Is there a way to check if a variable exists in Scheme? Even doing things like (if variable) or (null? variable) cause errors because the variable is not defined. Is there some function that returns whether or not a variable exists?
This feature is built into Mit-Scheme.
#lang scheme
(define x "hello world")
(environment-bound? (nearest-repl/environment) 'x)
(environment-bound? (nearest-repl/environment) 'not-x)
Here's an example in Racket:
#lang racket
(define x 1)
(define-namespace-anchor ns)
(define (is-bound? nm)
(define r (gensym))
(not (eq? r (namespace-variable-value nm #t
(lambda () r)
(namespace-anchor->namespace ns)))))
(is-bound? 'x)
(is-bound? 'not-bound-here)
You want to ask questions to the environment. This is not possible with R5RS, and I'm not sure about R6RS. I certainly would like to do that using just the Scheme standard (and this may be part of R7RS -- look for "Environment enquiries" in the list of items they are likely going to work on).
As far as I can tell there are currently only ad-hoc solutions to that so you'll have to read your implementation's documentation.
Chicken supports that with the oblist egg (it lets you obtain a list of all interned symbols), and also with the environments egg, which lets you specificaly ask if one symbol is bound.
Depending on your implementation if may be possible to test this by making a reference to the variable and catching an exception, then checking if it was a not-bound exception, or something similar to that.
According to R6RS, it's a syntax violation to make a call to an unbound variable.
http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-12.html#node_sec_9.1
However, depending on your implementation there should be a way (theoretically, at least) to query the environment and check if a variable is a member. You'd need to do some further reading for that, however.
http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs-lib/r6rs-lib-Z-H-17.html#node_idx_1268
Related
Reading this question got me thinking about what constitutes a valid car of an expression. Obviously, symbols and lambdas can be "called" using the usual syntax. According to the hyperspec,
function name n. 1. (in an environment) A symbol or a list (setf symbol) that is the name of a function in that environment. 2. A symbol or a list (setf symbol).
So, theoretically, (setf some-name) is a function name. I decided to give it a try.
(defun (setf try-this) ()
(format t "Don't name your functions like this, kids :)"))
((setf try-this))
(funcall '(setf try-this))
(setf (try-this))
GNU CLISP, SBCL, and ABCL will all let me define this function. However, SBCL and ABCL won't let me call it using any of the syntaxes shown in the snippet. CLISP, on the other hand, will run the first two but still errs on the third.
I'm curious about which compiler is behaving correctly. Since SBCL and ABCL agree, I would hazard a guess that a correct implementation should reject that code. As a second question, how would I call my incredibly-contrived not-useful function from the code snippet, since the things I tried above aren't working portably. Or, perhaps more usefully,
A SETF function has to take at least one argument, which is the new value to be stored in the place. It can take additional arguments as well, these will be filled in from arguments in the place expression in the call to SETF.
When you use SETF, it has to have an even number of arguments: every place you're assigning to needs a value to be assigned.
So it should be:
(defun (setf try-this) (new-value)
(format t "You tried to store ~S~%" new-value))
(setf (try-this) 3)
(funcall #'(setf try-this) 'foo)
You can't use
((setf try-this) 'bar)
because the car of a form does not contain a function name. It can only be a symbol or a lambda expression (although implementations may allow other formats as extensions).
I'm exploring Scheme macros, but I've been unable to find a portable way of writing anaphoric macros.
I'm trying to write an each-it macro, such that this code:
(each-it (list 1 2 3)
(display it))
Expands to this:
(for-each (lambda (it)
(display it))
(list 1 2 3))
I've written a macro with syntax-rules, but this gives me an error about an undefined identifier when I try to use it.
(define-syntax each-it
(syntax-rules ()
((each-it lst body)
(for-each (lambda (it) body)
lst))))
This SO question mentions define-syntax-parameter, which seems to be Racket only. This blog post gives some Scheme code samples, but the code samples don't run in DrRacket in R5RS mode (I think it's the square brackets?).
R4RS has an interesting macro appendix but it is not present in R5RS and I don't know if I can depend on it.
Can I write my each-it macro in a completely portable way? If not, what are the most widely available macro system features for writing my macro?
This should be portable, at least in R6RS:
(define-syntax each-it
(lambda (x)
(syntax-case x ()
((_ lst body)
(with-syntax ((it (datum->syntax x 'it)))
#'(for-each (lambda (it) body) lst))))))
Yes, you can write it in a portable way assuming that R6RS is portable enough for you. (The same cannot be said on R7RS, which currently has nothing more than just syntax-rules, and it's unclear what will be included in the large language, or when it will happen.) See uselpa's for how to do that.
So why am I writing another answer? Because actually doing that is going to be a bad idea. A bad idea not in some vague academic sense that doesn't matter for most real world code -- bad in a sense that is likely to bite you later on. I know that "paper" makes it look intimidating, but read at least the first two sections of the paper mentioned in the other SO question you've seen. Specifically, Section 1.2 shows the problem you'll be running against. Then, Section 2 shows how to do it "properly", in a way that makes it tedious to write macros that expand to uses of your macro. At this point, it will be appealing to take the "just keep it hygienic", but at the end of Section 2 you'll see why that's not working either.
The bottom line, IMO, is to just not do it unless you have syntax parameters or something similar. Maybe the only exception to that (which might be your case) is when the macro is something that you intend to use yourself, and you will never provide it to others.
In the context of writing Racket macros, what does "3D syntax" mean?
I've heard the phrase a few times. Including once in reference to a macro I was writing. But that was awhile ago; I fixed it, and now I can't remember exactly what I was doing wrong originally.
Also: Is 3D syntax always bad? Or is it like eval (where if you think you need to use it, you're probably wrong, but there are some valid uses in expert hands)?
Syntax objects are usually supposed to be just serializable data. 3D-syntax weakens this condition: it allows us to sneak in arbitrary values, and not just plain data. That's what makes them "3d": they are values that rise above the regular flat things you'd expect out of syntax objects.
For example, we can sneak in lambda values!
#lang racket
(define ns (make-base-namespace))
(define (set-next! n)
(parameterize ([current-namespace ns])
(eval #`(define next #,n)))) ;; <-- 3d-syntax here
(define (compute s)
(parameterize ([current-namespace ns])
(eval s)))
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
(define counter 0)
(set-next! (lambda ()
(set! counter (add1 counter))
counter))
(compute '(+ (next)
(next)
(next)
(next)))
Doing this is usually a bad thing, because the presence of such values probably means an ill-founded attempt to leak information across phases of compilation. The result is something that's likely not separately-compilable. If you see an error that sounds something like:
write: cannot marshal value that is embedded in compiled code value
then that is most likely due to a macro having produced a piece of 3d-syntax that can't be serialized to bytecode.
Sometimes, in rare situations, we really do want 3d-syntax, often in dynamic evaluation contexts. As a concrete example, a debugger in DrRacket may want to annotate the syntax of a program so that function applications directly call back into functions of the debugger, so that we can do things like interactive code coverage coloring in the program editor. In that sense, 3d-syntax can act as a communication channel between dynamically-evaluated code and its ambient environment.
Consider this piece of code:
(defvar lst '(1 1))
(defmacro get-x (x lst)
`(nth ,x ,lst))
(defun get-y (y lst)
(nth y lst))
Now let us assume that I want to change the value of the elements of the list called lst, the car with get-x and the cdr with get-y.
As I try to change the value with get-x (with setf) everything goes fine but if I try it with get-y it signals an error (shortened):
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: (SETF GET-STUFF)
Why does this happen?
I myself suspect that this happens because the macro simply expands and the function nth simply returns a reference to the value of an element in the list and the function on the other hand evaluates the function-call to nth and returns the value of the referenced value (sounds confusing).
Am I correct in my suspicions?
If I am correct then how will one know what is simply a reference to a value and an actual value?
The error does not happen with the macro version, because, as you assumed, the expression (setf (get-x some-x some-list) some-value) will be expanded (at compile-time) into something like (setf (nth some-x some-list) some-value) (not really, but the details of setf-expansion are complex), and the compiler knows, how to deal with that (i.e., there is a suitable setf expander defined for function nth).
However, in the case of get-y, the compiler has no setf expander, unless you provide one. The easiest way to do so would be
(defun (setf get-y) (new-value x ls) ; Note the function's name: setf get-y
(setf (nth x ls) new-value))
Note, that there are a few conventions regarding setf-expanders:
The new value is always provided as the first argument to the setf function
All setf functions are supposed to return the new value as their result (as this is, what the entire setf form is supposed to return)
There is, BTW, no such concept as a "reference" in Common Lisp (at least not in the C++ sense), though there once were Lisp dialects which had locatives. Generalized place forms (ie., setf and its machinery) work very differently from plain C++ style references. See the CLHS, if you are curious about the details.
SETF is a macro.
The idea is that to set and read elements from data structures are two operations, but usually require two different names (or maybe even something more complex). SETF now enables you to use just one name for both:
(get-something x)
Above reads a datastructure. The inverse then simply is:
(setf (get-something x) :foobar)
Above sets the datastructure at X with :FOOBAR.
SETF does not treat (get-something x) as a reference or something like that. It just has a database of inverse operations for each operation. If you use GET-SOMETHING, it knows what the inverse operation is.
How does SETF know it? Simple: you have to tell it.
For The NTH operation, SETF knows how to set the nth element. That's builtin into Common Lisp.
For your own GET-Y operation SETF does not have that information. You have to tell it. See the Common Lisp HyperSpec for examples. One example is to use DEFUN and (SETF GET-Y) as a function name.
Also note following style problems with your example:
lst is not a good name for a DEFVAR variable. Use *list* as a name to make clear that it is a special variable declared by DEFVAR (or similar).
'(1 2) is a literal constant. If you write a Common Lisp program, the effects of changing it are undefined. If you want to change a list later, you should cons it with LIST or something like COPY-LIST.
This is mostly a follow-up to this question. I decided to just keep YAGNI in mind and created a global variable (libpython). I set it to #f initially, then set! it when init is called. I added a function that should handle checking if that value has been initialized:
(define (get-cpyfunc name type)
(lambda args
(if libpython
(apply (get-ffi-obj name libpython type) args)
(error "Call init before using any Python C functions"))))
So now here's what I want to do. I want to define a macro that will take the following:
(define-cpyfunc Py_Initialize (_fun -> _void))
And convert it into this:
(define Py_Initialize (get-cpyfunc "Py_Initialize" (_fun -> _void)))
I've been reading through the macro documentation to try figuring this out, but I can't seem to figure out a way to make it work. Can anyone help me with this (or at least give me a general idea of what the macro would look like)? Or is there a way to do this without macros?
I've answered most of this question in the other one (I didn't see this one). It's fine to use a function that pulls out the bindings like this, but one possible problem here is that since you generate the binding only when the resulting function is called, this binding is re-created on each and every call. An easy way to solve this quickly is using promises, something like this:
(require scheme/promise)
(define (get-cpyfunc name type)
(define the-function
(delay (if libpython
(get-ffi-obj name libpython type)
(error "Call init before using any Python C functions"))))
(lambda args (apply (force the-function) args)))
But this is essentially almost the same as the code I posted in your previous question.
More random notes:
get-ffi-obj will accept a symbol as the name to bind to -- this is intentional, to make such macros (as in the last question) easy.
Using (symbol->string 'name) in a macro is fine. As I noted above in my comment reply to Nathan's comment, this means that it gets called at runtime, but mzscheme should be able to optimize that anyway, so there's no need to try and write some sophisticated macro that does the job at compile time.
Look inside the PLT directory -- you will find a collection called ffi. This is a collection of examples of bindings with various styles. Macros that create the bindings are very common in these examples.
Why don't you change the generated code to
(define Py_Initialize (get-cpyfunc 'Py_Initialize (_fun -> _void)))
and then have get-cpyfunc run (symbol->string name)?
Granted, there is probably a way to do this with syntax-case (I can never remember its syntax though), and definitely if you're using a Scheme with CL-esque define-macro.
It's not the complete answer, but I came up with a macro that meets both requirements (defines a variable and a string with the name of that variable):
> (define-syntax (my-syntax stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ id)
#'(define-values (id) (values (symbol->string (quote id))))]))
> (my-syntax y)
> y
"y"