I am quite new to Common Lisp and programming, and I'm trying to write a certain function that turns all non-nil args into an alist. The only way I can think of so far is:
(let ((temp nil))
(if arg1
(setf temp (acons 'arg1 arg1 nil)))
(if arg2
(setf temp (acons 'arg2 arg2 temp)))
...
(if arg20-ish
(setf temp (acons 'arg20-ish arg20-ish temp)))
(do-something-with temp))
which does not seem very elegant, it would be messy with many arguments and when these need to be changed. I am looking for a smarter way to do this, both for the sake of writing this particular function and for learning how to think in Lisp and/or functional programming.
The tricky part for me is figuring out how to get the names of the arguments or what symbol to use, without hand coding each case. If &rest provided arg names it would be easy to filter out NILs with loop or mapcar, but since it doesn't, I can't see how to "automate" this.
I'm totally interested in other solutions than the one described, if people think this way is unnatural.
Edit: Below is an example of what I am trying to do:
An object is created, with a non-fixed number of data pairs and some tags, e.g.:
user = "someone"
creation-time = (get-universal-time)
color-of-sky = "blue"
temperature-in-celsius = 32
language = "Common Lisp"
...
tags = '("one" "two" "three")
These properties (i.e. key/arg names) could be different each time. The new object will then be added to a collection; I thought the array might work well since I want constant access time and only need a numeric ID.
The collection will hold more and more such custom objects, indefinitely.
I want to be able to quickly access all objects matching any combination of any of the tags used in these objects.
Since the array is supposed to store more and more data over a long period, I don't want to parse every item in it each time I need to search for a tag. Thus I also store the index of each object with a given tag in a hash-table, under the tag name. I have written this function, what I find difficult is figuring out how to collect the data and turn it into an alist or anything that I can easily parse, index, and store.
This macro will define a function that turns its non-nil arguments into an alist bound during execution of the body:
(defmacro defnamed (fun-name alist-sym (&rest args) &body body)
`(defun ,fun-name (,#args)
(let ((,alist-sym))
,#(mapcar
(lambda (s)
`(when ,s
(push (cons ',s ,s) ,alist-sym)))
(reverse args))
,#body)))
Demonstration:
(defnamed make-my alist (a b c)
alist)
(make-my 1 NIL 3)
=> ((A . 1) (C . 3))
Here's a sort of solution using macros:
(defmacro named-args (fun-name alist-sym (&rest syms) &body body)
`(defun ,fun-name (&key ,#syms)
(declare (special ,#syms))
(let ((,alist-sym
(loop
for s in ',syms
collecting (cons s (symbol-value s)))))
,#body)))
You can then use it with something like
(named-args f u (a b c)
(format t "~A~%" u))
which expands to
(DEFUN F (&KEY A B C)
(DECLARE (SPECIAL A B C))
(LET ((U
(LOOP FOR S IN '(A B C)
COLLECTING (CONS S (SYMBOL-VALUE S)))))
(FORMAT T "~A~%" U)))
Finally, calling will give
(f :a 3) => ((A . 3) (B) (C))
Note that we need the special declaration otherwise symbol-value doesn't work (you need a global binding for symbol-value). I couldn't find a way to get rid of that.
Looking at your question again, it looks like you actually don't want the keyword arguments that didn't get passed. In which case you could parse a &rest argument (although that's a flat list, so you'd need to map along it in twos) or you could modify the macro as follows:
(defmacro named-args (fun-name alist-sym (&rest syms) &body body)
`(defun ,fun-name (&key ,#syms)
(declare (special ,#syms))
(let ((,alist-sym
(loop
for s in ',syms
when (symbol-value s)
collecting (cons s (symbol-value s)))))
,#body)))
and then you get
(f :a 3) => ((A . 3))
Related
I'm learning common lisp. I have written a version of the once-only macro, which suffers from an unusual variable capture problem.
My macro is this:
(defmacro my-once-only (names &body body)
(let ((syms (mapcar #'(lambda (x) (gensym))
names)))
``(let (,,#(mapcar #'(lambda (sym name) ``(,',sym ,,name))
syms names))
,(let (,#(mapcar #'(lambda (name sym) `(,name ',sym))
names syms))
,#body))))
The canonical version of only-once is this:
(defmacro once-only ((&rest names) &body body)
(let ((gensyms (loop for n in names collect (gensym))))
`(let (,#(loop for g in gensyms collect `(,g (gensym))))
`(let (,,#(loop for g in gensyms for n in names collect ``(,,g ,,n)))
,(let (,#(loop for n in names for g in gensyms collect `(,n ,g)))
,#body)))))
The difference, as far as I can tell, is that the canonical version generates new symbols for every expansion of the macro using only-once. For example:
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(once-only (foo) foo))
(LET ((#:G824 (GENSYM)))
`(LET (,`(,#:G824 ,FOO))
,(LET ((FOO #:G824))
FOO)))
T
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(my-once-only (foo) foo))
`(LET (,`(,'#:G825 ,FOO))
,(LET ((FOO '#:G825))
FOO))
T
The variable my macro uses to store the value of foo is the same for every expansion of this form, in this case it would be #:G825. This is akin to defining a macro like the following:
(defmacro identity-except-for-bar (foo)
`(let ((bar 2))
,foo))
This macro captures bar, and this capture manifests when bar is passed to it, like so:
CL-USER> (let ((bar 1))
(identity-except-for-bar bar))
2
However, I cannot think of any way to pass #:G825 to a macro that uses my-only-once so that it breaks like this, because the symbols gensym returns are unique, and I cannot create a second copy of it outside of the macro. I assume that capturing it is unwanted, otherwise the canonical version wouldn't bother adding the additional layer of gensym. How could capturing a symbol like #:G826 be a problem? Please provide an example where this capture manifests.
We can demonstrate a behavioral difference between my-once-only and once-only:
Let's store our test form in a variable.
(defvar *form* '(lexalias a 0 (lexalias b (1+ a) (list a b))))
This test form exercises a macro called lexalias, which we will define in two ways. First with once-only:
(defmacro lexalias (var value &body body)
(once-only (value)
`(symbol-macrolet ((,var ,value))
,#body)))
(eval *form*) -> (0 1)
Then with my-once-only:
(defmacro lexalias (var value &body body)
(my-once-only (value)
`(symbol-macrolet ((,var ,value))
,#body)))
(eval *form*) -> (1 1)
Oops! The problem is that under my-once-only, both a and b end up being symbol-macrolet aliases for exactly the same gensym; the returned expression (list a b) ends up being something like (list #:g0025 #:g0025).
If you're writing a macro-writing helper that implements once-only evaluation, you have no idea how the symbol is going to be used by the code which calls the macro, whose author uses your once-only tool. There are two big unknowns: the nature of the macro and of its use.
As you can see, if you don't make fresh gensyms, it will not work correctly in all conceivable scenarios.
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.
Assume that the macro would take the boolean types a and b . If a is nil, then the macro should return nil (without ever evaluating b), otherwise it returns b. How do you do this?
This really depends on what you can use.
E.g., is or available? if? cond?
Here is one example:
(defmacro and (a b)
`(if ,a ,b nil)
EDIT. In response to a comment, or is more complicated because we have to avoid double evaluation:
(defmacro or (a b)
(let ((v (gensym "OR")))
`(let ((,v ,a))
(if ,v ,v ,b))))
sds's answer is nice and concise, but it has two limitations:
It only works with two arguments, whereas the built in and and or take any number of arguments. It's not too hard to update the solution to take any number of arguments, but it would be a bit more complicated.
More importantly, it's based very directly in terms of delayed operations that are already present in the language. I.e., it takes advantage of the fact that if doesn't evaluate the then or else parts until it has first evaluated the condition.
It might be a good exercise, then, to note that when a macro needs to delay evaluation of some forms, it's often the simplest strategy (in terms of implementation, but not necessarily the most efficient) to use a macro that expands to a function call that takes a function. For instance, a naive implementation of with-open-file might be:
(defun %call-with-open-file (pathname function)
(funcall function (open pathname)))
(defmacro my-with-open-file ((var pathname) &body body)
`(%call-with-open-file
,pathname
(lambda (,var)
,#body)))
Using a technique like this, you can easily get a binary and (and or):
(defun %and (a b)
(if (funcall a)
(funcall b)
nil))
(defmacro my-and (a b)
`(%and (lambda () ,a)
(lambda () ,b)))
CL-USER> (my-and t (print "hello"))
"hello" ; printed output
"hello" ; return value
CL-USER> (my-and nil (print "hello"))
NIL
or is similar:
(defun %or (a b)
(let ((aa (funcall a)))
(if aa
aa
(funcall b))))
(defmacro my-or (a b)
`(%or (lambda () ,a)
(lambda () ,b)))
To handle the n-ary case (since and and or actually take any number of arguments), you could write a function that takes a list of lambda functions and calls each of them until you get to one that would short circuit (or else reaches the end). Common Lisp actually already has functions like that: every and some. With this approach, you could implement and in terms of every by wrapping all the arguments in lambda functions:
(defmacro my-and (&rest args)
`(every #'funcall
(list ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (form)
`(lambda () ,form))
args))))
For instance, with this implementation,
(my-and (listp '()) (evenp 3) (null 'x))
expands to:
(EVERY #'FUNCALL
(LIST (LAMBDA () (LISTP 'NIL))
(LAMBDA () (EVENP 3))
(LAMBDA () (NULL 'X))))
Since all the forms are now wrapped in lambda functions, they won't get called until every gets that far.
The only difference is that and is specially defined to return the value of the last argument if all the preceding ones are true (e.g., (and t t 3) returns 3, not t, whereas the specific return value of every is not specified (except that it would be a true value).
With this approach, implementing or (using some) is no more complicated than implementing and:
(defmacro my-or (&rest args)
`(some #'funcall ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (form)
`(lambda () ,form))
args)))
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'm trying to write a macro in Lisp that re-implements let using itself. This is a trivial exercise which has no practical purpose; however after giving a response to a related question, I realized I should probably learn more about macros. They're touted as one of the great things about Lisp, but I rarely use them.
Anyway, here's what I tried first:
(defmacro mylet (args &rest exp) `(let ,args (dolist (x ,exp) x)))
but when I try something like:
(mylet ((a 5) (b 2)) (print (+ a b)))
this throws up an error:
#1=(PRINT (+ A B)) is not a symbol or lambda expression in the form (#1#) .
args (a and b) are set properly, but the print statement doesn't work. I think it's because I'm using two levels of indirection-- referring to a variable that I've created within the macro. But I can't seem to figure out how to fix it! Any ideas?
Your macro expands to:
(LET ((A 5) (B 2))
(DOLIST (X ((PRINT (+ A B)))) X))
which is invalid because ((PRINT (+ A B))) is not a valid expression. There is also an issue that using an interned symbol in macro expansion can lead to variable capture, but that is not directly relevant (read more in PCL).
Using DOLIST here is unnecessary, and compilcated to get right (you would have to convert all subforms to anonymous function in order to stick them in a list, funcall them in sequence and then store the final result in order to conform to PROGN behaviour). You can just use PROGN, or, since LET includes an implicit PROGN, just splice the body using the ,# feature of backquote mechanism:
(defmacro mylet (args &body exp) `(let ,args ,(cons 'progn exp)))
(defmacro mylet (args &body exp) `(let ,args ,#exp))