Suppose I have a function
CL-USER> (defun trimmer (seq) "This trims seq and returns a list"
(cdr
(butlast seq)))
TRIMMER
CL-USER> (trimmer '(1 2 3 VAR1 VAR2))
(2 3 VAR1)
CL-USER>
Notice how, due to QUOTE, VAR1 and VAR2 are not resolved. Suppose I want to resolve the symbols VAR1 and VAR2 to their values - is there a standard function to do this?
Do not use quote to create a list with variables; use list instead:
CL-USER> (trimmer (list 1 2 3 var1 var2))
(2 3 value-of-var1)
(where value-of-var1 is the value of var1).
Quote only prevents evaluation of whatever its argument is. If its argument happens to be a list literal, then that is returned. However, to create lists that are not just literals, use list. You can use backquote syntax, but that is rather obfuscation in such a case.
Backquote is the usual way to interpolate values into a quoted list:
> (setq var1 4 var2 5)
5
> `(1 2 3 ,var1 ,var2)
(1 2 3 4 5)
Edited to add: if you want to process a list so that symbols are replaced with their symbol-value, then you need a function something like this:
(defun interpolate-symbol-values (list)
"Return a copy of LIST with symbols replaced by their symbol-value."
(loop for x in list
collect (if (symbolp x) (symbol-value x) x)))
> (interpolate-variables '(1 2 3 var1 var2))
(1 2 3 4 5)
This seems like a strange thing to want to do, however. Can you say more about what you are trying to achieve? Almost certainly there's a better way to do it than this.
Related
I am familiar with how to set elements in a 2D array, which can be done using the following statement.
(setf (aref array2D 0 0) 3)
However, I am not familiar how to set elements in a list of lists, such as the following input: '((1) (2) (2) (1)). I can't use aref, since it only works on arrays.
As mentioned, while aref works on arrays, elt works on sequences which can be:
an ordered collection of elements
a vector or a list.
* (setf test-list '((1) (2) (2) (1)))
((1) (2) (2) (1))
* (setf (elt test-list 2) 'hi)
HI
* test-list
((1) (2) HI (1))
You can indeed use variables in place of fixed offsets:
* (setf test-list '((1) (2) (2) (1)))
((1) (2) (2) (1))
* (setf offset 2)
2
* (setf (elt test-list offset) 'hi)
HI
* test-list
((1) (2) HI (1))
To access the nth element of a list, there are (at least) two functions: nth and elt. The order of the parameters is different, and nth only work on lists while elt works on any sequence (i.e. lists, vector, strings ...):
(nth 1 '(foo bar baz)) => BAR
(nth 1 #(foo bar baz)) => ERROR
(elt '(foo bar baz) 1) => BAR
(elt #(foo bar baz) 1) => BAR
Now, in general, the way to set a value (as opposed to simply access it) is very straightforward, and at least for built-in functions this is almost always the case: whenever you have some form FORM which retrieves some value from what is called a place, the form (setf FORM <value>) will set this element to the given <value>. This works for functions such as car, cdr, gethash, aref, slot-value, symbol-function and many others, and any combination of those.
In your example, you have a list of lists. So, for example, to modify the "inner integer" in say the third list:
* (setf test-list '((0) (1) (2) (3))) ; changed the values to have something clearer
((0) (1) (2) (3))
* (car (nth 2 test-list)) ; this accesses the integer in the second list
2
* (setf (car (nth 2 test-list)) 12) ; this modifies it. Notice the syntax
12
* test-list
((0) (1) (12) (3))
On a side note, you should avoid modifying literal lists (created using the quote symbol '). If you want to modify lists, create them at runtime using the list function.
EDIT:
What happens is that setf knows, by "looking" at the form you give it, how to actually find the place that you want to modify, potentially using functions in this process.
If you look at other languages, such as Python, you also have some kind of duality in the syntax used both to get and to set values. Indeed, if you have a list L or a dictionary d, then L[index] and d[thing] will get the corresponding element while L[index] = 12 and d[thing] = "hello" will modify it.
However, in Python, those accessors use a special syntax, namely, the squares brackets []. Other types of objects use another syntax, for example, the dot notation to access slots/attributes of an object as in my-object.attr. A consequence is that the following code is invalid in Python:
>>> L = [1, 2, 3, 2, 1]
>>> max(L)
3
>>> max(L) = 12
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<string>", line 9, in __PYTHON_EL_eval
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/ast.py", line 47, in parse
return compile(source, filename, mode, flags,
File "<string>", line 1
SyntaxError: cannot assign to function call
You have to write an other function, for example, setMax(L, val), to change the maximum of a list. This means that you now have to functions, and no symmetry anymore.
In Common Lisp, everything is (at least syntactically) a function call. This means that you can define new ways to access and modify things, for any function ! As a (bad) example of what you could do:
* (defun my-max (list)
(reduce #'max list))
MY-MAX
* (my-max '(1 2 3 8 4 5))
8
* (defun (setf my-max) (val list)
(do ((cur list (cdr cur))
(cur-max list (if (< (car cur-max) (car cur))
cur
cur-max)))
((endp (cdr cur)) (setf (car cur-max) val))))
(SETF MY-MAX)
* (setf test-list (list 0 4 5 2 3 8 6 3))
(0 4 5 2 3 8 6 3)
* (setf (my-max test-list) 42)
42
* test-list
(0 4 5 2 3 42 6 3)
This way, the syntax used to both set and get the maximum of a list is identical (FORM to get, (setf FORM val) to set), and combines automatically with every other "setter". No explicit pointers/references involved, it's just functions.
As far as I understand #' <object> is an abbreviation for (function <object>).
But I noticed different behaviour while using #' in apply function.
Example
(apply '+ '(1 2)) => Works and give 3
(apply (function +) '(1 2 ) ) => 3
However
(apply '# '(1 2)) => Err!!
As described in the reference:
The notation #'name may be used as an abbreviation for (function name).
Note that the syntax used is #', not '#, which is just a way a quoting the symbol #, since 'a is equivalent to (quote a).
So you should use:
(apply #'+ '(1 2))
In general the character # followed by a character has a special meaning for inputting values. For instance #\ is for reading characters (like in #\Space), #( for reading vectors, (like in #(1 2 3)), etc.
The #' notation is implemented by the reader.
If you want to see the effect, you can for example use this:
CL-USER 1 > (read-from-string "#'+")
(FUNCTION +)
3
CL-USER 2 > '#'+
(FUNCTION +)
Some output from the CLISP REPL:
[1]> (list 'list 1 2 3)
(LIST 1 2 3)
[2]> (list 'list '(1 2 3))
(LIST (1 2 3))
[3]> (list 'quote 1 2 3)
(QUOTE 1 2 3)
[4]> (list 'quote '(1 2 3))
'(1 2 3)
The first three, I understand exactly what's going on: The list function is passed a symbol ('list or 'quote) and so the result is a list that begins with the list or quote symbol. It's the fourth that confuses me. Why doesn't it return (QUOTE (1 2 3))?
I realise that if you enter (QUOTE '(1 2 3)) into the REPL, you get '(1 2 3) back, so the expression are equivalent in that sense. But (LIST 1 2 3) is equivalent to (1 2 3), and yet the first expression doesn't return that.
It seems inconsitent that (list 'quote 1 2 3) returns a list with the first item being a quote symbol, but (list 'quote (1 2 3)) returns a quoted list. Especially since expressions like (list 'list ...) seem to always return a list beginning with the symbol - so far, at least, quote is the only 'special case' like this.
It's not the easiest question to articulate, so I'm hoping I've managed to get my confusion across. Can anyone explain why quote gets treated in this seemingly-unique way?
'something is the same as (quote something) for the lisp reader. Even when nested it will be the case. The next expressions I will double quote so that after evaluation one of the quotes are still in there.
When printing the implementations can choose what to output where there are several possible representations, so some implementations would print the evaluation of ''something as
(quote something) while others may use the abbreviation 'something.
'(quote 1 2 3) cannot be abbreviated since a quoted form only has one argument. Thus here both lisp systems would print (quote 1 2 3).
Here is a way to look at your last expression:
(let ((data (list 'quote '(1 2 3))))
(format nil
"whole thing: ~a first element: ~a second-element: ~a"
data
(car data)
(cadr data)))
This will either evaluate to "whole thing: '(1 2 3) first element: QUOTE second-element: (1 2 3)" or "whole thing: (QUOTE (1 2 3)) first element: QUOTE second-element: (1 2 3)".
Since the printer never sees if the input is abbreviated and the data has the same structure in memory the output is never affected by how you input the data. Thus (quote (quote (1 2 3))) will print the same as ''(1 2 3).
You have the same behaviour with cons cells but the standard dictates how the rules are. (cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '()))) would be (1 . (2 . (3 . ()))) but is actually just printed (1 2 3) However if you (cons 1 2) you get (1 . 2) showing that print treats the output differently based on the cdr. However the reader can read any of these and they will all print the same eg. '(1 . (2 . (3 . ()))) ==> (1 2 3) and (+ . (2 . ( 3 . ()))) ; ==> 5
Numbers can have as many visual forms as there are bases below the number in question.
(let ((*print-base* 16))
(print 255)) ; prints FF (255 in hexadecimal)
list does not have any abbreviation or specialness in Lisp. It's not even a primitive function but it's very helpful as it removes the inconvenience of having to cons by hand everytime. It can be defined like this:
(defun my-list (&rest lst)
lst)
(my-list 1 2 3 4) ; ==> (1 2 3 4)
Note that a REPL (the READ-EVAL-PRINT-LOOP) does three things:
reading using the function READ
evaluating using the function EVAL
and printing the result using something like the function PRINT
To understand what is going on you have to look at all three functions.
Let's look at the third form:
(list 'quote 1 2 3)
This is read as a list of five elements:
LIST
(QUOTE QUOTE)
1
2
3
EVAL then evaluates the arguments, and calls the function list with the four results and returns a new result, a list of four elements:
QUOTE
1
2
3
PRINT then takes this list and writes it as: (QUOTE 1 2 3). There is no abbreviated way to print it.
Let's look at the fourth form:
(list 'quote '(1 2 3))
This is read as a list of three elements:
LIST
(QUOTE QUOTE)
(QUOTE (1 2 3))
eval calls list with two arguments:
QUOTE
(1 2 3)
eval then returns a list of length two:
QUOTE
(1 2 3)
print now can print this list in two different ways:
(QUOTE (1 2 3)) or the abbreviated form '(1 2 3). Here a quote character is in front of a single expression.
Your implementation used the first version.
I am trying define symbols a and b in following way
a + 1 1 b
2
I am trying to do this by using define-symbol-macro
(define-symbol-macro a '( )
(define-symbol-macro b ') )
but this way is not working.
What Lisp does with source code
Common Lisp is an incredibly flexible language, in part because its source code can be easily represented using the same data structures that are used in the language. The most common form of macro expansion transforms the these structures into other structures. These are the kind of macros that you can define with define-symbol-macro, define-compiler-macro, defmacro, and macrolet. Before any of those kind of macroexpansions can be performed, however, the system first needs to read the source from an input stream (typically a file, or an interactive prompt). That's the reader's responsibility. The reader also is capable of executing some special actions when it encounters certain characters, such ( and '. What you're trying to do probably needs to be happening down at the reader level, if you want to have, e.g., (read-from-string "a + 1 1 b") return the list (+ 1 1), which is what you want if you want (eval (read-from-string "a + 1 1 b")) to return 2. That said, you could also define a special custom language (like loop does) where a and b are treated specially.
Use set-macro-character, not define-symbol-macro
This isn't something that you would do using symbol-macros, but rather with macro characters. You can set macro characters using the aptly named set-macro-character. For instance, in the following, I set the macro character for % to be a function that reads a list, using read-delimited-list that should be terminated by ^. (Using the characters a and b here will prove very difficult, because you won't be able to write things like (set-macro-character ...) afterwards; it would be like writing (set-m(cro-ch(r(cter ...), which is not good.)
CL-USER> (set-macro-character #\% (lambda (stream ignore)
(declare (ignore ignore))
(read-delimited-list #\^ stream)))
T
CL-USER> % + 1 1 ^
2
The related set-syntax-from-char
There's a related function that almost does what you want here, set-syntax-from-char. You can use it to make one character behave like another. For instance, you can make % behave like (
CL-USER> (set-syntax-from-char #\% #\()
T
CL-USER> % + 1 1 )
2
However, since the macro character associated with ( isn't looking for a character that has the same syntax as ), but an actual ) character, you can't simply replace ) with ^ in the same way:
CL-USER> (set-syntax-from-char #\^ #\))
T
CL-USER> % + 1 1 ^
; Evaluation aborted on #<SB-INT:SIMPLE-READER-ERROR "unmatched close parenthesis" {1002C66031}>.
set-syntax-from-char is more useful when there's an existing character that, by itself does something that you want to imitate. For instance, if you wanted to make ! an additional quotation character:
CL-USER> (set-syntax-from-char #\! #\')
T
CL-USER> (list !a !(1 2 3))
(A (1 2 3))
or make % be a comment character, like it is in LaTeX:
CL-USER> (set-syntax-from-char #\% #\;)
T
CL-USER> (list 1 2 % 3 4
5 6)
(1 2 5 6)
But consider why you're doing this at all…
Now, even though you can do all of this, it seems like something that would be utterly surprising to anyone who ran into it. (Perhaps you're entering an obfuscated coding competition? ;)) For the reasons shown above, doing this with commonly used characters such as a and b will also make it very difficult to write any more source code. It's probably a better bet to define an entirely new readtable that does what you want, or even write a new parser. even though (Common) Lisp lets you redefine the language, there are still things that it probably makes sense to leave alone.
A symbol-macro is a symbol that stands for another form. Seems like you want to look at reader macros.
http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/f_set__1.htm
http://dorophone.blogspot.no/2008/03/common-lisp-reader-macros-simple.html
I would second Rainer's comment though, what are you trying to make?
Ok so I love your comment on the reason for this and now I know this is for 'Just because it's lisp' then I am totally on board!
Ok so you are right about lisp being great to use to make new languages because we only have to 'compile' to valid lisp code and it will run. So while we cant use the normal compiler to do the transformation of the symbols 'a and 'b to brackets we can write this ourselves.
Ok so lets get started!
(defun symbol-name-equal (a b)
(and (symbolp a) (symbolp b) (equal (symbol-name a) (symbol-name b))))
(defun find-matching-weird (start-pos open-symbol close-symbol code)
(unless (symbol-name-equal open-symbol (nth start-pos code))
(error "start-pos does not point to a weird open-symbol"))
(let ((nest-index 0))
(loop :for item :in (nthcdr start-pos code)
:for i :from start-pos :do
(cond ((symbol-name-equal item open-symbol) (incf nest-index 1))
((symbol-name-equal item close-symbol) (incf nest-index -1)))
(when (eql nest-index 0)
(return i))
:finally (return nil))))
(defun weird-forms (open-symbol close-symbol body)
(cond ((null body) nil)
((listp body)
(let ((open-pos (position open-symbol body :test #'symbol-name-equal)))
(if open-pos
(let ((close-pos (find-matching-weird open-pos open-symbol close-symbol body)))
(if close-pos
(weird-forms open-symbol close-symbol
`(,#(subseq body 0 open-pos)
(,#(subseq body (1+ open-pos) close-pos))
,#(subseq body (1+ close-pos))))
(error "unmatched weird brackets")))
(if (find close-symbol body :test #'symbol-name-equal)
(error "unmatched weird brackets")
(loop for item in body collect
(weird-forms open-symbol close-symbol item))))))
(t body)))
(defmacro with-weird-forms ((open-symbol close-symbol) &body body)
`(progn
,#(weird-forms open-symbol close-symbol body)))
So there are a few parts to this.
First we have (symbol-name-equal), this is a helper function because we are now using symbols and symbols belong to packages. symbol-name-equal gives us a way of checking if the symbols have the same name ignoring what package they reside in.
Second we have (find-matching-weird). This is a function that takes a list and and index to an opening weird bracket and returns the index to the closing weird bracket. This makes sure we get the correct bracket even with nesting
Next we have (weird-forms). This is the juicy bit and what it does is to recursively walk through the list passed as the 'body' argument and do the following:
If body is an empty list just return it
if body is a list then
find the positions of our open and close symbols.
if only one of them is found then we have unmatched brackets.
if we find both symbols then make a new list with the bit between the start and end positions inside a nested list.
we then call weird forms on this result in case there are more weird-symbol-forms inside.
there are no weird symbols then just loop over the items in the list and call weird-form on them to keep the search going.
OK so that function transforms a list. For example try:
(weird-forms 'a 'b '(1 2 3 a 4 5 b 6 7))
But we want this to be proper lisp code that executes so we need to use a simple macro.
(with-weird-forms) is a macro that takes calls the weird-forms function and puts the result into our source code to be compiled by lisp. So if we have this:
(with-weird-forms (a b)
(+ 1 2 3 a - a + 1 2 3 b 10 5 b 11 23))
Then it macroexpands into:
(PROGN (+ 1 2 3 (- (+ 1 2 3) 10 5) 11 23))
Which is totally valid lisp code, so it will run!
CL-USER> (with-weird-forms (a b)
(+ 1 2 3 a - a + 1 2 3 b 10 5 b 11 23))
31
Finally if you have settled on the 'a' and 'b' brackets you could write another little macro:
(defmacro ab-lang (&rest code)
`(with-weird-forms (a b) ,#code))
Now try this:
(ab-lang a let* a a d 1 b a e a * d 5 b b b a format t "this stupid test gives: ~a" e b b)
Cheers mate, this was great fun to write. Sorry for dismissing the problem earlier on.
This kind of coding is very important as ultimately this is a tiny compiler for our weird language where symbols can be punctuation. Compilers are awesome and no language makes it as effortless to write them as lisp does.
Peace!
I'm learning lisp and have a question about a simple list:
(setq stuff '(one two three (+ 2 2)))
stuff ; prints "one two three (+ 2 2)"
(setq stuff (list `one `two `three (+ 2 2)))
stuff ; prints "one two three 4"
The first setq creates a list "one two three (+ 2 2)". The second list creates "one two three 4". Why does the first list not evaluate the (+ 2 2), but the second one does? I read in the Emacs Lisp intro documentation that when the list is built that it evaluates from the inside out. Why doesn't the first list evaluate the addition before adding it to the list?
This is elisp in emacs 24.
' is not equivalent to list, it's shorthand for quote. You're really doing this:
(setq stuff (quote (one two three (+ 2 2))))
The argument to quote is the expression (one two three (+ 2 2)).
From http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Quoting.html: "The special form quote returns its single argument, as written, without evaluating it".
Looks like you're coming to grips with the evaluation semantics of Lisp, so keep playing around!
You can think of quote as suppressing evaluation of its argument. This allows you to write expressions that you can manipulate or pass around. It is also used to write data structures that should not be evaluated as function calls.
Data structures:
'(1 2 3) ; => '(1 2 3)
(1 2 3) ; => Lisp error: (invalid-function 1)
;; The Lisp reader sees the number 1 in the function position and tries to call it, signalling an error.
Syntax transformations:
(setq x '(string-to-int "123"))
(setf (car x) 'string-to-list)
x ; => '(string-to-list "123")
Delayed evaluation:
(setq x '(message "Hello World")) ; => '(message "Hello World")
(eval x) ; => "Hello World"
There is a closely related special operator called syntax quote, written using the backtick. It allows you to evaluate individual forms in a quoted expression using the comma ( , ) operator. It is like quote with an escape hatch.
`(1 2 (+ 3 4)) ; => '(1 2 (+ 3 4))
`(1 2 ,(+ 3 4)) ; => '(1 2 7) ;; Note the comma!
Syntax quote also permits list splicing using the ,# syntax:
`(1 2 ,#(+ 3 4)) ; => '(1 2 + 3 4)
As you can see, it splices the subsequent expression into the containing one. You probably won't see it all that often until you start writing macros.
list on the other hand is a simple function. It evaluates its arguments, then returns a new data structure containing these items.
(list 1 2 (+ 3 4)) ; => '(1 2 7)