My work invovles browsing through long verilog codes which incorporates `ifdef blocks. My primary editor is emacs. Following is a typical example:
module Foo(
...
...
);
// Inputs, Outputs
...
`ifdef CONDITION_1
...
...
`else // CONDITION_1
...
...
`ifdef CONDITION_2
...
...
`endif //CONDITION_2
...
...
foo <= 1'b1;
...
...
`endif // CONDITION_1
As you can see foo <= 1'b1; is in the else block of ifdef CONDITION_1 Assuming that my point is on the line foo <= 1'b1; is there any way by which I could directly move to the line ifdef CONDITION_1 or fold the code so that I can see CONDITION1? I tried using backward incremental search but in that case I end up at ifdef CONDITION_2
i tried using the hide-ifdef-mode but it identifies #ifdef instead of `ifdef. These blocks do not use parenthesis. And so using C-M-u doesn't help
This will do it, although for your example above it will stop at the
`else // CONDITION_1
statement since that is what is enclosing the foo assignment:
(defun my-verilog-up-ifdef ()
"Go up `ifdef/`ifndef/`else/`endif macros until an enclosing one is found."
(interactive)
(let ((pos (point)) (depth 0) done)
(while (and (not done)
(re-search-backward "^\\s-*`\\(ifdef\\|ifndef\\|else\\|endif\\)" nil t))
(if (looking-at "\\s-*`endif")
(setq depth (1+ depth))
(if (= depth 0)
(setq done t)
(when (looking-at "\\s-*`if")
(setq depth (1- depth))))))
(unless done
(goto-char pos)
(error "Not inside an `ifdef construct"))))
The elisp constant hif-cpp-prefix controls the basic syntax that hide-ifdef-mode use. I guess that you could define it to something like the following. (Warning, this is untested, as I don't use verilog myself.)
(setq hif-cpp-prefix "\\(^\\|\r\\)[ \t]*\\(#\\|`\\)[ \t]*")
Note that this is defined using defconst rather than defvar, so the compiled version of hide-ifdef-mode might still use the original value. Loading the uncompiled file into Emacs would probably solve this.
Related
In Emacs f90 mode, there are two useful functions f90-beginning-of-block and f90-end-of-block, (bound to keys C-M-p and C-M-n,repsectively), which I often use to jump between beginning and end of code blocks (such as function/subroutine/module).
However I found there is weakness in these two functions. For example:
module a
contains
function f()
write(*,*)
end function
end module a
When placing the cursor at the beginning of module and press C-M-n, the cursor will jump to the end function line, rather than the end module a line. The correct behavior appears only after I modify the end function line to the end function f , i.e., adding back the function name. Since there are many existing codes that often omit function names at the end function, I am wondering whether there is an easy improvement to f90-end-of-block, so that it can correctly handle the above case.
The original interactive Lisp function f90-end-of-block is defined as:
(defun f90-end-of-block (&optional num)
"Move point forward to the end of the current code block.
With optional argument NUM, go forward that many balanced blocks.
If NUM is negative, go backward to the start of a block. Checks
for consistency of block types and labels (if present), and
completes outermost block if `f90-smart-end' is non-nil.
Interactively, pushes mark before moving point."
(interactive "p")
;; Can move some distance.
(if (called-interactively-p 'any) (push-mark (point) t))
(and num (< num 0) (f90-beginning-of-block (- num)))
(let ((f90-smart-end (if f90-smart-end 'no-blink)) ; for final match-end
(case-fold-search t)
(count (or num 1))
start-list start-this start-type start-label end-type end-label)
(end-of-line) ; probably want this
(while (and (> count 0) (re-search-forward f90-blocks-re nil 'move))
(beginning-of-line)
(skip-chars-forward " \t0-9")
(cond ((or (f90-in-string) (f90-in-comment)))
((setq start-this
(or
(f90-looking-at-do)
(f90-looking-at-select-case)
(f90-looking-at-type-like)
(f90-looking-at-associate)
(f90-looking-at-critical)
(f90-looking-at-program-block-start)
(f90-looking-at-if-then)
(f90-looking-at-where-or-forall)))
(setq start-list (cons start-this start-list) ; not add-to-list!
count (1+ count)))
((looking-at (concat "end[ \t]*" f90-blocks-re
"[ \t]*\\(\\(?:\\sw\\|\\s_\\)+\\)?"))
(setq end-type (match-string 1)
end-label (match-string 2)
count (1- count))
;; Check any internal blocks.
(when start-list
(setq start-this (car start-list)
start-list (cdr start-list)
start-type (car start-this)
start-label (cadr start-this))
(or (f90-equal-symbols start-type end-type)
(error "End type `%s' does not match start type `%s'"
end-type start-type))
(or (f90-equal-symbols start-label end-label)
(error "End label `%s' does not match start label `%s'"
end-label start-label)))))
(end-of-line))
(if (> count 0) (error "Missing block end"))
;; Check outermost block.
(when f90-smart-end
(save-excursion
(beginning-of-line)
(skip-chars-forward " \t0-9")
(f90-match-end)))))
A quick hack is to modify the line that checks the label matching from yielding error message to just yielding a warning message:
(or (f90-equal-symbols start-label end-label)
(message "Start label `%s' does not match end label `%s'"
There is a SO user who posted this solution as an answer, but deleted the answer before I can verify the solution. The reason she/he deleted the answer may be because I commented on the answer saying that another function f90-beginning-of-subprogram can handle the case with mismatched labels. But later I found I still need the additional functionalities provided by f90-beginning-of-block, which are not provided by f90-beginning-of-subprogram.
Code that requires break statements or continue statements in other languages can be done with block & return-from or catch & throw in Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp. Then there is code that requires redo statements, or at least best written with redo. And redo statements don't have to be about loops. How can I do redo in Lisp?
If there was a redo equivalent in Lisp, I think it would work like this: special form with-redo which takes a symbol and forms, and redo which takes a symbol. The form (with-redo 'foo BODY-FORMS...) may contain (redo 'foo) in its BODY-FORMS, and (redo 'foo) transfers control back to the beginning of BODY-FORMS.
In Common Lisp:
(tagbody
start
(do-something)
(go start))
(dotimes (i some-list)
redo
(when (some-condition-p)
(go redo))
(some-more))
Rainer's answer illustrates the use of tagbody which is probably the easiest way to implement this kind of construct (a particular kind of goto, or unconditional jump). I thought it'd be nice to point out that if you don't want to use an explicit tagbody, or an implicit tagbody provided by one of the standard constructs, you can also create a with-redo just as you suggested. The only difference in this implementation is that we won't quote the tag, since they're not evaluted in tagbody, and being consistent with the other constructs is nice too.
(defmacro with-redo (name &body body)
`(macrolet ((redo (name)
`(go ,name)))
(tagbody
,name
,#body)))
CL-USER> (let ((x 0))
(with-redo beginning
(print (incf x))
(when (< x 3)
(redo beginning))))
1
2
3
; => NIL
Now this is actually a leaky abstraction, since the body could define other labels for the implicit tagbody, and could use go instead of redo, and so on. This might be desirable; lots of the built in iteration constructs (e.g., do, do*) use an implicit tagbody, so it might be OK. But, since you're also adding your own control flow operator, redo, you might want to make sure that it can only be used with tags defined by with-redo. In fact, while Perl's redo can be used with or without a label, Ruby's redo doesn't appear to allow a label. The label-less cases allow behavior of jumping back to the innermost enclosing loop (or, in our case, the innermost with-redo). We can address the leaky abstraction, as well as the ability to nest redos at the same time.
(defmacro with-redo (&body body)
`(macrolet ((redo () `(go #1=#:hidden-label)))
(tagbody
#1#
((lambda () ,#body)))))
Here we've defined a tag for use with with-redo that other things shouldn't know about (and can't find out unless they macroexpand some with-redo forms, and we've wrapped the body in a lambda function, which means that, e.g., a symbol in the body is a form to be evaluated, not a tag for tagbody. Here's an example showing that redo jumps back to the nearest lexically enclosing with-redo:
CL-USER> (let ((i 0) (j 0))
(with-redo
(with-redo
(print (list i j))
(when (< j 2)
(incf j)
(redo)))
(when (< i 2)
(incf i)
(redo))))
(0 0)
(0 1)
(0 2)
(1 2)
(2 2)
; => NIL
Of course, since you can define with-redo on your own, you can make the decisions about which design you want to adopt. Perhaps you like the idea of redo taking no arguments (and disguising a go with a secret label, but with-redo still being an implicit tagbody so that you can define other tags and jump to them with go; you can adapt the code here to do just that, too.
Some notes on implementation
This this answer has generated a few comments, I wanted to make a couple more notes about the implementation. Implementing with-redo with labels is pretty straightfoward, and I think that all the answers posted address it; the label-less case is a bit tricker.
First, the use of a local macrolet is a convenience that will get us warnings with redo is used outside of some lexically enclosing with-redo. E.g., in SBCL:
CL-USER> (defun redo-without-with-redo ()
(redo))
; in: DEFUN REDO-WITHOUT-WITH-REDO
; (REDO)
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: REDO
Second, the use of #1=#:hidden-label and #1# means that the go tag for redoing is an uninterned symbol (which lessens the likelihood that the abstraction leaks), but also is the same symbol across expansions of with-redo. In the following snippet tag1 and tag2 are the go-tags from two different expansions of with-redo.
(let* ((exp1 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo 1 2 3)))
(exp2 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo a b c))))
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag1 &rest rest)) exp1 ; tag1 is the go-tag
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag2 &rest rest)) exp2
(eq tag1 tag2))))
; => T
An alternative implementation of with-redo that uses a fresh gensym for each macroexpansion does not have this guarantee. For instance, consider with-redo-gensym:
(defmacro with-redo-gensym (&body body)
(let ((tag (gensym "REDO-TAG-")))
`(macrolet ((redo () `(go ,tag)))
(tagbody
,tag
((lambda () ,#body))))))
(let* ((exp1 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo-gensym 1 2 3)))
(exp2 (macroexpand-1 '(with-redo-gensym a b c))))
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag1 &rest rest)) exp1
(destructuring-bind (ml bndgs (tb tag2 &rest rest)) exp2
(eq tag1 tag2))))
; => NIL
Now, it's worth asking whether this makes a practical difference, and if so, in which cases, and is it a difference for the better or the worse? Quite frankly, I'm not entirely sure.
If you were performing some complicated code manipulation after the inner macroexpansion of an (with-redo ...) form, form1, so that (redo) has already been turned into (go #1#), it means that moving the (go #1#) into the body of another (with-redo ...) form, form2, it will still have the effect of restarting an iteration in form2. In my mind, this makes it more like a return that could be transported from a block b1 into a different block b2, with the only difference it now returns from b2 instead of b1. I think that this is desirable, since we're trying to treat label-less with-redo and redo as primitive control structures.
Update: Emacs 24.4 (soon to be released) has tagbody. cl-lib that comes with Emacs 24.4 includes cl-tagbody.
For a dialect of Lisp which doesn't have tagbody, one can still implement redo as long as the dialect has a catch/throw equivalent.
For Emacs Lisp:
;; with-redo version 0.1
(defmacro with-redo (tag &rest body)
"Eval BODY allowing jumps using `throw'.
TAG is evalled to get the tag to use; it must not be nil.
Then the BODY is executed.
Within BODY, a call to `throw' with the same TAG and a non-nil VALUE causes a jump to the beginning of BODY.
A call to `throw' with the same TAG and nil as VALUE exits BODY and this `with-redo'.
If no throw happens, `with-redo' returns the value of the last BODY form."
(declare (indent 1))
(let ((ret (make-symbol "retval")))
`(let (,ret)
(while
(catch ,tag
(setq ,ret (progn ,#body))
nil))
,ret)))
(defun redo (symbol)
(throw symbol t))
Example of use (all examples are in Emacs Lisp):
(with-redo 'question
(let ((name (read-string "What is your name? ")))
(when (equal name "")
(message "Zero length input. Please try again.")
(beep)
(sit-for 1)
(redo 'question))
name))
Same example written as a mid-test loop instead:
(require 'cl-lib)
(let (name)
(cl-loop do
(setq name (read-string "What is your name? "))
while
(equal name "")
do
(message "Zero length input. Please try again.")
(beep)
(sit-for 1))
name)
Same example written as an infinite loop with a throw instead:
(let (name)
(catch 'question
(while t
(setq name (read-string "What is your name? "))
(unless (equal name "")
(throw 'question name))
(message "Zero length input. Please try again.")
(beep)
(sit-for 1))))
Implementing with-lex-redo-anon and lex-redo, where (lex-redo) causes a jump to the beginning of body of the textually/lexically innermost with-lex-redo-anon form:
;; with-lex-redo-anon version 0.1
(require 'cl-lib)
(defmacro with-lex-redo-anon (&rest body)
"Use with `(lex-redo)'."
(let ((tag (make-symbol "lex-redo-tag"))
(ret (make-symbol "retval")))
`(cl-macrolet ((lex-redo () '(cl-return-from ,tag t)))
(let (,ret)
(while
(cl-block ,tag
(setq ,ret (progn ,#body))
nil))
,ret))))
Example test:
(let ((i 0) (j 0))
(with-lex-redo-anon
(with-lex-redo-anon
(print (list i j))
(when (< j 2)
(incf j)
(lex-redo)))
(when (< i 2)
(incf i)
(lex-redo))))
Same output as in another answer.
I am trying to create a macro for while loop in DrRacket. Here is what I wrote:
(require mzlib/defmacro)
(define-macro my-while
(lambda (condition body)
(list 'local (list (list 'define (list 'while-loop)
(list 'if condition
(list body (list 'while-loop))
'(void))))
'(while-loop))))
(define x 0)
(my-while (< x 10)
(begin
(display x)
(newline)
(set! x (+ x 1))))
The output of this program is:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
error: procedure application: expected procedure, given: #<void>; arguments were: #<void>
Can someone help me with this? Why wouldn't this macro just terminate and return void. It seems that when the condition is not true, the system tries to apply the void as an argument to some procedure.
Ouch:
Using this style of while loop encourages excessive use of imperative programming.
Using define-macro creates unhygienic macros, which is a nightmare in Scheme.
While I don't encourage writing an imperative-style loop macro, for your reference, here's a non-define-macro version of the same macro:
(define-syntax-rule (my-while condition body ...)
(let loop ()
(when condition
body ...
(loop))))
It uses syntax-rules, which creates hygienic macros, and is much, much easier to read than what you have.
Now, for the actual answer for your question, first, let's write your original macro out in a more readable way:
(define-macro my-while
(lambda (condition body)
`(local ((define (while-loop)
(if ,condition
(,body (while-loop))
(void))))
(while-loop))))
Once you write it out this way, you can see where the real problem is: in the (,body (while-loop)) line, which should instead have been (begin ,body (while-loop)).
Why use a macro when a plain old function will do?
;; fun-while : (-> Boolean) (-> Any) -> Void
(define (fun-while condition body)
(when (condition)
(body)
(fun-while condition body))
Of course, this requires you to pass in repeatable actions that can be called (this is why condition and body are surrounded with parens in the body of fun-while), so you do need a macro if you want prettier syntax. But once you have a function that has the desired behavior, putting some sugar on top is trivial for this case:
(define-syntax-rule (my-while condition body ...)
(fun-while (lambda () condition)
(lambda () body ...)))
Now, as has been said, this encourages imperative style, which is frowned upon. Instead of mutation, try making the state explicit instead:
;; pure-while : forall State.
;; (State -> Boolean) ; the "condition" that inspects the state
;; (State -> State) ; the "body" that moves from one state to the next
;; -> ; curried
;; State ; the current state
;; -> State ; produces the ending state
(define ((pure-while condition make-next) current-state)
(if (condition current-state)
(pure-while condition make-next (make-next current-state))
current-state))
You'll notice that the first two arguments are now functions from State to something, and the result of applying to 2 arguments is also a function from State -> State. This is a recurring pattern that, as a Haskeller, I'd call the "State Monad". Discussion of putting sugar on top of this concept is a little beyond the scope of this conversation, though, so I'll just stop there.
Another version of while uses a do loop:
(define-syntax while
(syntax-rules ()
((while pred? stmt ...)
(do () ((not pred?))
stmt ...))))
Because it's been a while:
a while macro for Racket 6.0
#lang racket
(define-syntax while
(syntax-rules ()
((_ pred? stmt ...)
(do () ((not pred?))
stmt ...))))
I am new to lisp and am writing a few simple programs to get more familiar with it. One of the things I am doing is writing a recursive and iterative version of a factorial method. However, I have come across a problem and can't seem to solve it.
I saw a similar error at
Lisp: CHAR is neither declared nor bound
but a solution wasn't actually reached, other than the OP realized he made a "typing mistake". In the REPL I can use the setf function and it works fine. I am also using LispBox with emacs. I would appreciate any suggestions!
(defun it-fact(num)
(setf result 1)
(dotimes (i num)
(setf result (* result (+ i 1)))
)
)
WARNING in IT-FACT :
RESULT is neither declared nor bound,
it will be treated as if it were declared SPECIAL.
There are a few things wrong or not so good Lisp style:
(defun it-fact(num) ; style: use a space before (
(setf result 1) ; bad: variable RESULT is not introduced
(dotimes (i num)
(setf result (* result (+ i 1))) ; bad: extra addition in each iteration
) ; style: parentheses on a single line
) ; bad: no useful return value
A possible version:
(defun it-fact (num)
(let ((result 1)) ; local variable introduced with LET
(loop for i from 1 upto num ; I starts with 1, no extra addition
do (setf result (* result i)))
result)) ; result gets returned from the LET
In Lisp, local variables must be explicitly declared with LET or other forms that create local variables.
That differs from e.g. Python or JavaScript where assignment to variable creates the variable in current lexical scope.
Your example can be rewritten like this:
(defun it-fact(num)
(let ((result 1))
(dotimes (i num)
(setf result (* result (+ i 1))))))
An off-topic comment: there is no point in putting closing parentheses on separate lines.
You need to bind the variable 'result' - using 'let', for example - before starting to use it:
(defun it-fact(num)
(let ((result 1))
(dotimes (i num)
(setf result (* result (+ i 1))))))
For futher details you might want to read this ...
I'm trying to create a function on the fly that would return one constant value.
In JavaScript and other modern imperative languages I would use closures:
function id(a) {
return function() {return a;};
}
but Emacs lisp doesn't support those.
I can create mix of identity function and partial function application but it's not supported either.
So how do I do that?
Found another solution with lexical-let
(defun foo (n)
(lexical-let ((n n)) #'(lambda() n)))
(funcall (foo 10)) ;; => 10
Real (Not Fake) Closures in Emacs 24.
Although Emacs 24 has lexical scooping when the variable lexical-binding has value t, the defun special form doesn’t work properly in lexically bound contexts (at least not in Emacs 24.2.1.) This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to define real (not fake) closures. For example:
(let ((counter 0))
(defun counting ()
(setq counter (1+ counter))))
will not work as expected because the symbol counter in the defun will be bound to the global variable of that name, if there is one, and not the lexical variable define in the let. When the function counting is called, if the global variable doesn’t, exist then it will obviously fail. Hoever if there is such a global variable it be updated, which is probably not what was intended and could be a hard to trace bug since the function might appear to be working properly.
The byte compiler does give a warning if you use defun in this way and presumably the issue will be addressed in some future version of Emacs, but until then the following macro can be used:
(defmacro defun** (name args &rest body)
"Define NAME as a function in a lexically bound context.
Like normal `defun', except that it works correctly in lexically
bound contexts.
\(fn NAME ARGLIST [DOCSTRING] BODY...)"
(let ((bound-as-var (boundp `,name)))
(when (fboundp `,name)
(message "Redefining function/macro: %s" `,name))
(append
`(progn
(defvar ,name nil)
(fset (quote ,name) (lambda (,#args) ,#body)))
(if bound-as-var
'nil
`((makunbound `,name))))))
If you define counting as follows:
(let ((counter 0))
(defun** counting ()
(setq counter (1+ counter))))
it will work as expected and update the lexically bound variable count every time it is invoked, while returning the new value.
CAVEAT: The macro will not work properly if you try to defun** a function with the same name as one of the lexically bound variables. I.e if you do something like:
(let ((dont-do-this 10))
(defun** dont-do-this ()
.........
.........))
I can’t imagine anyone actually doing that but it was worth a mention.
Note: I have named the macro defun** so that it doesn’t clash with the macro defun* in the cl package, however it doesn’t depend in any way on that package.
Stupid idea: how about:
(defun foo (x)
`(lambda () ,x))
(funcall (foo 10)) ;; => 10
Emacs lisp only has dynamic scoping. There's a lexical-let macro that approximates lexical scoping through a rather terrible hack.
Emacs 24 has lexical binding.
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/LexicalBinding
;; -*- lexical-binding:t -*-
(defun create-counter ()
(let ((c 0))
(lambda ()
(setq c (+ c 1))
c)))
(setq counter (create-counter))
(funcall counter) ; => 1
(funcall counter) ; => 2
(funcall counter) ; => 3 ...
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/FakeClosures