I have written a few nearly identical functions, except for their names. For example:
; x is name, such as function/paragraph/line/etc.
(defun my-x-function
(interactive)
(mark-x) (do-more-stuff) (modify-x))
Is there a way to automatically generate such functions? I have a feeling this is what macros do, but I am not sure how to use them. Any help, maybe including a small example would be great.
Thanks!
Yep, that's exactly what macros do. Here's a straightforward macro that builds functions according to the pattern you specified:
(defmacro make-my-function (name)
(list 'defun (intern (format "my-%s-function" name)) ()
(list 'interactive)
(list (intern (format "mark-%s" name)))
(list 'do-more-stuff)
(list (intern (format "modify-%s" name)))))
You can copy this macro to a *scratch* buffer in Emacs and evaluate it, and then check that it works like this:
(make-my-function x) ; type control-J here
my-x-function ; <-- Emacs's output
(symbol-function 'my-x-function) ; type control-J here
(lambda nil (interactive) (mark-x) (do-more-stuff) (modify-x)) ; <-- Emacs's output
More commonly one would use the backquote facility to write macros more concisely, but all macros essentially work in the same manner as the above example.
Macros can do that, but there are lots of template modules for emacs to do similar work. I use a thing called yasnippet.el to do quick code-generation things. For example, in a C-source file, if I type for<TAB>, I get a for loop template; it allows me to fill in the template, setting the variable name, limits, and internal loop contents.
looks like this:
You can set up templates for anything you like. Function definitions, if statements, switch statements, whatever. Set up different templates for different modes. The template for a for loop in C is different than the template for a for loop in C#, and so on. Very handy.
Related
I am trying to learn Elisp, so I am reading the GNU Manual for Elisp. Everything so far is easy to understand, however when I read to the section of macro I encountered something I have a hard time understanding. I couldn't really find an adequate explanation neither:
For example, a simple macro program that increments the variable by 1:
(defmacro inc (var)
(list 'setq var (list '1+ var)))
I am not sure why there is ' symbol in front of setq and 1+ ? Won't this make them to a list of literal elements? (For example a list containing three elements (setq var (1+ var))
Why can't I write:
; this seems more reasonable to me
(defmacro inc (var)
(setq var (1+ var))
I am not really sure how list works here and it seems strange to me using list here. Can someone explain to me?
Won't this make them to a list of literal elements? (For example a list containing three elements (setq var (1+ var))
Precisely so (if we substitute the actual argument for var).
A macro generates/returns code.
This is the "expansion" phase of the macro, which typically takes place during byte-compilation of the elisp file.
So as far as the contents of that byte-compiled .elc file are concerned, there's no difference between you having used either of these things in your .el source file:
(inc foo)
(setq foo (1+ foo))
I.e. In both cases the code which gets byte-compiled is (setq foo (1+ foo))
Outside of byte-compilation, a macro might be expanded when the .el file is loaded or, failing that, on-demand right before the expanded code needs to be evaluated (but you should always assume the expansion happens completely independently of the subsequent evaluation).
The Lisp forum thread Define macro alias? has an example of creating function alias using a form such as
(setf (symbol-function 'zero?) #'zerop)
This works fine, making zero? a valid predicate. Is it possible to parametrize this form without resorting to macros? I'd like to be able to call the following and have it create function?:
(define-predicate-alias 'functionp)`
My take was approximately:
(defun defalias (old new)
(setf (symbol-function (make-symbol new))
(symbol-function old)))
(defun define-predicate-alias (predicate-function-name)
(let ((alias (format nil "~A?" (string-right-trim "-pP" predicate-function-name))))
(defalias predicate-function-name alias)))
(define-predicate-alias 'zerop)
(zero? '())
This fails when trying to call zero? saying
The function COMMON-LISP-USER::ZERO? is undefined.
make-symbol creates an uninterned symbol. That's why zero? is undefined.
Replace your (make-symbol new) with e.g. (intern new *package*). (Or you may want to think more carefully in which package to intern your new symbol.)
Your code makes a symbol, via MAKE-SYMBOL, but you don't put it into a package.
Use the function INTERN to add a symbol to a package.
To expand on Lars' answer, choose the right package. In this case the default might be to use the same package from the aliased function:
About style:
Anything that begins with DEF should actually be a macro. If you have a function, don't use a name beginning with "DEF". If you look at the Common Lisp language, all those are macro. For example: With those defining forms, one would typically expect that they have a side-effect during compilation of files: the compiler gets informed about them. A function can't.
If I put something like this in a file
(define-predicate-alias zerop)
(zero? '())
and then compile the file, I would expect to not see any warnings about an undefined ZERO?. Thus a macro needs to expand (define-predicate-alias 'zerop) into something which makes the new ZERO? known into the compile-time environment.
I would also make the new name the first argument.
Thus use something like MAKE-PREDICATE-ALIAS instead of DEFINE-PREDICATE-ALIAS, for the function.
There are already some answers that explain how you can do this, but I'd point out:
Naming conventions, P, and -P
Common Lisp has a naming convention that is mostly adhered to (there are exceptions, even in the standard library), that if a type name is multiple words (contains a -), then its predicate is named with -P suffix, whereas if it doesn't, the suffix is just P. So we'd have keyboardp and lcd-monitor-p. It's good then, that you're using (string-right-trim "-pP" predicate-function-name)), but since the …P and …-P names in the standard, and those generated by, e.g., defstruct, will be using P, not p, you might just use (string-right-trim "-P" predicate-function-name)). Of course, even this has the possible issues with some names (e.g., pop), but I guess that just comes with the territory.
Symbol names, format, and *print-case*
More importantly, using format to create symbol names for subsequent interning is dangerous, because format doesn't always print a symbol's name with the characters in the same case that they actually appear in its name. E.g.,
(let ((*print-case* :downcase))
(list (intern (symbol-name 'foo))
(intern (format nil "~A" 'foo))))
;=> (FOO |foo|) ; first symbol has name "FOO", second has name "foo"
You may be better off using string concatenation and extracting symbol names directly. This means you could write code like (this is slightly different use case, since the other questions already explain how you can do what you're trying to do):
(defmacro defpredicate (symbol)
(flet ((predicate-name (symbol)
(let* ((name (symbol-name symbol))
(suffix (if (find #\- name) "-P" "P")))
(intern (concatenate 'string name suffix)))))
`(defun ,(predicate-name symbol) (x)
(typep x ',symbol)))) ; however you're checking the type
(macroexpand-1 '(defpredicate zero))
;=> (DEFUN ZEROP (X) (TYPEP X 'ZERO))
(macroexpand-1 '(defpredicate lcd-monitor))
;=> (DEFUN LCD-MONITOR-P (X) (TYPEP X 'LCD-MONITOR))
How can I rename elisp macro? To be more accurate, I want make defun to be synonym to cl-defun.
I do not care about time or memory overhead.
Summary
I don't think you can do that - at least not easily.
Since cl-defun expands to defun, you will get an infinite macroexpand loop when using defun if you do the obvious (defalias 'defun 'cl-defun).
The is a way...
So what you need to do is
save the original defun: (fset 'defun-original (symbol-function 'defun)).
copy the definition of cl-defun in cl-macs.el, replacing defun with defun-original.
replace defun with cl-defun using defalias: (defalias 'defun 'cl-defun).
Now, at least, if things go sour, you can restore the original behavior with (fset 'defun (symbol-function 'defun-original)).
...but you don't want it
However, I think you don't really want to do that.
If you want to use a Common Lisp, use it. Trying to pretend that you can turn Elisp into CL will cause you nothing but grief. I tried to travel that road 15 years ago - there is no fun there. It should be easier now, at least there is lexical binding, but I still don't think it is worth the effort.
If you want to extend Emacs, then using cl-defun makes even less sense: your extensions will be useless for others and you won't even be able to ask for help because few people will bother with such a radical change in such a basic functionality for such a tiny gain.
In general, you can make a synonym very simply with (defalias 'foo 'cl-defun).
But the expansion of a call to cl-defun uses defun, so if you do (defalias 'defun 'cl-defun) you'll get into infinite loops.
You can probably get what you want by replacing defun with a macro which either does what defun does or what cl-defun does, depending on whether the cal uses cl-defun features or not. E.g. using advice-add (which is in Emacs's trunk; you can use defadvice in older Emacsen to get simlar results) it could look something like the untested code below:
(defun my-defun-dispatch (doit name args &rest body)
(let ((needs-cl nil))
(dolist (arg args)
(unless (and (symbolp arg)
(or (not (eq ?& (aref (symbol-name arg) 0)))
(memq arg '(&optional &rest))))
(setq needs-cl t)))
(if needs-cl
`(cl-defun ,name ,args ,#body)
(funcall doit name args body))))
(advice-add :around 'defun 'my-defun-dispatch)
Any particular reason?
Maybe it's safe to do, and I'm sure it's possible, but I'm very dubious that you should be attempting it in the first place if you can't figure out how to go about it. I don't mean that as any kind of insult; I just suspect that a fundamental change like this could easily cause problems, so you ought to have a solid handle on elisp first before trying it.
I realise that's a bit of a non-answer, but I thought it was worth saying.
FYI cl-defun is defined in terms of defun.
I don't even know the proper terminology for this lisp syntax, so I don't know if the words I'm using to ask the question, make sense. But the question makes sense, I'm sure.
So let me just show you. cc-mode (cc-fonts.el) has things called "matchers" which are bits of code that run to decide how to fontify a region of code. That sounds simple enough, but the matcher code is in a form I don't completely understand, with backticks and comma-atsign and just comma and so on, and furthermore it is embedded in a c-lang-defcost, which itself is a macro. I don't know what to call all that, but I want to run edebug on that code.
Look:
(c-lang-defconst c-basic-matchers-after
"Font lock matchers for various things that should be fontified after
generic casts and declarations are fontified. Used on level 2 and
higher."
t `(;; Fontify the identifiers inside enum lists. (The enum type
;; name is handled by `c-simple-decl-matchers' or
;; `c-complex-decl-matchers' below.
,#(when (c-lang-const c-brace-id-list-kwds)
`((,(c-make-font-lock-search-function
(concat
"\\<\\("
(c-make-keywords-re nil (c-lang-const c-brace-id-list-kwds))
"\\)\\>"
;; Disallow various common punctuation chars that can't come
;; before the '{' of the enum list, to avoid searching too far.
"[^\]\[{}();,/#=]*"
"{")
'((c-font-lock-declarators limit t nil)
(save-match-data
(goto-char (match-end 0))
(c-put-char-property (1- (point)) 'c-type
'c-decl-id-start)
(c-forward-syntactic-ws))
(goto-char (match-end 0)))))))
I am reading up on lisp syntax to figure out what those things are and what to call them, but aside from that, how can I run edebug on the code that follows the comment that reads ;; Fontify the identifiers inside enum lists. ?
I know how to run edebug on a defun - just invoke edebug-defun within the function's definition, and off I go. Is there a corresponding thing I need to do to edebug the cc-mode matcher code forms?
What does def-edebug-spec do, and would I use it here? If so, how?
According to (elisp)Top > Debugging > Edebug > Edebug and Macros you have to tell Edebug how to debug a macro by defining it with debug statements or by using def-edebug-spec. This tells it what parameters should be evaluated and which shouldn't. So it can be done. In fact it looks as if c-lang-defconst already been fitted for edebug. Here is the definition in case you were interested:
(def-edebug-spec c-lang-defconst
(&define name [&optional stringp] [&rest sexp def-form]))
However, if you just want to see what the body evaluates to, then the way to do that is to use something like macro-expand-last-sexp below to see the result. Position your cursor after the sexp you want expanded (as you would for C-x C-e) and run M-x macro-expand-last-sexp RET. This will show you what it gets expanded to. You may run into troubles if you try to expand something like ,(....) so you may have to copy that sexp somewhere else and delete the , or ,#.
(defun macro-expand-last-sexp (p)
"Macro expand the previous sexp. With a prefix argument
insert the result into the current buffer and pretty print it."
(interactive "P")
(let*
((sexp (preceding-sexp))
(expanded (macroexpand sexp)))
(cond ((eq sexp expanded)
(message "No changes were found when macro expanding"))
(p
(insert (format "%S" expanded))
(save-excursion
(backward-sexp)
(indent-pp-sexp 1)
(indent-pp-sexp)))
(t
(message "%S" expanded)))))
I guess it depends on exactly what you are trying to do.
Use macroexpand or macroexpand-all to turn it into macro-free code and debug as usual?
Backticks &co may be best illustrated by an example:
(let ((a 1)
(b (list 2 3)))
`(a ,a ,b ,#b))
-> (a 1 (2 3) 2 3)
A backtick (or backquote`) is similar to a quote(') in that it prevents evaluation, except its effect can be selectively undone with a comma(,); and ,# is like ,, except that its argument, which must be a list, is spliced into the resulting list.
Still struggling to understand what best practices are with respect to macros. I'm attempting to write a macro which defines packages on the fly.
(defmacro def-dynamic-package (name)
`(defpackage ,(intern (string-upcase name) "KEYWORD")
(:use :common-lisp)))
This works fine only for expressions such as:
(def-dynamic-package "helloworld")
But fails miserably for something like this:
(defun make-package-from-path (path)
(def-dynamic-package (pathname-name path)))
or
(defun make-package-from-path (path)
(let ((filename (pathname-path)))
(def-dynamic-package filename)))
I understand how most basic macros work but how to implement this one escapes me.
defpackage is a macro. As such, it's expanded at compile-time, not run-time. What you want is something that is called at run-time in order to make a new package. Therefore, defpackage can't do anything for you.
Fortunately, there's also make-package, which provides defpackage's features as a function. Use it instead of defpackage.
Failure is to be expected here, because a macro is used when its argument should not be evaluated.
In your first make-package-from-path, the def-dynamic-package will receive as argument a list that is EQUAL to the value of the following expression:
(list 'pathname-name 'path)
In your case, you only want a function:
(defun def-dynamic-package (name)
(defpackage (string-upcase name)
(:use :common-lisp)))
BTW, if you check the CLHS, you'll see that the first argument of defpackage needn't be a symbol, but any string designator.