I am trying to generate functions using a macro:
(defmacro make-my-emacs-command-region (cmd name)
(list 'defun (intern (format "my-emacs-command-%s-%s" cmd name))
'(&optional arg)
(list 'interactive "p")
(list (intern (format "mark-%s" name)) 'arg)
(list (intern (format "my-emacs-command-%s-region" cmd))
'(region-beginning) '(region-end))))
generator:
(mapcar (lambda (a) (make-my-emacs-command-region a buffer))
'(foo bar))
But I get:
my-emacs-command-a-buffer
What am I doing wrong? How can I force to pass value of a?
A major point of lisp macros is that the arguments are not evaluated. Read up on the macro pages in the manual, specifically the expansion of macros. The macroexpand function would be of use in debugging the problem. Also, backquote might help you write the body of the macro a little more succinctly.
My elisp is a bit rusty, but until someone comes up with the actual explanation: I could get your examples to work a bit more as expected my replacing cmd with (eval cmd) (possibly same with name) in the macro definition body.
Hope this helps.
Related
I'd like to learn more about lisp macros and I want to create a simple implementation of the defun macro.
I'm also interested in lisp's source code in all the implementations.
This is a tricky question, because of bootstrapping: defun does a lot of things (iow, calls a lot of functions), but to define those functions one needs a working defun. Thus there are three(3!) definitions of defun in clisp/src/init.lisp: at lines
228
1789
1946
The very basic definition of defun could be this:
(defmacro defun (fname lambda-list &rest body)
`(setf (fdefinition ',fname)
(lambda ,lambda-list
(block ,fname ,#body))))
In fact, this is the first definition of defun in CLISP (line 228), except that there is no defmacro and no backquote at that moment yet, so the actual code looks a lot uglier.
See also Is defun or setf preferred for creating function definitions in common lisp and why? where I discuss macroexpansions of defuns.
You can easily check how your particular CL implementation, implemented defun by running
(macroexpand '(defun add2 (x) (+ x 2)))
On SBCL it expands to:
(PROGN
(EVAL-WHEN (:COMPILE-TOPLEVEL) (SB-C:%COMPILER-DEFUN 'ADD2 NIL T))
(SB-IMPL::%DEFUN 'ADD2
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA ADD2
(X)
(BLOCK ADD2 (+ X 2)))
(SB-C:SOURCE-LOCATION)))
T
To see the particular source code that implemented the I would use (on Emacs) the M-. key binding and then I will write defun and hit enter. Then Emacs will get to the source code:
(sb!xc:defmacro defun (&environment env name lambda-list &body body)
#!+sb-doc
"Define a function at top level."
[...]
I am not going to paste the whole macro as it is rather long. If you are not on Emacs, you can try searching in the repos as most implementations are open source.
BTW defun is not so special. You can implement much of it with setf-inf a symbol-function to a lambda. E.g.:
(setf (symbol-function 'ADD3) #'(lambda (x) (+ x 3)))
; => #<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (X)) {1006E94EBB}>
(add3 4)
; => 7
I am trying to make a list of callback functions, which could look like this:
(("command1" . 'callback1)
("command2" . 'callback2)
etc)
I'd like it if I could could do something like:
(define-callback callback1 "command1" args
(whatever the function does))
Rather than
(defun callback1 (args)
(whatever the function does))
(add-to-list 'callback-info ("command1" . 'callback1))
Is there a convenient way of doing this, e.g., with macros?
This is a good example of a place where it's nice to use a two-layered approach, with an explicit function-based layer, and then a prettier macro layer on top of that.
Note the following assumes Common Lisp: it looks just possible from your question that you are asking about elisp, in which case something like this can be made to work but it's all much more painful.
First of all, we'll keep callbacks in an alist called *callbacks*:
(defvar *callbacks* '())
Here's a function which clears the alist of callbacks
(defun initialize-callbacks ()
(setf *callbacks* '())
(values)
Here is the function that installs a callback. It does this by searching the list to see if there is a callback with the given name, and if there is then replacing it, and otherwise installing a new one. Like all the functions in the functional layer lets us specify the test function which will let us know if two callback names are the same: by default this is #'eql which will work for symbols and numbers, but not for strings. Symbols are probably a better choice for the names of callbacks than strings, but we'll cope with that below.
(defun install-callback (name function &key (test #'eql))
(let ((found (assoc name *callbacks* :test test)))
(if found
(setf (cdr found) function)
(push (cons name function) *callbacks*)))
name)
Here is a function to find a callback, returning the function object, or nil if there is no callback with that name.
(defun find-callback (name &key (test #'eql))
(cdr (assoc name *callbacks* :test test)))
And a function to remove a named callback. This doesn't tell you if it did anything: perhaps it should.
(defun remove-callback (name &key (test #'eql))
(setf *callbacks* (delete name *callbacks* :key #'car :test test))
name)
Now comes the macro layer. The syntax of this is going to be (define-callback name arguments ...), so it looks a bit like a function definition.
There are three things to know about this macro.
It is a bit clever: because you can know at macro-expansion time what sort of thing the name of the callback is, you can decide then and there what test to use when installing the callback, and it does this. If the name is a symbol it also wraps a block named by the symbol around the body of the function definition, so it smells a bit more like a function defined by defun: in particular you can use return-from in the body. It does not do this if the name is not a symbol.
It is not quite clever enough: in particular it does not deal with docstrings in any useful way (it ought to pull them out of the block I think). I am not sure this matters.
The switch to decide the test uses expressions like '#'eql which reads as (quote (function eql)): that is to avoid wiring in functions into the expansion because functions are not externalisable objects in CL. However I am not sure I have got this right: I think what is there is safe but it may not be needed.
So, here it is
(defmacro define-callback (name arguments &body body)
`(install-callback ',name
,(if (symbolp name)
`(lambda ,arguments
(block ,name
,#body))
`(lambda ,arguments
,#body))
:test ,(typecase name
(string '#'string=)
(symbol '#'eql)
(number '#'=)
(t '#'equal))))
And finally here are two different callbacks being defined:
(define-callback "foo" (x)
(+ x 3))
(define-callback foo (x)
(return-from foo (+ x 1)))
These lists are called assoc lists in Lisp.
CL-USER 120 > (defvar *foo* '(("c1" . c1) ("c2" . c2)))
*FOO*
CL-USER 121 > (setf *foo* (acons "c0" `c1 *foo*))
(("c0" . C1) ("c1" . C1) ("c2" . C2))
CL-USER 122 > (assoc "c1" *foo* :test #'equal)
("c1" . C1)
You can write macros for that, but why? Macros are advanced Lisp and you might want to get the basics right, first.
Some issues with you example you might want to check out:
what are assoc lists?
what are useful key types in assoc lists?
why you don't need to quote symbols in data lists
variables are not quoted
data lists need to be quoted
You can just as easy create such lists for callbacks without macros. We can imagine a function create-callback, which would be used like this:
(create-callback 'callback1 "command1"
(lambda (arg)
(whatever the function does)))
Now, why would you use a macro instead of a plain function?
In the end, assisted by the responders above, I got it down to something like:
(defmacro mk-make-command (name &rest body)
(let ((func-sym (intern (format "mk-cmd-%s" name))))
(mk-register-command name func-sym)
`(defun ,func-sym (args &rest rest)
(progn
,#body))))
I'm trying to write a function R> that evaluates the code given as a string in the active ESS R process and returns basic conversions to elisp data structures or just nil. I'm not an experience elisp coder, so right now I'm just trying to get a really basic function working.
(defun R> (s)
"Evaluate simple R command."
(save-excursion
(with-temp-buffer
(setq ess-dialect "R")
(let (out list)
(setq tmpbuf (current-buffer))
(ess-command (s-concat s "\n") tmpbuf)
(setq list (s-split "\w" (R>--remove-numbered-brackets)))
(apply 'vector
(--map
(let ((it* (s-trim it)))
( if (s-numeric? it*)
(string-to-number it*)
(strip-inner-quotes it*)))
list))))))
(defun R>--remove-numbered-brackets ()
(replace-regexp-in-string "[\\[0-9\\]+]" "" (buffer-string)))
(defun strip-inner-quotes (s)
"If the string has inner quotes, remove them."
(replace-regexp-in-string "\"" "" s))
Unfortunately, running this causes the active windows to change. Not the desired behavior! I thought save-excursion was designed to prevent this, but I guess I'm not using properly. Is there some alternative way to use save-excursion that doesn't have this issue?
Use save-selected-window instead of/in addition to save-excursion.
(defmacro flycheck-define-clike-checker (name command modes)
`(flycheck-declare-checker ,(intern (format "flycheck-checker-%s" name))
,(format "A %s checker using %s" name (car command))
:command '(,#command source-inplace)
:error-patterns
'(("^\\(?1:.*\\):\\(?2:[0-9]+\\):\\(?3:[0-9]+\\): error: \\(?4:.*\\)$"
error)
("^\\(?1:.*\\):\\(?2:[0-9]+\\):\\(?3:[0-9]+\\): warning: \\(?4:.*\\)$"
warning))
:modes ',modes))
(flycheck-define-clike-checker c
("gcc" "-fsyntax-only" "-Wall" "-Wextra")
c-mode)
Above is the code that i took from https://github.com/jedrz/.emacs.d/blob/master/setup-flycheck.el
It doesn't do anything much apart from defining a checker for flycheck which can be found https://github.com/lunaryorn/flycheck
My problem is trivial and i have already spent a day on it and i am more confused.
The second part of the code uses the defined macro to call flycheck to register a compiler
(flycheck-define-clike-checker c
("gcc" "-fsyntax-only" "-Wall" "-Wextra")
c-mode)
Above code works perfectly.
But since i wanted my compiler to have some dynamic includes et all, I have a variable defined as
(defvar efx-flycheck-c-command '("gcc" "-fsyntax-only" "-Wall" "-Wextra"))
when i pass that to the macro like
(flycheck-define-clike-checker c
efx-flycheck-c-command
c-mode)
i receive a compilation error
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument sequencep efx-flycheck-c-command)
append(efx-flycheck-c-command (source-inplace))
(list (quote quote) (append command (quote (source-inplace))))
(list (quote flycheck-declare-checker) (intern (format "flycheck-checker-%s" name)) (format "A %s checker" name) (quote :command) (list (quote quote) (app$
(\` (flycheck-declare-checker (\, (intern (format "flycheck-checker-%s" name))) (\, (format "A %s checker" name)) :command (quote ((\,# command) source-in$
(lambda (name command modes) (\` (flycheck-declare-checker (\, (intern (format "flycheck-checker-%s" name))) (\, (format "A %s checker" name)) :command (q$
(flycheck-define-clike-checker c efx-flycheck-c-command c-mode)
eval((flycheck-define-clike-checker c efx-flycheck-c-command c-mode) nil)
eval-last-sexp-1(nil)
eval-last-sexp(nil)
call-interactively(eval-last-sexp nil nil)
I guess i confused in how the macro expands in elisp.
Please help!
As a general rule, you're better off using a defun than a defmacro, except when defun is really inconvenient/impossible to use. In your case, a defun indeed makes more sense. The only downside is that you need to quote the c and c-mode arguments.
You need to decide whether you want the command argument to be evaluated or unevaluated. An unevaluated argument allows you to type lists without quoting them, i.e. ("gcc" "-Wall") instead of '("gcc" "-Wall"), at the cost of not being able to pass a variable as the argument. An evaluated argument enables you to provide variables (or indeed arbitrary expressions) to the macro, at the cost of having to quote simple lists.
Normally, to evaluate the macro argument in backticks, you'd just use the , operator. However, you're already using the ,# operator, and you're mentioning command twice, so it's better to explicitly evaluate it using eval:
(defmacro flycheck-define-clike-checker (name command modes)
(let ((command (eval command)))
`(flycheck-declare-checker ,(intern (format "flycheck-checker-%s" name))
,(format "A %s checker using %s" name (car command))
:command '(,#command source-inplace)
:error-patterns
'(("^\\(?1:.*\\):\\(?2:[0-9]+\\):\\(?3:[0-9]+\\): error: \\(?4:.*\\)$"
error)
("^\\(?1:.*\\):\\(?2:[0-9]+\\):\\(?3:[0-9]+\\): warning: \\(?4:.*\\)$"
warning))
:modes ',modes)))
With the power of defmacro at your disposal, you can even go one step further and define that the macro is evaluates if it is a symbol, otherwise it's used as-is. This would allow you to have your cake and eat it, i.e. be able to pass both variable names and literal lists. The cost of this would be reduced consistency with normal evaluation rules—you would be able to pass a list or a variable, but not an arbitrary expression such as a function call, which would unpleasantly surprise the users of the macro. Because of that the implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
The only thing I don't like about Emacs is the lack of namespaces, so I'm wondering if I can implement them on my own.
This is my first attempt, and it's obvious that I can't just replace every match of a name with its prefixed version, but what should I check? I can check for bindings with (let) then mark the entire subtree, but what if somebody creates a (my-let) function that uses let? Is my effort destined to fail? :(
Also, why are my defuns failing to define the function? Do I have to run something similar to intern-symbol on every new token?
Thanks!
Since this is the first google result for elisp namespaces...
There's a minimalist implementation of namespaces called fakespace which you can get on elpa, which does basic encapsulation. I'm working on something ambitious myself, which you can check out here.
To handle things like my-let or my-defun, you need to macroexpand those definitions, e.g. with macroexpand-all.
For the failure to define the functions, you need to use intern instead of make-symbol (because make-symbol always creates a new distinct fresh uninterned symbol).
Adding namespaces will take more than prefixing the identifiers with the namespace names. The interpreter has to be able to tell the namespaces. Some tinkering must go into the interpreter as well. That might need to go through a thorough discussion at gnu.emacs.sources and/or #emacs at irc.freenode.org.
This is a fixed version of the code from #vpit3833 to provide namespace support (using the hint from #Stefan). It’s too good to leave around half-fixed :)
;; Simple namespace definitions for easier elisp writing and clean
;; access from outside. Pythonesque elisp :)
;;
;; thanks to vpit3833 → http://6e5e5ae9206fa093.paste.se/
(defmacro namespace (prefix &rest sexps)
(let* ((naive-dfs-map
(lambda (fun tree)
(mapcar (lambda (n) (if (listp n) (funcall naive-dfs-map fun n)
(funcall fun n))) tree)))
(to-rewrite (loop for sexp in sexps
when (member (car sexp)
'(defvar defmacro defun))
collect (cadr sexp)))
(fixed-sexps (funcall naive-dfs-map
(lambda (n) (if (member n to-rewrite)
(intern
(format "%s-%s" prefix n)) n))
sexps)))
`(progn ,#fixed-sexps)))
;; (namespace test
;; (defun three () 3)
;; (defun four () (let ((three 4)) three))
;; (defun + (&rest args) (apply #'- args)))
;; (test-+ 1 2 3)
(provide 'namespace)