Peter Norvig mentions in Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming, on page 50, the trade off between specificity and consistency and when choosing to use setq or setf to update a variable to a value. What do you recommend? Have you ever run into a situation where it mattered much beyond readability?
Using setq is more low-level, but the performance of setf is not a problem. And setf allows you (or library writers) to provide custom setf behavior, like setting parts of custom data structures. I say: go with setf everywhere unless you have a reason not to.
Also see Practical Common Lisp, chapter 3: "The SETF macro is Common Lisp's main assignment operator." PCL is available online for free: http://gigamonkeys.com/book/
FWIW, I always use setf. If I change the structure of my code slightly, I just need to change the "place" instead of the place and the operator (setq -> setf).
Also, don't worry about performance, setf is exactly the same as setq for symbols:
CL-USER> (macroexpand '(setf foo 42))
(SETQ FOO 42)
You can use setf wherever you could use setq. In fact, setf is actually a macro which builds on setq. So, this should be purely a readability and style issue.
Almost all the code I've seen avoids the use of setq and uses setf.
setf is "set field", it changes a place and can have user extensions.
setq is set with quoting first argument.
I recommend you follow Norvig's final advice in that section: be consistent. 'Readability' is of course the most important reason to make any choice in programming. If it is important to communicate to the reader (perhaps you in 2 months' time) that you are dealing with the entire value cell of a symbol, then use setq; otherwise use setf. But only if you're being consistent.
You will not be wrong if you used setf everywhere instead of setq.
It's the things like this that drags Common Lisp from going forward, lots of unused stuff that implementors still need to support.
Related
This question already has answers here:
What makes Lisp macros so special?
(15 answers)
Closed 3 months ago.
I keep reading that Lisp macros are one of the most powerful features of the language. But reading over the specifications and manuals, they are just functions whose arguments are unevaluated.
Given any macro (defmacro example (arg1 ... argN) (body-forms)) I could just write (defun example (arg1 ... argN) ... (body-forms)) with the last body-form turned into a list and then call it like (eval (example 'arg1 ... 'argN)) to emulate the same behavior of the macro. If this were the case, then macros would just be syntactic sugar, but I doubt that syntactic sugar would be called a powerful language feature. What am I missing? Are there cases where I cannot carry out this procedure to emulate a macro?
I can't talk about powerful because it can be a little bit subjective, but macros are regular Lisp functions that work on Lisp data, so they are as expressive as other functions. This isn't the case with templates or generic functions in other languages that rely more on static types and are more restricted (on purpose).
In some way, yes macros are simple syntactic facilities, but you are focused in your emulation on the dynamic semantics of macros, ie. how you can run code that evaluates macros at runtime. However:
the code using eval is not equivalent to expanded code
the preprocessing/compile-time aspect of macros is not emulated
Lexical scope
Function, like +, do not inherit the lexical scope:
(let ((x 30))
(+ 3 4))
Inside the definition of +, you cannot access x. Being able to do so is what "dynamic scope" is about (more precisely, see dynamic extent, indefinite scope variables). But nowadays it is quite the exception to rely on dynamic scope. Most functions use lexical scope, and this is the case for eval too.
The eval function evaluates a form in the null lexical environment, and it never has access to the surrounding lexical bindings. As such, it behaves like any regular function.
So, in you example, calling eval on the transformed source code will not work, since arg1 to argnN will probably be unbound (it depends on what your macro does).
In order to have an equivalent form, you have to inject bindings in the transformed code, or expand at a higher level:
(defun expand-square (var)
(list '* var var))
;; instead of:
(defun foo (x) (eval (expand-square 'x))) ;; x unbound during eval
;; inject bindings
(defun foo (x) (eval `(let ((z ,x)) (expand-square z))))
;; or expand the top-level form
(eval `(defun foo (x) ,(expand-square 'x)))
Note that macros (in Common Lisp) also have access to the lexical environment through &environment parameters in their lambda-list. The use of this environment is implementation dependent, but can be used to access the declarations associated with a variable, for example.
Notice also how in the last example you evaluate the code when defining the function, and not when running it. This is the second thing about macro.
Expansion time
In order to emulate macros you could locally replace a call to a macro by a form that emulates it at runtime (using let to captures all the bindings you want to see inside the expanded code, which is tedious), but then you would miss the useful aspect of macros that is: generating code ahead of time.
The last example above shows how you can quote defun and wrap it in eval, and basically you would need to do that for all functions if you wanted to emulate the preprocessing work done by macros.
The macro system is a way to integrate this preprocessing step in the language in a way that is simple to use.
Conclusion
Macros themselves are a nice way to abstract things when functions can't. For example you can have a more human-friendly, stable syntax that hides implementation details. That's how you define pattern-matching abilities in Common Lisp that make it look like they are part of the language, without too much runtime penalty or verbosity.
They rely on simple term-rewriting functions that are integrated in the language, but you can emulate their behavior either at compile-time or runtime yourself if you want. They can be used to perform different kinds of abstraction that are usually missing or more cumbersome to do in other languages, but are also limited: they don't "understand" code by themselves, they don't give access to all the facilities of the compiler (type propagation, etc.). If you want more you can use more advanced libraries or compiler tools (see deftransform), but macros at least are portable.
Macros are not just functions whose arguments are unevaluated. Macros are functions between programming languages. In other words a macro is a function whose argument is a fragment of source code of a programming language which includes the macro, and whose value is a fragment of source code of a language which does not include the macro (or which includes it in a simpler way).
In very ancient, very rudimentary, Lisps, before people really understood what macros were, you could simulate macros with things called FEXPRs combined with EVAL. A FEXPR was simply a function which did not evaluate its arguments. This worked in such Lisps only because they were completely dynamically scoped, and the cost of it working was that compilation of such things was not possible at all. Those are two enormous costs.
In any modern Lisp, this won't work at all. You can write a toy version of FEXPRs as a macro (this may be buggy):
(defmacro deffex (fx args &body body)
(assert (every (lambda (arg)
(and (symbolp arg)
(not (member arg lambda-list-keywords))))
args)
(args) "not a simple lambda list")
`(defmacro ,fx ,args
`(let ,(mapcar (lambda (argname argval)
`(,argname ',argval))
',args (list ,#args))
,#',body)))
So now we could try to write a trivial binding construct I'll call with using this thing:
(deffex with (var val form)
(eval `(let ((,var ,val)) ,form)))
And this seems to work:
> (with a 1 a)
1
Of course, we're paying the cost that no code which uses this construct can ever be compiled so all our programs will be extremely slow, but perhaps that is a cost we're willing to accept (it's not, but never mind).
Except, of course, it doesn't work, at all:
> (with a 1
(with b 2
(+ a b)))
Error: The variable a is unbound.
Oh dear.
Why doesn't it work? It doesn't work because Common Lisp is lexically scoped, and eval is a function: it can't see the lexical bindings.
So not only does this kind of approach prevent compilation in a modern Lisp, it doesn't work at all.
People often, at this point, suggest some kind of kludge solution which would allow eval to be able to see lexical bindings. The cost of such a solution is that all the lexical bindings need to exist in compiled code: no variable can ever be compiled away, not even its name. That's essentially saying that no good compilers can ever be used, even for the small part of your programs you can compile at all in a language which makes extensive use of macros like CL. For instance, if you ever use defun you're not going to be able to compile the code in its body. People do use defun occasionally, I think.
So this approach simply won't work: it worked by happenstance in very old Lisps but it can't work, even at the huge cost of preventing compilation, in any modern Lisp.
More to the point this approach obfuscates the understanding of what macros are: as I said at the start, macros are functions between programming languages, and understanding that is critical. When you are designing macros you are implementing a new programming language.
Can someone please explain what the specific issues are with using the cl package in elisp? As a new coder in emacs I feel as though I'm making a mistake whenever I reach for the (require 'cl) option. I have read and understood the byte-compilation issue with the cl package. I have looked at the old arguments and have no wish to revive them. I am also not looking for any generalist comment on whether common-lisp is better than x brand lisp.
What I would like to know is practically how to use common-lisp so that any elisp I write will have a good chance of being accepted by the majority of elisp coders. Specifically, should I avoid using common lisp entirely, or are there some parts of the language that are acceptable to everyone and some parts where a good majority of coders would snigger and scoff at?
Without wishing to limit the breadth of the answer, is this:
(mapcar (lambda(x) (* x x)) '(1 2 3))
much more acceptable than this:
(require 'cl)
(loop for el in '(1 2 3) collect (* el el))
While using a lot of third-party libraries and writing some of my own eLisp code, I never encountered the situation when using CL package resulted in a name conflict. So, I'd be tempted to say that the argument against using CL is nothing but puritanism (in the original sense of the word, not meaning the religious side of things).
But, if you are planning on a very long time support and you want to have some sort of a backup, here's what I would do (but I'm not doing that myself, because fixing things once they are broken seems to be a better tactic). For the functions in CL package that you are using, create a special file, where you defalias all of them to have a cl- prefix. So, for example, instead of having a (position ...) you would have (cl-position ...). Theoretically will save you the problem of forward compatibility. However functions don't get removed instantly, you'll get a warning ahead of time of them being deprecated, and will have a lot of time to update. Up to you, really.
Loop macro in Common Lisp is a controversy all by itself, it is not a typical construct for the language and that's why, for example, the iterate library exists. It also requires that you learn "the loop mini-language" to use it well, which is sort of a small domain-specific language, and there's really no requirement that this kind of construct use one. BUT, loop has its strong sides. List processing functions such as mapcar or reduce will serve you well in more trivial cases, like the one you have in your example, but in the less trivial cases loop is going to be a better and also less verbose way of doing the same thing.
Have you read the macros section of the manual? Using macros such as your loop example is perfectly okay.
But you would use eval-when-compile around the require.
In fact (eval-when-compile (require 'cl)) appears 66 times just in the root lisp folder in my Emacs.
Unless you plan to integrate your code in Emacs use the CL package, and put this snippet in your .emacs to disable the warnings.
(byte-compile-disable-warning 'cl-functions)
Note: You can find some advices on elisp programming on nicferrier's blog.
Why is the function/macro dichotomy present in Common Lisp?
What are the logical problems in allowing the same name representing both a macro (taking precedence when found in function position in compile/eval) and a function (usable for example with mapcar)?
For example having second defined both as a macro and as a function would allow to use
(setf (second x) 42)
and
(mapcar #'second L)
without having to create any setf trickery.
Of course it's clear that macros can do more than functions and so the analogy cannot be complete (and I don't think of course that every macro shold also be a function) but why forbidding it by making both sharing a single namespace when it could be potentially useful?
I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I don't really find a "Why doing that?" response really pertinent... I'm looking for why this is a bad idea. Imposing an arbitrary limitation because no good use is known is IMO somewhat arrogant (sort of assumes perfect foresight).
Or are there practical problems in allowing it?
Macros and Functions are two very different things:
macros are using source (!!!) code and are generating new source (!!!) code
functions are parameterized blocks of code.
Now we can look at this from several angles, for example:
a) how do we design a language where functions and macros are clearly identifiable and are looking different in our source code, so we (the human) can easily see what is what?
or
b) how do we blend macros and functions in a way that the result is most useful and has the most useful rules controlling its behavior? For the user it should not make a difference to use a macro or a function.
We really need to convince ourselves that b) is the way to go and we would like to use a language where macros and functions usage looks the same and is working according to similar principles. Take ships and cars. They look different, their use case is mostly different, they transport people - should we now make sure that the traffic rules for them are mostly identical, should we make them different or should we design the rules for their special usage?
For functions we have problems like: defining a function, scope of functions, life-time of functions, passing functions around, returning functions, calling functions, shadowing of functions, extension of functions, removing the definition a function, compilation and interpretation of functions, ...
If we would make macros appear mostly similar to functions, we need to address most or all above issues for them.
In your example you mention a SETF form. SETF is a macro that analyses the enclosed form at macro expansion time and generates code for a setter. It has little to do with SECOND being a macro or not. Having SECOND being a macro would not help at all in this situation.
So, what is a problem example?
(defmacro foo (a b)
(if (and (numberp b) (zerop b))
a
`(- ,a ,b)))
(defun bar (x list)
(mapcar #'foo (list x x x x) '(1 2 3 4)))
Now what should that do? Intuitively it looks easy: map FOO over the lists. But it isn't. When Common Lisp was designed, I would guess, it was not clear what that should do and how it should work. If FOO is a function, then it was clear: Common Lisp took the ideas from Scheme behind lexically scoped first-class functions and integrated it into the language.
But first-class macros? After the design of Common Lisp a bunch of research went into this problem and investigated it. But at the time of Common Lisp's design, there was no wide-spread use of first-class macros and no experience with design approaches. Common Lisp is standardizing on what was known at the time and what the language users thought necessary to develop (the object-system CLOS is kind of novel, based on earlier experience with similar object-systems) software with. Common Lisp was not designed to have the theoretically most pleasing Lisp dialect - it was designed to have a powerful Lisp which allows the efficient implementation of software.
We could work around this and say, passing macros is not possible. The developer would have to provide a function under the same name, which we pass around.
But then (funcall #'foo 1 2) and (foo 1 2) would invoke different machineries? In the first case the function fooand in the second case we use the macro foo to generate code for us? Really? Do we (as human programmers) want this? I think not - it looks like it makes programming much more complicated.
From a pragmatic point of view: Macros and the mechanism behind it are already complicated enough that most programmers have difficulties dealing with it in real code. They make debugging and code understanding much harder for a human. On the surface a macro makes code easier to read, but the price is the need to understand the code expansion process and result.
Finding a way to further integrate macros into the language design is not an easy task.
readscheme.org has some pointers to Macro-related research wrt. Scheme: Macros
What about Common Lisp
Common Lisp provides functions which can be first-class (stored, passed around, ...) and lexically scoped naming for them (DEFUN, FLET, LABELS, FUNCTION, LAMBDA).
Common Lisp provides global macros (DEFMACRO) and local macros (MACROLET).
Common Lisp provides global compiler macros (DEFINE-COMPILER-MACRO).
With compiler macros it is possible to have a function or macro for a symbol AND a compiler macro. The Lisp system can decide to prefer the compiler macro over the macro or function. It can also ignore them entirely. This mechanism is mostly used for the user to program specific optimizations. Thus it does not solve any macro related problems, but provides a pragmatic way to program global optimizations.
I think that Common Lisp's two namespaces (functions and values), rather than three (macros, functions, and values), is a historical contingency.
Early Lisps (in the 1960s) represented functions and values in different ways: values as bindings on the runtime stack, and functions as properties attached to symbols in the symbol table. This difference in implementation led to the specification of two namespaces when Common Lisp was standardized in the 1980s. See Richard Gabriel's paper Technical Issues of Separation in Function Cells and Value Cells for an explanation of this decision.
Macros (and their ancestors, FEXPRs, functions which do not evaluate their arguments) were stored in many Lisp implementations in the symbol table, in the same way as functions. It would have been inconvenient for these implementations if a third namespace (for macros) had been specified, and would have caused backwards-compatibility problems for many programs.
See Kent Pitman's paper Special Forms in Lisp for more about the history of FEXPRs, macros and other special forms.
(Note: Kent Pitman's website is not working for me, so I've linked to the papers via archive.org.)
Because then the exact same name would represent two different objects, depending on the context. It makes the programme unnecessarily difficult to understand.
My TXR Lisp dialect allows a symbol to be simultaneously a macro and function. Moreover, certain special operators are also backed by functions.
I put a bit of thought into the design, and haven't run into any problems. It works very well and is conceptually clean.
Common Lisp is the way it is for historic reasons.
Here is a brief rundown of the system:
When a global macro is defined for symbol X with defmacro, the symbol X does not become fboundp. Rather, what becomes fboundp is the compound function name (macro X).
The name (macro X) is then known to symbol-function, trace and in other situations. (symbol-function '(macro X)) retrieves the two-argument expander function which takes the form and an environment.
It's possible to write a macro using (defun (macro X) (form env) ...).
There are no compiler macros; regular macros do the job of compiler macros.
A regular macro can return the unexpanded form to indicate that it's declining to expand. If a lexical macrolet declines to expand, the opportunity goes to a more lexically outer macrolet, and so on up to the global defmacro. If the global defmacro declines to expand, the form is considered expanded, and thus is necessarily either a function call or special form.
If we have both a function and macro called X, we can call the function definition using (call (fun X) ...) or (call 'X ...), or else using the Lisp-1-style dwim evaluator (dwim X ...) that is almost always used through its [] syntactic sugar as [X ...].
For a sort of completeness, the functions mboundp, mmakunbound and symbol-macro are provided, which are macro analogs of fboundp, fmakunbound and symbol-function.
The special operators or, and, if and some others have function definitions also, so that code like [mapcar or '(nil 2 t) '(1 0 3)] -> (1 2 t) is possible.
Example: apply constant folding to sqrt:
1> (sqrt 4.0)
2.0
2> (defmacro sqrt (x :env e :form f)
(if (constantp x e)
(sqrt x)
f))
** warning: (expr-2:1) defmacro: defining sqrt, which is also a built-in defun
sqrt
3> (sqrt 4.0)
2.0
4> (macroexpand '(sqrt 4.0))
2.0
5> (macroexpand '(sqrt x))
(sqrt x)
However, no, (set (second x) 42) is not implemented via a macro definition for second. That would not work very well. The main reason is that it would be too much of a burden. The programmer may want to have, for a given function, a macro definition which has nothing to do with implementing assignment semantics!
Moreover, if (second x) implements place semantics, what happens when it is not embedded in an assignment operation, such that the semantics is not required at all? Basically, to hit all the requirements would require concocting a scheme for writing macros whose complexity would equal or exceed that of existing logic for handling places.
TXR Lisp does, in fact, feature a special kind of macro called a "place macro". A form is only recognized as a place macro invocation when it is used as a place. However, place macros do not implement place semantics themselves; they just do a straightforward rewrite. Place macros must expand down to a form that is recognized as a place.
Example: specify that (foo x), when used as a place, behaves as (car x):
1> (define-place-macro foo (x) ^(car ,x))
foo
2> (macroexpand '(foo a)) ;; not a macro!
(foo a)
3> (macroexpand '(set (foo a) 42)) ;; just a place macro
(sys:rplaca a 42)
If foo expanded to something which is not a place, things would fail:
4> (define-place-macro foo (x) ^(bar ,x))
foo
5> (macroexpand '(foo a))
(foo a)
6> (macroexpand '(set (foo a) 42))
** (bar a) is not an assignable place
I've learned Clojure previously and really like the language. I also love Emacs and have hacked some simple stuff with Emacs Lisp. There is one thing which prevents me mentally from doing anything more substantial with Elisp though. It's the concept of dynamic scoping. I'm just scared of it since it's so alien to me and smells like semi-global variables.
So with variable declarations I don't know which things are safe to do and which are dangerous. From what I've understood, variables set with setq fall under dynamic scoping (is that right?) What about let variables? Somewhere I've read that let allows you to do plain lexical scoping, but somewhere else I read that let vars also are dynamically scoped.
I quess my biggest worry is that my code (using setq or let) accidentally breaks some variables from platform or third-party code that I call or that after such call my local variables are messed up accidentally. How can I avoid this?
Are there a few simple rules of thumb that I can just follow and know exactly what happens with the scope without being bitten in some weird, hard-to-debug way?
It isn't that bad.
The main problems can appear with 'free variables' in functions.
(defun foo (a)
(* a b))
In above function a is a local variable. b is a free variable. In a system with dynamic binding like Emacs Lisp, b will be looked up at runtime. There are now three cases:
b is not defined -> error
b is a local variable bound by some function call in the current dynamic scope -> take that value
b is a global variable -> take that value
The problems can then be:
a bound value (global or local) is shadowed by a function call, possibly unwanted
an undefined variable is NOT shadowed -> error on access
a global variable is NOT shadowed -> picks up the global value, which might be unwanted
In a Lisp with a compiler, compiling the above function might generate a warning that there is a free variable. Typically Common Lisp compilers will do that. An interpreter won't provide that warning, one just will see the effect at runtime.
Advice:
make sure that you don't use free variables accidentally
make sure that global variables have a special name, so that they are easy to spot in source code, usually *foo-var*
Don't write
(defun foo (a b)
...
(setq c (* a b)) ; where c is a free variable
...)
Write:
(defun foo (a b)
...
(let ((c (* a b)))
...)
...)
Bind all variables you want to use and you want to make sure that they are not bound somewhere else.
That's basically it.
Since GNU Emacs version 24 lexical binding is supported in its Emacs Lisp. See: Lexical Binding, GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.
In addition to the last paragraph of Gilles answer, here is how RMS argues in favor of dynamic scoping in an extensible system:
Some language designers believe that
dynamic binding should be avoided, and
explicit argument passing should be
used instead. Imagine that function A
binds the variable FOO, and calls the
function B, which calls the function
C, and C uses the value of FOO.
Supposedly A should pass the value as
an argument to B, which should pass it
as an argument to C.
This cannot be done in an extensible
system, however, because the author of
the system cannot know what all the
parameters will be. Imagine that the
functions A and C are part of a user
extension, while B is part of the
standard system. The variable FOO does
not exist in the standard system; it
is part of the extension. To use
explicit argument passing would
require adding a new argument to B,
which means rewriting B and everything
that calls B. In the most common case,
B is the editor command dispatcher
loop, which is called from an awful
number of places.
What's worse, C must also be passed an
additional argument. B doesn't refer
to C by name (C did not exist when B
was written). It probably finds a
pointer to C in the command dispatch
table. This means that the same call
which sometimes calls C might equally
well call any editor command
definition. So all the editing
commands must be rewritten to accept
and ignore the additional argument. By
now, none of the original system is
left!
Personally, I think that if there is a problem with Emacs-Lisp, it is not dynamic scoping per se, but that it is the default, and that it is not possible to achieve lexical scoping without resorting to extensions. In CL, both dynamic and lexical scoping can be used, and -- except for top-level (which is adressed by several deflex-implementations) and globally declared special variables -- the default is lexical scoping. In Clojure, too, you can use both lexical and dynamic scoping.
To quote RMS again:
It is not necessary for dynamic scope to be the only scope rule provided, just useful
for it to be available.
Are there a few simple rules of thumb that I can just follow and know exactly what happens with the scope without being bitten in some weird, hard-to-debug way?
Read Emacs Lisp Reference, you'll have many details like this one :
Special Form: setq [symbol form]...
This special form is the most common method of changing a
variable's value. Each SYMBOL is given a new value, which is the
result of evaluating the corresponding FORM. The most-local
existing binding of the symbol is changed.
Here is an example :
(defun foo () (setq tata "foo"))
(defun bar (tata) (setq tata "bar"))
(foo)
(message tata)
===> "foo"
(bar tata)
(message tata)
===> "foo"
As Peter Ajtai pointed out:
Since emacs-24.1 you can enable lexical scoping on a per file basis by putting
;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
on top of your elisp file.
First, elisp has separate variable and function bindings, so some pitfalls of dynamic scoping are not relevant.
Second, you can still use setq to set variables, but the value set does not survive the exit of the dynamic scope it is done in. This isn't, fundamentally, different from lexical scoping, with the difference that with dynamic scoping a setq in a function you call can affect the value you see after the function call.
There's lexical-let, a macro that (essentially) imitates lexical bindings (I believe it does this by walking the body and changing all occurrences of the lexically let variables to a gensymmed name, eventually uninterning the symbol), if you absolutely need to.
I'd say "write code as normal". There are times when the dynamic nature of elisp will bite you, but I've found that in practice that is surprisingly seldom.
Here's an example of what I was saying about setq and dynamically-bound variables (recently evaluated in a nearby scratch buffer):
(let ((a nil))
(list (let ((a nil))
(setq a 'value)
a)
a))
(value nil)
Everything that has been written here is worthwhile. I would add this: get to know Common Lisp -- if nothing else, read about it. CLTL2 presents lexical and dynamic binding well, as do other books. And Common Lisp integrates them well in a single language.
If you "get it" after some exposure to Common Lisp then things will be clearer for you for Emacs Lisp. Emacs 24 uses lexical scoping to a greater extent by default than older versions, but Common Lisp's approach will still be clearer and cleaner (IMHO). Finally, it is definitely the case that dynamic scope is important for Emacs Lisp, for the reasons that RMS and others have emphasized.
So my suggestion is to get to know how Common Lisp deals with this. Try to forget about Scheme, if that is your main mental model of Lisp -- it will limit you more than help you in understanding scoping, funargs, etc. in Emacs Lisp. Emacs Lisp, like Common Lisp, is "dirty and low-down"; it is not Scheme.
Dynamic and lexical scoping have different behaviors when a piece of code is used in a different scope than the one it was defined in. In practice, there are two patterns that cover most troublesome cases:
A function shadows a global variable, then calls another function that uses that global variable.
(defvar x 3)
(defun foo ()
x)
(defun bar (x)
(+ (foo) x))
(bar 0) ⇒ 0
This doesn't come up often in Emacs because local variables tend to have short names (often single-word) whereas global variables tend to have long names (often prefixed by packagename-). Many standard functions have names that are tempting to use as local variables like list and point, but functions and variables live in separate name spaces are local functions are not used very often.
A function is defined in one lexical context and used outside this lexical context because it's passed to a higher-order function.
(let ((cl-y 10))
(mapcar* (lambda (elt) (* cl-y elt)) '(1 2 3)))
⇒ (10 20 30)
(let ((cl-x 10))
(mapcar* (lambda (elt) (* cl-x elt)) '(1 2 3)))
⇑ (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p (1 2 3))
The error is due to the use of cl-x as a variable name in mapcar* (from the cl package). Note that the cl package uses cl- as a prefix even for its local variables in higher-order functions. This works reasonably well in practice, as long as you take care not to use the same variable as a global name and as a local name, and you don't need to write a recursive higher-order function.
P.S. Emacs Lisp's age isn't the only reason why it's dynamically scoped. True, in those days, lisps tended towards dynamic scoping — Scheme and Common Lisp hadn't really taken on yet. But dynamic scoping is also an asset in a language targeted towards extending a system dynamically: it lets you hook into more places without any special effort. With great power comes great rope to hang yourself: you risk accidentally hooking into a place you didn't know about.
The other answers are good at explaining the technical details on how to work with dynamic scoping, so here's my non-technical advice:
Just do it
I've been tinkering with Emacs lisp for 15+ years and don't know that I've ever been bitten by any problems due to the differences between lexical/dynamic scope.
Personally, I've not found the need for closures (I love 'em, just don't need them for Emacs). And, I generally try to avoid global variables in general (whether the scoping was lexical or dynamic).
So I suggest jumping in and writing customizations that suit your needs/desires, chances are you won't have any problems.
I entirely feel your pain. I find the lack of lexical binding in emacs rather annoying - especially not being able to use lexical closures, which seems to be a solution I think of a lot, coming from more modern languages.
While I don't have any more advice on working around the lacking features that the previous answers didn't cover yet, I'd like to point out the existance of an emacs branch called `lexbind', implementing lexical binding in a backward-compatible way. In my experience lexical closures are still a little buggy in some circumstances, but that branch appears to a promising approach.
Just don't.
Emacs-24 lets you use lexical-scope. Just run
(setq lexical-binding t)
or add
;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
at the beginning of your file.
So... I'm new to scheme r6rs, and am learning macros. Can somebody explain to me what is meant by 'hygiene'?
Thanks in advance.
Hygiene is often used in the context of macros. A hygienic macro doesn't use variable names that can risk interfering with the code under expansion. Here is an example. Let's say we want to define the or special form with a macro. Intuitively,
(or a b c ... d) would expand to something like (let ((tmp a)) (if tmp a (or b c ... d))). (I am omitting the empty (or) case for simplicity.)
Now, if the name tmp was actually added in the code like in the above sketched expansion, it would be not hygienic, and bad because it might interfere with another variable with the same name. Say, we wanted to evaluate
(let ((tmp 1)) (or #f tmp))
Using our intuitive expansion, this would become
(let ((tmp 1)) (let ((tmp #f)) (if tmp (or tmp)))
The tmp from the macro shadows the outer-most tmp, and so the result is #f instead of 1.
Now, if the macro was hygienic (and in Scheme, it's automatically the case when using syntax-rules), then instead of using the name tmp for the expansion, you would use a symbol that is guaranteed not to appear anywhere else in the code. You can use gensym in Common Lisp.
Paul Graham's On Lisp has advanced material on macros.
If you imagine that a macro is simply expanded into the place where it is used, then you can also imagine that if you use a variable a in your macro, there might already be a variable a defined at the place where that macro is used.
This is not the a that you want!
A macro system in which something like this cannot happen, is called hygienic.
There are several ways to deal with this problem. One way is simply to use very long, very cryptic, very unpredictable variable names in your macros.
A slightly more refined version of this is the gensym approach used by some other macro systems: instead of you, the programmer coming up with a very long, very cryptic, very unpredictable variable name, you can call the gensym function which generates a very long, very cryptic, very unpredictable and unique variable name for you.
And like I said, in a hygienic macro system, such collisions cannot happen in the first place. How to make a macro system hygienic is an interesting question in itself, and the Scheme community has spent several decades on this question, and they keep coming up with better and better ways to do it.
I'm so glad to know that this language is still being used! Hygienic code is code that when injected (via a macro) does not cause conflicts with existing variables.
There is lots of good information on Wikipedia about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygienic_macro
Here's what I found. Explaining what it means is another matter altogether!
http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs-lib/r6rs-lib-Z-H-1.html#node_toc_node_sec_12.1
Macros transform code: they take one bit of code and transform it into something else. As part of that transformation, they may surround that code with more code. If the original code references a variable a, and the code that's added around it defines a new version of a, then the original code won't work as expected because it will be accessing the wrong a: if
(myfunc a)
is the original code, which expects a to be an integer, and the macro takes X and transforms it to
(let ((a nil)) X)
Then the macro will work fine for
(myfunc b)
but (myfunc a) will get transformed to
(let ((a nil)) (myfunc a))
which won't work because myfunc will be applied to nil rather than the integer it is expecting.
A hygienic macro avoids this problem of the wrong variable getting accessed (and a similar problem the other way round), by ensuring that the names used are unique.
Wikipedia has a good explanation of hygienic macros.
Apart from all the things mentioned, there is one important other thing to Scheme's hygienic macros, which follow from the lexical scope.
Say we have:
(syntax-rules () ((_ a b) (+ a b)))
As part of a macro, surely it will insert the +, it will also insert it when there's a + already there, but then another symbol which has the same meaning as +. It binds symbols to the value they had in the lexical environment in which the syntax-rules lies, not where it is applied, we are lexically scoped after all. It will most likely insert a completely new symbol there, but one which is globally bound to the same meaning as + is at the place the macro is defined. This is most handy when we use a construct like:
(let ((+ *))
; piece of code that is transformed
)
The writer, or user of the macro thus needn't be occupied with ensuring its use goes well.