This is I suspect, a matter of style and/or personal taste but I thought I'd ask anyway.
I have been in the habit of defining packages thus:
(defpackage :wibble
(:use :cl :drakma)
(:export :main))
Once I have executed IN-PACKAGE (:wibble, in this case), I can then use the symbols in DRAKMA unadorned:
(http-request ...
Then I recently read that seasoned Lisp hackers would rather not :use but:
(drakma:http-request ...
Just wondered what the consensus of opinion was on here and whether there were any pros or cons (not that type of CONS :) ) either way?
Cheers,
Peter
When you use a package, there are a couple subtle ways things might go wrong if the used package changes.
First, the package might export more symbols in the future. If, for example, the package exports a new symbol library:rhombus and you're already using that myapp::rhombus to name something, you are suddenly using the inherited symbol, with all possible attachments (e.g. classes, defuns, macros, etc), with sometimes strange results. If you use qualified symbol names, you will not get any more or any less than the symbols you want.
Second, the package might stop exporting symbols in the future. So if, for example, library:with-rhombus disappears, your call to (with-rhombus (42 42 42) ...) will suddenly get an error for an invalid function call (42 ...) rather than something that points directly to the source of the problem, the "missing" symbol. If you use qualified symbol names, you will get an error along the lines of Symbol WITH-RHOMBUS is not exported from the LIBRARY package which is clearer.
Importing symbols (with :import-from or :shadowing-import-from or import) is not without its own trouble. Importing works on any symbol, regardless of whether it's external or not. So it could be the case that the symbol is now library::rhombus, i.e. not intended for public consumption any more, but importing will still work with no errors.
Which option you use depends on your comfort level with the source package. Do you control it, and you will not make any conflicting changes without thorough testing? Go ahead and import or use to your heart's content. Otherwise, be careful about checking for unintended side-effects as library package interfaces change.
This is more a style issue, so it's impossible to categorize it in black and white, but here are the pros and cons:
Using package-qualified symbols.
Avoids symbol conflicts.
Allows to clearly distinguish foreign symbols.
Allows to easily search, replace, copy,... uses of a certain symbol from the external library (for refactoring, extracting the code to some other place etc.)
Makes code uglier, but only when library names are too long. (For example, I add a nickname re to cl-pprce, and now the code using it is even better, than w/o qualification: think re:scan)
Importing the whole package
Basically, the opposite of the previous case. But I tend to use it with utility libraries, because using qualified names often beats their whole purpose of making code more concise and clear :)
:import-from package symbol
This is one option you've forgotten to mention. I think it may be useful, when you use one or too very distinct symbols from a certain package very frequently. It also allows to import unexported symbols.
Good answers so far.
Another view is that a package and its symbols make up a language. If you think a symbol should be a part of this language, then you should make it available without the need to qualify it with another package - when programming in this language.
For example in the CLIM implementation there is a CLIM-LISP package which sets up the implementation language. It is a variant of the COMMON-LISP package. Then there are packages like CLIM-SYS (resources, processes, locks, ...), CLIM-UTILS (various utilities and extensions of Common Lisp) and CLIM itself. Now in a new package SILICA (an abstract window system) these four packages are used. The implementation of Silica thus is implemented in a language which is built as a union of two languages (the Common Lisp variant CLIM-LISP and the UI commands of CLIM) plus two utility packages which extend CLIM-LISP with some facilities.
In above example it makes sense to use the packages, since they are extending each other to form a new language and the implementation in that new package makes heavy use of those.
If you had a package which needs conflicting packages, then it would not make sense to use them. For example a package could use drawing commands tailored to a GUI and for Postscript output. They would have similar names. Using them both would lead to conflicts. You also want to make clear in the source code for the human reader from where these symbols are coming. Is it a line-drawing command from a postscript or a GTK+ library? Would be great if you can find it out easily - even though the function names are the same.
As a rule of thumb, I :use packages that extend the general language, but use qualified symbols for packages that have some special application. For example, I'd always :use alexandria, but refer fully qualified to symbols from Hunchentoot. When in doubt, I use qualified names.
Related
Over the weekend, I had a name clash that was very hard to track down, but I managed to boil it down to a short example - thing is, I thought the package system was supposed to protect me from this, so I'm wondering how it can in future.
If I do this:
(ql:quickload "cl-irc")
(defpackage #:clash-demo
(:use #:cl
#:cl-irc))
(in-package #:clash-demo)
;; This is the name that clashes - I get a warning about this if I compile
;; this interactively (i.e. from slime) but not if I quickload the whole project.
(defun server-name (server)
(format nil "server-name ~a" server))
;; This needs an IRC server to work - if you have docker
;; then this will do the trick:
;;
;; docker run -d --rm --name ircd -p 6667:6667 inspircd/inspircd-docker
(defparameter *connection*
(cl-irc:connect :nickname "clash-demo"
:server "localhost"
:port 6667
:connection-security :none
:username "username"))
After the above, I get the following warning when defining server-name:
WARNING: redefining CL-IRC:SERVER-NAME in DEFUN
And the following error if I try and print *connection* (in my more full-fledged project I got a missing slot in a class that I'd defined - I think the root cause of both the problem I found and the minimal example above is the same though):
Control stack guard page temporarily disabled: proceed with caution
While I get the warning if I define things interactively, in practice I moved a bunch of code into a quickproject:make-project'd and ql:quickload-ed it, which I think silenced the warning as it always loaded cleanly, hence why it took me so long to track down the name clash.
My questions are:
Isn't the package system supposed to protect me from this? I think I can sort of see why the above happens - the reader's already seen the symbol server-name so it thinks I'm referring to the already defined cl-irc:server-name, and re-uses that - but surely the package system should somehow allow me to work around this?
I'm assuming the warning when I quickload-ed the project was silence because quickload assumes I don't want to see warnings from projects, is there a way I can make this more forceful when I load projects I'm making so that it raises an error, or at least warns me of these name clashes? For all I know there are a bunch more that just haven't caused me a problem yet.
I was expecting either (i) the names not to clash (i.e. my file would define the symbol clash-demo:server-name, not re-use cl-irc:server-name and cause it to be redefined) or (ii) this to be an error, or at least a warning when I quickload the project.
Thanks very much in advance for any advice!
Suppose you really like packages A and B and want to :use both of them in your package MINE. They have a hundred external symbols each and you don't want to have to type any package prefixes. However, they both export a symbol with the same name, a:frob and b:frob. If you simply :use them, you will get a symbol conflict.
To resolve the conflict, there are three options to decide what to do when you're in package MINE and you refer to the unqualified symbol frob:
Prefer A so it refers to the the symbol a:frob: (defpackage mine (:use a b) (:shadowing-import-from a frob))
Prefer B so it refers to the symbol b:frob: (defpackage mine (:use a b) (:shadowing-import-from b frob))
Prefer neither so it refers to mine::frob: (defpackage mine (:use a b) (:shadow frob)) - then, to use one from A or B you must write a:frob or b:frob explicitly
Any of these three cases may be preferable depending on your situation. Common Lisp will not automatically choose one for you. I think this is a reasonable design choice.
Briefly, no: the package system is not meant to protect you against this. If you use a package CL-IRC then you're saying that you want, for instance, to get the symbol CL-IRC:SERVER-NAME when you type server-name. What you are not saying is whether you should be allowed to modify the values associated with that symbol in any way, which is an orthogonal question. The package system is just about names, not values.
In the case of functions, then it's very often (but not always! consider loading patches) a mistake to define a function with a given name in multiple contexts. In the case of variables that's slightly less clear: it's probably a mistake if there are multiple def* forms for a given variable in different contexts, but simply assigning to the variable might well be fine.
So what is needed is a way for defining macros (defun etc) to be able to detect this and complain about it.
CL does not provide such a mechanism. Many implementations do however, either by detecting 'different contexts' (which I have been vague about) or by providing a way of saying that certain packages are sacred and redefinitions should not be allowed, or both.
In this case, the implementation has warned you about the redefinition, but Quicklisp may have suppressed that. I am not sure how to desupress warnings like this in Quicklisp.
In summary the answer is that the problem of controlling and limiting redefinition is orthogonal to what the package system does, and unfortunately CL does not provide a standard solution to this second problem.
If you are interested I have a little shim which uses the condition system to make very sure warnings are treated as errors in contexts like this. I could append it to this answer, but not until after Christmas probably.
In Common Lisp with ASDF what is the difference between the define-package in uiop/package and the defpackage macro?
UIOP's one has more clauses.
https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/uiop.html#UIOP_002fPACKAGE
define-package supports the following keywords: use, shadow, shadowing-import-from, import-from, export, intern -- as per cl:defpackage.
those are the same ones. But the rest of the docstring introduces more of them: recycle, mix, reexport…
I have used reexport which makes the following easier: you don't want to fully use package A (for example, Alexandria). You want to import a couple symbols (easy, with import-from), and you also want to export them (easy too, with export). But in doing so, you had to write the symbols twice. reexport saves duplication.
I heard some complains that defpackage would fail to reload a package in some situations, and define-package worked fine, but I didn't encounter this situation.
(edit): another difference: let's say you ":use" a package in your defpackage definition. Now you erase that line and you compile the package definition again. Your Lisp gives you a warning, telling that your package "also uses the following packages" and lists the one you removed from the definition. You removed the line, but the package still "uses" what you wanted to remove. You can check with (describe (find-package :my-package)).
Do the same with UIOP's define-package: you don't have warnings and your package doesn't "use" the one you removed from the definition anymore, as expected.
I want to keep a list of required modules of a particular module (let's say the current-module).
I feel like there are some other options (such as parsing the module?) that could be tried, but I started playing with the idea of shadowing (require) and adding the required items to a hash-table with the module-name. The problem is I cannot figure how to write a syntax definition for it.
Although not working, a function definition equivalent would be like below:
(define require-list (make-hash))
(define require
(lambda vals
; add vals to hash-table with key (current-namespace)
(let ([cn (current-namespace)])
(hash-set! require-list cn
(append vals (hash-ref require-list cn))))
(require vals)))
.. it seems the last line call should be modified to call the original (require) as well?
A correct version or a pointer to how to do it, or any other way of achieving the original goal highly appreciated.
If you just want to get a list of imports for a particular module, there is a convenient built-in called module->imports that will do what you want. It will return a mapping between phase levels and module imports—phase levels higher than 0 indicate imports used at compile-time for use in macro expansion.
> (require racket/async-channel)
> (module->imports 'racket/async-channel)
'((0
#<module-path-index:(racket/base)>
#<module-path-index:(racket/contract/base)>
#<module-path-index:(racket/contract/combinator)>
#<module-path-index:(racket/generic)>))
Note that the module in question must be included into the current namespace in order for module->imports to work, which require or dynamic-require will both do.
This will inspect the information known by the compiler, so it will find all static imports for a particular module. However, the caveats about dynamic requires mentioned by John Clements still apply: those can be dynamically performed at runtime and therefore will not be detected by module->imports.
Short short version:
Have you tried turning on the module browser?
Short version:
You're going to need a macro for this, and
It's not going to be a complete solution
The existing require is not a function; it's a language form, implemented as a macro. This is because the compiler needs to collect the same information you do, and therefore the required modules must be known at compile time.
The right way to do this--as you suggest--is definitely to leverage the existing parsing. If you expand the module and then walk the resulting tree, you should be able to find
everything you need. The tree will be extremely large, but will contain (many instances of) a relatively small number of primitives, so writing this traversal shouldn't be too hard. There will however be a lot of fiddling involved in setting up namespace anchors etc. in order to get the expansion to happen in the first place.
Regarding your original idea: you can definitely create a macro that shadows require. You're going to want to define it in another file and rename it on the way out so that your macro can refer to the original require. Also, the require form has a bunch of interesting subforms, and coming up with a macro that tries to handle all of these subforms will be tricky. If you're looking at writing a macro, though, you're already thinking about an 80% solution, so maybe this won't bother you.
Finally: there are forms that perform dynamic module evaluation, and so you can't ever know for sure all of the modules that might be required, though you could potentially annotate these forms (or maybe shadow the dynamic module-loading function) to see these as they happen.
Also, it's worth mentioning that you may get more precise answers on the Racket mailing list.
I am new to Emacs Lisp and the feeling is like it lacks strictness (and namespaces, and more...).
To be more comfortable with it I need a
way to make interpreter/byte compiler complain a lot if I use deprecated or obsolete function or variable (even better - hide them). Why this is not looks so simple and removing corresponding .el packages will not work is obvious - they may be needed by some legacy code.
Also, if it is possible, turning off all aliases would be nice. In my opinion they are there only for backwards compatibility, which I do not need. Because of setting this one globally can ruin something, I hope there is something like use strict in JavaScript, which can be applied to the inner body, so the effect is neatly localized.
Do not get me wrong, I think that global namespace of the Elisp is like a dump and if it could be any cleaner, why not?
To put in one sentence: how to make Elisp global namespace obsoleteless and deprecateless, as slim as possible?
I don't know of an Emacs Lisp linter that is built in to Emacs.
I do two things for my own code to try to ensure some level of cleanliness.
First, I make sure that byte-compiling the code doesn't give any errors or warnings. The byte compiler does a certain amount of checking.
Second, I enable lexical binding. This lets the byte compiler detect a few more possible warnings.
This is about the best you can do with the built-in tools. If you want to go further you could write your own tree walker to perform whatever other tests you like.
The example below is given in Paul Grahams ANSI Common Lisp as an example of doing encapsulation:
(defpackage "CTR"
(:use "COMMON-LISP")
(:export "COUNTER" "INCREMENT" "CLEAR"))
(in-package ctr)
;function definitions here
However in Peter Seibels Practical Common Lisp, link here, he says:
Because packages are used by the reader, a package must be defined
before you can LOAD or COMPILE-FILE a file that contains an IN-PACKAGE
expression switching to that package. Packages also must be defined
before other DEFPACKAGE forms can refer to them...
The best first step toward making sure packages exist when they need
to is to put all your DEFPACKAGEs in files separate from the code that
needs to be read in those packages
So he recommends creating two files for every package, one for the defpackage and one for the code. The files containing defpackages should start with (in-package "COMMON-LISP-USER").
To me it seems like putting the defpackage in the same file, before the in-package and code, is a good way to ensure that the package is defined before used. So the first method, collecting everything into one file seems easier. Are there any problems with using this method for package creation?
I think that using a separate file for defpackage is a good habit
because:
You don't « pollute » your files with defpackage.
It makes it easier to find the exported/shadowed/... symbols, you
know you just have to look at package.lisp.
You don't have to worry about the order when you use ASDF.
(defsystem :your-system
:components ((:file "package")
... the rest ...))`
Peter Seibel says so ;)
EDIT:
I forgot to mention quickproject which facilitates the creation of
new CL projects.
REPL> (quickproject:make-project "~/src/lisp/my-wonderful-project/"
:depends-on '(drakma cl-ppcre local-time))`
This command will create a directory "~/src/lisp/my-wonderful-project/"
and the following files:
package.lisp
my-wonderful-project.asd (filled)
my-wonderful-project.lisp
README.txt
And thus, I think it's good to use the same convention.
I tend to use multiple source code files, a single "packages.lisp" file and a singe "project.asd" system definition file for most of my projects. If the project requires multiple packages, they're all defined in "packages.lisp", with the relevant exports in place exported.
There is this reason for putting DEFPACKAGE in its own file: if you have a large package, then you might have several groups of related functions, and you might want to have separate source files per function group. Then all the source files would have their own IN-PACKAGE at the top, but they would all "share" the external DEFPACKAGE. Then as long as you get the DEFPACKAGE loaded first, it doesn't matter the order you load the other source files.
An example I'm currently working on has multiple classes in the package, and the source files are broken up to be per class, each having a class definition and the related generic function and method definitions.