more)))))
Now (et a b c) expands to (et1 a (b c)) which expands to (let ((#:r a)) (if #:r #:r (et b c))) (where all the uninterned things are the same thing) and so on until you get
(let ((#:r a))
(if #:r
#:r
(let ((#:r b))
(if #:r
#:r
(let ((#:r c))
(if #:r
#:r
t))))))
Where now not all the uninterned symbols are the same
And with a plausible macro for let (let is in fact a special operator in CL) this can get turned even further into
((lambda (#:r)
(if #:r
#:r
((lambda (#:r)
(if #:r
#:r
((lambda (#:r)
(if #:r
#:r
t))
c)))
b)))
a)
And this is an example of 'things the system knows how to deal with': all that's left here is variables, lambda, a primitive conditional and function calls.
One of the nice things about CL is that, although there is a lot of useful sugar, you can still poke around in the guts of things if you like. And in particular, you still see that macros are just functions that transform source code. The following does exactly what the defmacro versions do (not quite: defmacro does the necessary cleverness to make sure the macros are available early enough: I'd need to use eval-when to do that with the below):
(setf (macro-function 'et)
(lambda (expression environment)
(declare (ignore environment))
(let ((forms (rest expression)))
(if (null forms)
't
`(et1 ,(first forms) ,(rest forms))))))
(setf (macro-function 'et1)
(lambda (expression environment)
(declare (ignore environment))
(destructuring-bind (_ form more) expression
(declare (ignore _))
(let ((rn (make-symbol "R")))
`(let ((,rn ,form))
(if ,rn
,rn
(et ,#more)))))))
There have been historic Lisp systems that allow this, at least in interpreted code.
We can allow a macro to use itself for its own definition, or two or more macros to mutually use each other, if we follow an extremely late expansion strategy.
That is to say, our macro system expands a macro call just before it is evaluated (and does that each time that same expression is evaluated).
(Such a macro expansion strategy is good for interactive development with macros. If you fix a buggy macro, then all code depending on it automatically benefits from the change, without having to be re-processed in any way.)
Under such a macro system, suppose we have a conditional like this:
(if (condition)
(macro1 ...)
(macro2 ...))
When (condition) is evaluated, then if it yields true, (macro1 ...) is evaluated, otherwise (macro2 ...). But evaluation also means expansion. Thus only one of these two macros is expanded.
This is the key to why mutual references among macros can work: we are able rely on the conditional logic to give us not only conditional evaluation, but conditional expansion also, which then allows the recursion to have ways of terminating.
For example, suppose macro A's body of code is defined with the help of macro B, and vice versa. And when a particular invocation of A is executed, it happens to hit the particular case that requires B, and so that B call is expanded by invocation of macro B. B also hits the code case that depends on A, and so it recurses into A to obtain the needed expansion. But, this time, A is called in a way that avoids requiring, again, an expansion of B; it avoids evaluating any sub-expression containing the B macro. Thus, it calculates the expansion, and returns it to B, which then calculates its expansion returns to the outermost A. A finally expands and the recursion terminates; all is well.
What blocks macros from using each other is the unconditional expansion strategy: the strategy of fully expanding entire top-level forms after they are read, so that the definitions of functions and macros contain only expanded code. In that situation there is no possibility of conditional expansion that would allow for the recursion to terminate.
Note, by the way, that a macro system which expands late doesn't recursively expand macros in a macro expansion. Suppose (mac1 x y) expands into (if x (mac2 y) (mac3 y)). Well, that's all the expansion that is done for now: the if that pops out is not a macro, so expansion stops, and evaluation proceeds. If x yields true, then mac2 is expanded, and mac3 is not.
What is the best practice for selectively passing evaluated arguments to a macro form?
To elaborate: The usefulness of macros lies in its ability to receives unevaluated parameter, unlike the default evaluation rule for function forms. However, there is a legitimate use cases for evaluating macro arguments.
Consider a contrived example:
(defparameter *func-body* '((print i) (+ i 1)))
Suppose it would be nice that *func-body* could serve as the body of a macro our-defun that is defined as:
(defmacro our-defun (fun args &body body)
`(defun ,fun ,args ,#body))
So after (our-defun foo (i) (+ 1 i)), we could say (foo 1) to get 2. However, if we use (our-defun foo (i) *func-body*), the result of (foo 1) will be ((PRINT I) (+ I 1)) (i.e., the value of *func-body*). It would be nice if we can force the evaluation of *func-body* as an argument to the macro our-defun.
Currently, I can think of a technique of using compile and funcall to do this, as in
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () (our-defun foo (i) ,#*func-body*))))
after which (our-defun 1) will print out 1 and return 2, as intended. I can think of case of making this work with eval, but I would rather stay away from eval due to its peculiarity in scoping.
This leads to my question at the begining, is there a more straightforward or native way to do this?
P.S.,
A not-so-contrived example is in the function (UPDATE-HOOK), which uses two library macros (ADD-HOOK) and (REMOVE-HOOK) and needs to evaluate its parameters. The (funcall (compile nil `(lambda () ...))) technique above is used here.
(defun update-hook (hook hook-name &optional code)
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () (remove-hook ,hook ',hook-name))))
(unless (null code)
(compile hook-name `(lambda () ,#code))
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () (add-hook ,hook ',hook-name))))))
That's slightly confused. A macro does not receive unevaluated parameters.
A macro gets source code and creates source code from that. Remember also that source code in Lisp is actually provided as data. The macro creates code, which evaluates some forms and some not.
Macros need to work in a compiling system. Before runtime. During compile time. All the macro sees is source code and then it creates source code from that. Think of macros as code transformations, not about evaluating arguments or not.
It would be nice if we can force the evaluation of *func-body* as an argument to the macro our-defun
That is not very clean. In a compiled system, you would need to make sure that *func-body* actually has a useful binding and that it can be resolved at COMPILE TIME.
If you have a macro like DEFUN, it makes sense to have the source code static. If you want to insert some source code into a form, then it could make sense to do that at read time:
(defun foo (i) #.`(,#*foo*))
But that's code I usually would want to avoid.
two library macros (ADD-HOOK) and (REMOVE-HOOK) and needs to evaluate its parameters.
Why should ADD-HOOK and REMOVE-HOOK be macros? If you don't have a real reason, they simply should be functions. Already since they make reuse difficult.
If you want to make ADD-HOOK and REMOVE-HOOK macros for some reason, then UPDATE-HOOK usually should be a macro, too.
The list you are giving to your macro has the form
(Quote (...))
So the list you actually want is the CADR of the list you get.