I have decided to learn (Common) Lisp a few days ago and I realize that this is quite a newbie question and it is probably extremely trivial to someone with at least a bit of experience.
So basically what happens is that I load up Emacs + Slime (via Lisp in a Box) and write my program (included below):
(defun last-char (s) "Get last character"
(char s (- (length s) 1)))
And then I try to compile it with C - c M - k, but then I get the following warning:
CHAR is neither declared nor bound,
it will be treated as if it were declared SPECIAL.
What is the meaning of this warning? I suppose it might be something similar to forgetting #includes in C, but I can't quite figure it out. What should I do about it? Shall I just simply ignore it?
The warning means that char is not being recognized as a function, as it should, for some reason (it's reporting that the symbol is unbound, it has no value).
It might have something to do with your implementation. I've run your code using C-c M-k in my SBCL + Emacs/Slime (and in Clozure) and I get the following report from the compilation in SBCL:
; in: DEFUN LAST-CHAR
; (CHAR S (- (LENGTH S) 1))
; --> AREF
; ==>
; (SB-KERNEL:HAIRY-DATA-VECTOR-REF ARRAY SB-INT:INDEX)
;
; note: unable to
; optimize
; due to type uncertainty:
; The first argument is a STRING, not a SIMPLE-STRING.
;
; note: unable to
; avoid runtime dispatch on array element type
; due to type uncertainty:
; The first argument is a STRING, not a SIMPLE-ARRAY.
Try just typing
#'char
on the REPL, the response should be that it is reported to be a function,
CL-USER> #'char
#<FUNCTION CHAR>
but maybe it doesn't in your implementation (I'm guessing it doesn't, given the compiler warning and the fact that the code compiles correctly in SBCL). If that's the case, then that is a point where your implementation departs from the ANSI Common Lisp specification, because that function should be there.
Just a note regarding your indentation. Here's a more conventional indentation:
(defun last-char (s)
"Get last character"
(char s (- (length s) 1)))
Related
When using Emacs, SLIME and Clozure CL I have a minor gripe:
The function signature for aref (I have not yet seen any other instances) is shown only as (aref a).
When I go to source the code in question begins with (defun aref (a &lexpr subs). As far as I know, &lexpr is not a valid CL lambda list keyword. So this indicates that SLIME does not show the correct function signature due to the "weird" keyword.
But when I do the same for svref, say, there is nothing (to me at least) that corroborates the above hypthesis. So maybe SLIME does something, too.
Can anybody point to relevant documentation (I did not find anything relevant in the SLIME manual and in the CCL manual) or does anybody have a workaround/solution?
SVREF does not take a list of array indices, since its first argument is a vector. An array might be multi-dimensional, which explains why there are a variadic number of subscripts. For AREF, the possible sources are:
.../ccl/level-0/l0-array.lisp
#'AREF
.../ccl/compiler/optimizers.lisp
(COMPILER-MACRO AREF)
.../ccl/compiler/nx1.lisp
#'CCL::NX1-AREF
Of those, only the first one has the uncommon &lexpr keyword in its argument list.
An experiment:
CL-USER> (defun foobar (a &lexpr b) (list a b))
;Compiler warnings :
; In FOOBAR: Unused lexical variable &LEXPR
FOOBAR
Let's use the unexported symbol from CCL (auto-completion found it):
CL-USER> (defun foobar (a ccl::&lexpr b) (list a b))
FOOBAR
This times, it works, let's try it:
CL-USER> (foobar 0 1 2 3 4)
(0 17563471524599)
The Evolution of Lisp says (emphasis mine):
MacLisp introduced the LEXPR , which is a type of function that takes
any number of arguments and puts them on the stack;
(see https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/Hopl2.pdf)
Fix by substitution
You can fix it at the level of Swank, by replacing &lexpr by &rest. You only need to patch ccl.lisp, which provides an implementation for arglist for Clozure:
(defimplementation arglist (fname)
(multiple-value-bind (arglist binding) (let ((*break-on-signals* nil))
(ccl:arglist fname))
(if binding
(substitute '&rest 'ccl::&lexpr arglist)
:not-available)))
More details
In fact, in swank-arglists.lisp you can see that the stuff that is unknown is put in a separate list, called :unknown-junk. To see it in action, do:
CL-USER> (trace swank::decoded-arglist-to-string)
NIL
Then, write (aref and press Space, which triggers a query for the argument list and produces the following trace:
0> Calling (SWANK::DECODED-ARGLIST-TO-STRING #S(SWANK/BACKEND:ARGLIST :PROVIDED-ARGS NIL :REQUIRED-ARGS (CCL::A) :OPTIONAL-ARGS NIL :KEY-P NIL :KEYWORD-ARGS NIL :REST NIL :BODY-P NIL :ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS-P NIL :AUX-ARGS NIL :ANY-P NIL :ANY-ARGS NIL :KNOWN-JUNK NIL :UNKNOWN-JUNK (CCL::&LEXPR CCL::SUBS)) :PRINT-RIGHT-MARGIN 159 :OPERATOR AREF :HIGHLIGHT (0))
<0 SWANK::DECODED-ARGLIST-TO-STRING returned "(aref ===> a <===)"
Notice the :UNKNOWN-JUNK (CCL::&LEXPR CCL::SUBS)) part.
Maybe a better fix is to let Swank learn about &lexpr?
This question already has answers here:
setq and defvar in Lisp
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was following a tutorial on lisp and they did the following code
(set 'x 11)
(incf x 10)
and interpreter gave the following error:
; in: INCF X
; (SETQ X #:NEW671)
;
; caught WARNING:
; undefined variable: X
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined variable:
; X
; caught 1 WARNING condition
21
what is the proper way to increment x ?
This is indeed how you are meant to increment x, or at least one way of doing so. However it is not how you are meant to bind x. In CL you need to establish a binding for a name before you use it, and you don't do that by just assigning to it. So, for instance, this code (in a fresh CL image) is not legal CL:
(defun bad ()
(setf y 2))
Typically this will cause a compile-time warning and a run-time error, although it may do something else: its behaviour is not defined.
What you have done, in particular, is actually worse than this: you have rammed a value into the symbol-value of x (with set, which does this), and then assumed that something like (incf x) will work, which it is extremely unlikely to do. For instance consider something like this:
(defun worse ()
(let ((x 2))
(set 'x 4)
(incf x)
(values x (symbol-value 'x))))
This is (unlike bad) legal code, but it probably does not do what you want it to do.
Many CL implementations do allow assignment to previously unbound variables at the top-level, because in a conversational environment it is convenient. But the exact meaning of such assignments is outwith the language standard.
CMUCL and its derivatives, including SBCL, have historically been rather more serious about this than other implementations were at the time. I think the reason for this is that the interpreter was a bunch more serious than most others and/or they secretly compiled everything anyway and the compiler picked things up.
A further problem is that CL has slightly awkward semantics for top-level variables: if you go to the effort to establish a toplevel binding in the normal way, with defvar & friends, then you also cause the variable to be special -- dynamically scoped -- and this is a pervasive effect: it makes all bindings of that name special. That is often a quite undesirable consequence. CL, as a language, has no notion of a top-level lexical variable.
What many implementations did, therefore, was to have some kind of informal notion of a top-level binding of something which did not imply a special declaration: if you just said (setf x 3) at the toplevel then this would not contage the entire environment. But then there were all sorts of awkward questions: after doing that, what is the result of (symbol-value 'x) for instance?
Fortunately CL is a powerful language, and it is quite possible to define top-level lexical variables within the language. Here is a very hacky implementation called deflexical. Note that there are better implementations out there (including at least one by me, which I can't find right now): this is not meant to be a bullet-proof solution.
(defmacro deflexical (var &optional value)
;; Define a cheap-and-nasty global lexical variable. In this
;; implementation, global lexicals are not boundp and the global
;; lexical value is not stored in the symbol-value of the symbol.
;;
;; This implementation is *not* properly thought-through and is
;; without question problematic
`(progn
(define-symbol-macro ,var (get ',var 'lexical-value))
(let ((flag (cons nil nil)))
;; assign a value only if there is not one already, like DEFVAR
(when (eq (get ',var 'lexical-value flag) flag)
(setf (get ',var 'lexical-value) ,value))
;; Return the symbol
',var)))
I'm watching these tutorials on Lisp and I've been following along so far. However, when I try to evaluate this function,
(defun tailfact (n &optional (intermediate 1))
(if (= n 1)
(return-from tailfact intermediate))
(tailfact (1 - n) (* n intermediate)))
(tailfact 5)
I get an Invalid function warning (I'm running this in Emacs). Not sure what to make of it, or how to fix it.
You accidentally wrote a space within the 1- (which is a function for subtracting 1 from the given number). Remove that space (that is, use (1- n) instead of (1 - n)) and try again.
Also, Emacs Lisp doesn't have return-from. Just say intermediate instead of (return-from tailfact intermediate). You do have to move the tailfact call within the if expression though, as the else clause.
Oh, in my testing, I found another point of difference between Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp: the latter doesn't support a default value for optional arguments, and it always uses nil. So here's one way to port your code to elisp:
(defun tailfact (n &optional intermediate)
(let ((intermediate (or intermediate 1)))
(if (= n 1)
intermediate
(tailfact (1- n) (* n intermediate)))))
However, let me be the first to agree with Rainer's comment. If you're learning from Common Lisp resources, you really should be using a Common Lisp implementation. I've heard that SLIME is an awesome Emacs mode for integrating with major CL implementations, including SBCL (which is probably one of the most commonly-used CL implementations).
I've written an ad hoc parser generator that creates code to convert an old and little known 7-bit character set into unicode. The call to the parser generator expands into a bunch of defuns enclosed in a progn, which then get compiled. I only want to expose one of the generated defuns--the top-level one--to the rest of the system; all the others are internal to the parser and only get called from within the dynamic scope of the top-level one. Therefore, the other defuns generated have uninterned names (created with gensym). This strategy works fine with SBCL, but I recently tested it for the first time with CLISP, and I get errors like:
*** - FUNCALL: undefined function #:G16985
It seems that CLISP can't handle functions with uninterned names. (Interestingly enough, the system compiled without a problem.) EDIT: It seems that it can handle functions with uninterned names in most cases. See the answer by Rörd below.
My questions is: Is this a problem with CLISP, or is it a limitation of Common Lisp that certain implementations (e.g. SBCL) happen to overcome?
EDIT:
For example, the macro expansion of the top-level generated function (called parse) has an expression like this:
(PRINC (#:G75735 #:G75731 #:G75733 #:G75734) #:G75732)
Evaluating this expression (by calling parse) causes an error like the one above, even though the function is definitely defined within the very same macro expansion:
(DEFUN #:G75735 (#:G75742 #:G75743 #:G75744) (DECLARE (OPTIMIZE (DEBUG 2)))
(DECLARE (LEXER #:G75742) (CONS #:G75743 #:G75744))
(MULTIPLE-VALUE-BIND (#:G75745 #:G75746) (POP-TOKEN #:G75742)
...
The two instances of #:G75735 are definitely the same symbol--not two different symbols with the same name. As I said, this works with SBCL, but not with CLISP.
EDIT:
SO user Joshua Taylor has pointed out that this is due to a long standing CLISP bug.
You don't show one of the lines that give you the error, so I can only guess, but the only thing that could cause this problem as far as I can see is that you are referring to the name of the symbol instead of the symbol itself when trying to call it.
If you were referring to the symbol itself, all your lisp implementation would have to do is lookup that symbol's symbol-function. Whether it's interned or not couldn't possibly matter.
May I ask why you haven't considered another way to hide the functions, i.e. a labels statement or defining the functions within a new package that exports only the one external function?
EDIT: The following example is copied literally from an interaction with the CLISP prompt.
As you can see, calling the function named by a gensym is working as expected.
[1]> (defmacro test ()
(let ((name (gensym)))
`(progn
(defun ,name () (format t "Hello!"))
(,name))))
TEST
[2]> (test)
Hello!
NIL
Maybe your code that's trying to call the function gets evaluated before the defun? If there's any code in the macro expansion besides the various defuns, it may be implementation-dependent what gets evaluated first, and so the behaviour of SBCL and CLISP may differ without any of them violating the standard.
EDIT 2: Some further investigation shows that CLISP's behaviour varies depending upon whether the code is interpreted directly or whether it's first compiled and then interpreted. You can see the difference by either directly loading a Lisp file in CLISP or by first calling compile-file on it and then loading the FASL.
You can see what's going on by looking at the first restart that CLISP offers. It says something like "Input a value to be used instead of (FDEFINITION '#:G3219)." So for compiled code, CLISP quotes the symbol and refers to it by name.
It seems though that this behaviour is standard-conforming. The following definition can be found in the HyperSpec:
function designator n. a designator for a function; that is, an object that denotes a function and that is one of: a symbol (denoting the function named by that symbol in the global environment), or a function (denoting itself). The consequences are undefined if a symbol is used as a function designator but it does not have a global definition as a function, or it has a global definition as a macro or a special form. See also extended function designator.
I think an uninterned symbol matches the "a symbol is used as a function designator but it does not have a global definition as a function" case for unspecified consequences.
EDIT 3: (I can agree that I'm not sure whether CLISP's behaviour is a bug or not. Someone more experienced with details of the standard's terminology should judge this. It comes down to whether the function cell of an uninterned symbol - i.e. a symbol that cannot be referred to by name, only by having a direct hold on the symbol object - would be considered a "global definition" or not)
Anyway, here's an example solution that solves the problem in CLISP by interning the symbols in a throwaway package, avoiding the matter of uninterned symbols:
(defmacro test ()
(let* ((pkg (make-package (gensym)))
(name (intern (symbol-name (gensym)) pkg)))
`(progn
(defun ,name () (format t "Hello!"))
(,name))))
(test)
EDIT 4: As Joshua Taylor notes in a comment to the question, this seems to be a case of the (10 year old) CLISP bug #180.
I've tested both workarounds suggested in that bug report and found that replacing the progn with locally actually doesn't help, but replacing it with let () does.
You can most certainly define functions whose names are uninterned symbols. For instance:
CL-USER> (defun #:foo (x)
(list x))
#:FOO
CL-USER> (defparameter *name-of-function* *)
*NAME-OF-FUNCTION*
CL-USER> *name-of-function*
#:FOO
CL-USER> (funcall *name-of-function* 3)
(3)
However, the sharpsign colon syntax introduces a new symbol each time such a form is read read:
#: introduces an uninterned symbol whose name is symbol-name. Every time this syntax is encountered, a distinct uninterned symbol is created. The symbol-name must have the syntax of a symbol with no package prefix.
This means that even though something like
CL-USER> (list '#:foo '#:foo)
;=> (#:FOO #:FOO)
shows the same printed representation, you actually have two different symbols, as the following demonstrates:
CL-USER> (eq '#:foo '#:foo)
NIL
This means that if you try to call such a function by typing #: and then the name of the symbol naming the function, you're going to have trouble:
CL-USER> (#:foo 3)
; undefined function #:foo error
So, while you can call the function using something like the first example I gave, you can't do this last one. This can be kind of confusing, because the printed representation makes it look like this is what's happening. For instance, you could write such a factorial function like this:
(defun #1=#:fact (n &optional (acc 1))
(if (zerop n) acc
(#1# (1- n) (* acc n))))
using the special reader notation #1=#:fact and #1# to later refer to the same symbol. However, look what happens when you print that same form:
CL-USER> (pprint '(defun #1=#:fact (n &optional (acc 1))
(if (zerop n) acc
(#1# (1- n) (* acc n)))))
(DEFUN #:FACT (N &OPTIONAL (ACC 1))
(IF (ZEROP N)
ACC
(#:FACT (1- N) (* ACC N))))
If you take that printed output, and try to copy and paste it as a definition, the reader creates two symbols named "FACT" when it comes to the two occurrences of #:FACT, and the function won't work (and you might even get undefined function warnings):
CL-USER> (DEFUN #:FACT (N &OPTIONAL (ACC 1))
(IF (ZEROP N)
ACC
(#:FACT (1- N) (* ACC N))))
; in: DEFUN #:FACT
; (#:FACT (1- N) (* ACC N))
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; undefined function: #:FACT
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined function:
; #:FACT
; caught 1 STYLE-WARNING condition
I hope I get the issue right. For me it works in CLISP.
I tried it like this: using a macro for creating a function with a GENSYM-ed name.
(defmacro test ()
(let ((name (gensym)))
`(progn
(defun ,name (x) (* x x))
',name)))
Now I can get the name (setf x (test)) and call it (funcall x 2).
Yes, it is perfectly fine defining functions that have names that are unintenred symbols. The problem is that you cannot then call them "by name", since you can't fetch the uninterned symbol by name (that is what "uninterned" means, essentially).
You would need to store the uninterned symbol in some sort of data structure, to then be able to fetch the symbol. Alternatively, store the defined function in some sort of data structure.
Surprisingly, CLISP bug 180 isn't actually an ANSI CL conformance bug. Not only that, but evidently, ANSI Common Lisp is itself so broken in this regard that even the progn based workaround is a courtesy of the implementation.
Common Lisp is a language intended for compilation, and compilation produces issues regarding the identity of objects which are placed into compiled files and later loaded ("externalized" objects). ANSI Common Lisp requires that literal objects reproduced from compiled files are only similar to the original objects. (CLHS 3.2.4 Literal Objects in Compiled Files).
Firstly, according to the definition similarity (3.2.4.2.2 Definition of Similarity), the rules for uninterned symbols is that similarity is name based. If we compile code with a literal that contains an uninterned symbol, then when we load the compiled file, we get a symbol which is similar and not (necessarily) the same object: a symbol which has the same name.
What if the same uninterned symbol is inserted into two different top-level forms which are then compiled as a file? When the file is loaded, are those two similar to each other at least? No, there is no such requirement.
But it gets worse: there is also no requirement that two occurrences of the same uninterned symbol in the same form will be externalized in such a way that their relative identity is preserved: that the re-loaded version of that object will have the same symbol object in all the places where the original was. In fact, the definition of similarity contains no provision for preserving the circular structure and substructure sharing. If we have a literal like '#1=(a b . #1#), as a literal in a compiled file, there appears to be no requirement that this be reproduced as a circular object with the same graph structure as the original (a graph isomorphism). The similarity rule for conses is given as naive recursion: two conses are similar if their respective cars and cdrs are similar. (The rule can't even be evaluated for circular objects; it doesn't terminate).
That the above works is because of implementations going beyond what is required in the spec; they are providing an extension consistent with (3.2.4.3 Extensions to Similarity Rules).
Thus, purely according to ANSI CL, we cannot expect to use macros with gensyms in compiled files, at least in some ways. The expectation expressed in code like the following runs afoul of the spec:
(defmacro foo (arg)
(let ((g (gensym))
(literal '(blah ,g ,g ,arg)))
...))
(defun bar ()
(foo 42))
The bar function contains a literal with two insertions of a gensym, which according to the similarity rules for conses and symbols need not reproduce as a list containing two occurrences of the same object in the second and third positions.
If the above works as expected, it's due to "extensions to the similarity rules".
So the answer to the "Why can't CLISP ..." question is that although CLISP does provide an extension for similarity which preserves the graph structure of literal forms, it doesn't do it across the entire compiled file, only within individual top level items within that file. (It uses *print-circle* to emit the individual items.) The bug is that CLISP doesn't conform to the best possible behavior users can imagine, or at least to a better behavior exhibited by other implementations.
i've been reading some lisp code and came across this section, didn't quite understand what it specifically does, though the whole function is supposed to count how many times the letters from a -z appear in an entered text.
(do ((i #.(char-code #\a) (1+ i)))
((> i #.(char-code #\z)))
can anyone explain step by step what is happening? I know that it's somehow counting the letters but not quite sure how.
This Lisp code is slightly unusual, since it uses read-time evaluation. #.expr means that the expression will be evaluated only once, during read-time.
In this case a clever compiler might have guessed that the character code of a given character is known and could have removed the computation of character codes from the DO loop. The author of that code chose to do that by evaluating the expressions before the compiler sees it.
The source looks like this:
(do ((i #.(char-code #\a) (1+ i)))
((> i #.(char-code #\z)))
...)
When Lisp reads in the s-expression, we get this new code as the result (assuming a usual encoding of characters):
(do ((i 97 (1+ i)))
((> i 122))
...)
So that's a loop which counts the variable i up from 97 to 122.
Lisp codes are written as S-Expression. In a typical S-Expression sytax, the first element of any S-expression is treated as operator and the rest as operand. Operands can either be an atom or another S-expression. Please note, an atom is a single data object. Keeping this in mind
char-code
(char-code #\a) - returns the ascii representation of a character here its 'a'.
The do syntax looks similar to the below
(do ((var1 init1 step1)
(var2 init2 step2)
...)
(end-test result)
statement1
...)
So in your example
(do ((i #.(char-code #\a) (1+ i)))
((> i #.(char-code #\z)))
)
The first s-expression operand of do is the loop initialization, the second s-expression operand is the end-test.
So this means you are simply iterating over 'a' through 'z' incrementing i by 1.
In C++ (Not sure your other language comfort level, you can write
for(i='a';i<='z';i++);
the trick with the code you show is in poor form. i know this because i do it all
the time. the code makes an assumtion that the compiler will know the current fixnum
for each character. #.(char-code #\a) eq [(or maybe eql if you are so inclided) unsigned small integer or unsigned 8 bit character with a return value of a positive fixnum].
The # is a reader macro (I'm fairly sure you know this :). Using two reader macros is
not a great idea but it is fast when the compiler knows the datatype.
I have another example. Need to search for ascii in a binary stream:
(defmacro code-char= (byte1 byte2)
(flet ((maybe-char-code (x) (if characterp x) (char-code x) x)))
`(the fixnum (= (the fixnum ,(maybe-char-code byte1)
(the fixnum ,(maybe-char-code byte2)))))
))
Declaring the return type in sbcl will probably insult the complier, but I leave it as a sanity check (4 me not u).
(code-char= #\$ #x36)
=>
t
. At least I think so. But somehow I think you might know your way around some macros ... Hmmmm... I should turn on the machine...
If you're seriously interested, there is some assembler for the 286 (8/16 bit dos assembler) that you can use a jump table. It works fast for the PC , I'd have to look it up...