I am working on a complicated macro and have run into a roadblock.
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (body vars on &optional counter name)
`(block o
(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry ,on)
(destructuring-bind
,(apply #'append vars)
(let ((current-band (list ,#(mapcar #'not (apply #'append vars)))))
(for (i 1 ,(length (apply #'append vars)) 2)
(multiple-value-bind
(succ k v) (next-entry)
(if succ
(progn
(setf (nth i current-band) k)
(setf (nth (+ 1 i) current-band) v))
(return-from o nil))))
current-band)
,#body))))
im getting "Evaluation aborted on #<UNDEFINED-FUNCTION NEXT-ENTRY {100229C693}>"
i dont understand why next-entry appears to be invisible to the macro i have created.
I've tried stripping down this to a small replicable example but i couldnt find a minimal scenario without the macro i created where next-entry would be invisible besides this scenario no matter what I tried, i've always managed to find a way to call next-entry in my other examples so im stumped as to why i cannot get it working here
I've tested the for macro ive created and it seems to generally work in most cases but for some reason it cannot see this next-entry variable. How do i make it visible?
In your code there are multiple places where the macro generates bindings in a way that is subject to variable capture (pdf).
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (body vars on &optional counter name)
`(block o ;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry ,on) ;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars)
(let ((current-band ;;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
(list ,#(mapcar #'not (apply #'append vars)))))
(for
(i ;;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
1 ,(length (apply #'append vars)) 2)
(multiple-value-bind (succ k v) ;;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
,(next-entry) ;;; WRONG EVALUATION TIME
(if succ
(progn
(setf (nth i current-band) k)
(setf (nth (+ 1 i) current-band) v))
(return-from o nil))))
current-band)
,#body))))
A simplified example of such a capture is:
`(let ((x 0)) ,#body)
Here above, the x variable is introduced, but if the code is expanded in a context where xis already bound, then body will not be able to reference that former x binding and will always see x bound to zero (you generally don't want this behavior).
Write a function instead
Instead of writing a big macro for this, let's first try understanding what you want to achieve and write instead a higher-order function, ie. a function that calls user-provided functions.
If I understand correctly, your function iterates over a hash-table by bands of entries. I assume vars holds a list of (key value) pairs of symbols, for example ((k1 v1) (k2 v2)). Then, body works on all the key/value pairs in the band.
In the following code, the function map-each-hashtable-band accepts a function, a hash-table, and instead of vars it accepts a size, the width of the band (the number of pairs).
Notice how in your code, you only have one loop, which builds a band using the hash-table iterator. But then, since the macro is named for-each-hashtable-band, I assume you also want to loop over all the bands. The macro with-hash-table-iterator provides an iterator but does not loop itself. That's why here I have two loops.
(defun map-each-hashtable-band (function hash-table band-size)
(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry hash-table)
(loop :named outer-loop :do
(loop
:with key and value and next-p
:repeat band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (next-p key value) (next-entry))
:while next-p
:collect key into current-band
:collect value into current-band
:finally (progn
(when current-band
(apply function current-band))
(unless next-p
(return-from outer-loop)))))))
For example:
(map-each-hashtable-band (lambda (&rest band) (print `(:band ,band)))
(alexandria:plist-hash-table
'(:a 0 :b 1 :c 2 :d 3 :e 4 :f 5 :g 6))
2)
NB. Iterating over a hash-table happens in an arbitrary order, there is no guarantee that you'll see the entries in any particular kind of order, this is implementation-dependant.
With my current version of SBCL this prints the following:
(:BAND (:A 0 :B 1))
(:BAND (:C 2 :D 3))
(:BAND (:E 4 :F 5))
(:BAND (:G 6))
Wrap the function in a macro
The previous function might not be exactly the behavior you want, so you need to adapt to your needs, but once it does what you want, you can wrap a macro around it.
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
`(map-each-hashtable-band (lambda ,(apply #'append vars) ,#body)
,hash-table
,(length vars)))
For example:
(let ((test (alexandria:plist-hash-table '(:a 0 :b 1 :c 2 :d 3 :e 4 :f 5))))
(for-each-hashtable-band ((k1 v1) (k2 v2)) test
(format t "~a -> ~a && ~a -> ~a ~%" k1 v1 k2 v2)))
This prints:
A -> 0 && B -> 1
C -> 2 && D -> 3
E -> 4 && F -> 5
Macro-only solution, for completeness
If you want to have only one, single macro, you can start by inlining the body of the above function in the macro, you don't need to use apply anymore, but instead you need to establish bindings around the body, using destructuring-bind as you did. A first draft would be to simply as follows, but notice that this is not a proper solution:
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
(let ((band-size (length vars)))
`(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry ,hash-table)
(loop :named outer-loop :do
(loop
:with key and value and next-p
:repeat ,band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (next-p key value) (next-entry))
:while next-p
:collect key into current-band
:collect value into current-band
:finally (progn
(when current-band
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars) current-band
,#body))
(unless next-p
(return-from outer-loop))))))))
In order to be free of variable capture problems with macros, each temporary variable you introduce must be named after a symbol that cannot exist in any context you expand your code. So instead we first unquote all the variables, making the macro definition fail to compile:
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
(let ((band-size (length vars)))
`(with-hash-table-iterator (,next-entry ,hash-table)
(loop :named ,outer-loop :do
(loop
:with ,key and ,value and ,next-p
:repeat ,band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (,next-p ,key ,value) (,next-entry))
:while ,next-p
:collect ,key into ,current-band
:collect ,value into ,current-band
:finally (progn
(when ,current-band
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars) ,current-band
,#body))
(unless ,next-p
(return-from ,outer-loop))))))))
When compiling the macro, the macro is supposed to inject symbols into the code, but here we have a compilation error that says undefined variables:
;; undefined variables: CURRENT-BAND KEY NEXT-ENTRY NEXT-P OUTER-LOOP VALUE
So now, those variables should be fresh symbols:
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
(let ((band-size (length vars)))
(let ((current-band (gensym))
(key (gensym))
(next-entry (gensym))
(next-p (gensym))
(outer-loop (gensym))
(value (gensym)))
`(with-hash-table-iterator (,next-entry ,hash-table)
(loop :named ,outer-loop :do
(loop
:with ,key and ,value and ,next-p
:repeat ,band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (,next-p ,key ,value) (,next-entry))
:while ,next-p
:collect ,key into ,current-band
:collect ,value into ,current-band
:finally (progn
(when ,current-band
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars) ,current-band
,#body))
(unless ,next-p
(return-from ,outer-loop)))))))))
This above is a bit verbose, but you could simplify that.
Here is what the previous for-each-hashtable-band example expands into with this new macro:
(with-hash-table-iterator (#:g1576 test)
(loop :named #:g1578
:do (loop :with #:g1575
and #:g1579
and #:g1577
:repeat 2
:do (multiple-value-setq (#:g1577 #:g1575 #:g1579) (#:g1576))
:while #:g1577
:collect #:g1575 into #:g1574
:collect #:g1579 into #:g1574
:finally (progn
(when #:g1574
(destructuring-bind
(k1 v1 k2 v2)
#:g1574
(format t "~a -> ~a && ~a -> ~a ~%" k1 v1 k2
v2)))
(unless #:g1577 (return-from #:g1578))))))
Each time you expand it, the #:gXXXX variables are different, and cannot possibly shadow existing bindings, so for example, the body can use variables named like current-band or value without breaking the expanded code.
Related
Edit: Title updated to reflect what my question should have been, and hopefully lead other users here when they have the same problem.
Little bit of a mess, but this is a work-in-progress common lisp implementation of anydice that should output some ascii art representing a probability density function for a hash-table representing dice rolls. I've been trying to figure out exactly why, but I keep getting the error *** - SYSTEM::READ-EVAL-READER: variable BAR-CHARS has no value when attempting to run the file in clisp. The error is originating from the output function.
The code is messy and convoluted (but was previously working if the inner most loop of output is replaced with something simpler), but this specific error does not make sense to me. Am I not allowed to access the outer let* variables/bindings/whatever from the inner most loop/cond? Even when I substitute bar-chars for the list form directly, I get another error that char-decimal has no value either. I'm sure there's something about the loop macro interacting with the cond macro I'm missing, or the difference between setf, let*, multiple-value-bind, etc. But I've been trying to debug this specific problem for hours with no luck.
(defun sides-to-sequence (sides)
(check-type sides integer)
(loop for n from 1 below (1+ sides) by 1 collect n))
(defun sequence-to-distribution (sequence)
(check-type sequence list)
(setf distribution (make-hash-table))
(loop for x in sequence
do (setf (gethash x distribution) (1+ (gethash x distribution 0))))
distribution)
(defun distribution-to-sequence (distribution)
(check-type distribution hash-table)
(loop for key being each hash-key of distribution
using (hash-value value) nconc (loop repeat value collect key)))
(defun combinations (&rest lists)
(if (endp lists)
(list nil)
(mapcan (lambda (inner-val)
(mapcar (lambda (outer-val)
(cons outer-val
inner-val))
(car lists)))
(apply #'combinations (cdr lists)))))
(defun mapcar* (func lists) (mapcar (lambda (args) (apply func args)) lists))
(defun dice (left right)
(setf diceprobhash (make-hash-table))
(cond ((integerp right)
(setf right-distribution
(sequence-to-distribution (sides-to-sequence right))))
((listp right)
(setf right-distribution (sequence-to-distribution right)))
((typep right 'hash-table) (setf right-distribution right))
(t (error (make-condition 'type-error :datum right
:expected-type
(list 'integer 'list 'hash-table)))))
(cond ((integerp left)
(sequence-to-distribution
(mapcar* #'+
(apply 'combinations
(loop repeat left collect
(distribution-to-sequence right-distribution))))))
(t (error (make-condition 'type-error :datum left
:expected-type
(list 'integer))))))
(defmacro d (arg1 &optional arg2)
`(dice ,#(if (null arg2) (list 1 arg1) (list arg1 arg2))))
(defun distribution-to-probability (distribution)
(setf probability-distribution (make-hash-table))
(setf total-outcome-count
(loop for value being the hash-values of distribution sum value))
(loop for key being each hash-key of distribution using (hash-value value)
do (setf (gethash key probability-distribution)
(float (/ (gethash key distribution) total-outcome-count))))
probability-distribution)
(defun output (distribution)
(check-type distribution hash-table)
(format t " # %~%")
(let* ((bar-chars (list 9617 9615 9614 9613 9612 9611 9610 9609 9608))
(bar-width 100)
(bar-width-eighths (* bar-width 8))
(probability-distribution (distribution-to-probability distribution)))
(loop for key being each hash-key of
probability-distribution using (hash-value value)
do (format t "~4d ~5,2f ~{~a~}~%" key (* 100 value)
(loop for i from 0 below bar-width
do (setf (values char-column char-decimal)
(truncate (* value bar-width)))
collect
(cond ((< i char-column)
#.(code-char (car (last bar-chars))))
((> i char-column)
#.(code-char (first bar-chars)))
(t
#.(code-char (nth (truncate
(* 8 (- 1 char-decimal)))
bar-chars)))))))))
(output (d 2 (d 2 6)))
This is my first common lisp program I've hacked together, so I don't really want any criticism about formatting/style/performance/design/etc as I know it could all be better. Just curious what little detail I'm missing in the output function that is causing errors. And felt it necessary to include the whole file for debugging purposes.
loops scoping is perfectly conventional. But as jkiiski says, #. causes the following form to be evaluated at read time: bar-chars is not bound then.
Your code is sufficiently confusing that I can't work out whether there's any purpose to read-time evaluation like this. But almost certainly there is not: the uses for it are fairly rare.
I am building a window application in Lisp using the LTK library. I want a button that does an action and, possibly, hides itself. However, this code:
(let* ((left (button 0 0 f "←" #'(lambda ()
(decf start page-length)
(funcall redraw)
(if (>= start page-length)
(ltk:configure left :state :visible))
(ltk:configure left :state :hidden))))))
claims that "left" is an undefined variable (the rest is defined in code beyond the scope of this problem).
Worst case scenario, I avoid the "button" function I wrote and rework the code for this particular situation, but the scenario begs a general solution. Is there any way in Lisp to use a variable in a function in the definition of the variable?
A let* with only one binding is the same as a let binding. A let binding does not exist until the body is executed. During the execution of button the reference for left must be from an earlier closure or global as left is created after the expression is evaluated. You can do this:
(let ((left nil))
(setf left (button 0 0 f "←" #'(lambda ()
(decf start page-length)
(funcall redraw)
(if (>= start page-length)
(ltk:configure left :state :visible)
(ltk:configure left :state :hidden))))))
NB: There was a bug in the if such that the lambda always would execute (ltk:configure left :state :hidden)
For what it's worth here is a version of letrec in CL:
(defmacro letrec (bindings &body decls/forms)
(assert (and (listp bindings)
(every (lambda (b)
(or (symbolp b)
(and (consp b)
(symbolp (first b))
(null (cddr b)))))
bindings))
(bindings) "malformed bindings")
(multiple-value-bind (names values)
(loop for b in bindings
collect (etypecase b
(symbol b)
(cons (first b)))
into vars
collect (etypecase b
(symbol nil)
(cons (second b)))
into vals
finally (return (values vars vals)))
`(let ,names
(psetf ,#(loop for name in names
for val in values
collect name
collect val))
(locally
,#decls/forms))))
Then
> (letrec ((x (lambda (y)
(if (null y)
'done
(funcall x (cdr y))))))
(funcall x '(1 2 3)))
done
I am trying to make a 'pseudo OO system':
(defun bank-account ()
(let ((balance))
(labels ((init (x)
(setf balance x))
(increment (x)
(setf balance (+ balance x)))
(get-balance ()
balance))
(lambda (func)
(case func (init #'init)
(increment #'increment)
(get-balance #'get-balance))))))
(defparameter bank-account-object (bank-account))
(funcall (funcall bank-account-object 'init) 42)
(funcall (funcall bank-account-object 'increment) 10)
(funcall (funcall bank-account-object 'get-balance))
Q: are there better ways to accomplish the same without using CLOS, defstruct, or defmacro?
The problem that I see with this is that it is closed for extension, and I see no simple way to add extensibility.
Minor nitpick: that's not a bank-system but a bank-account. When you think about that further, it seems to me that the interesting part about this example domain has not been touched: double accounting, i. e. ensuring the null-sum invariant.
There are two sayings: a closure is a poor man's object, and an object is a poor man's closure. I have the feeling that you are more in the realm of the former here. However, it might be a good learning experience to think about this—as long as you don't put it into production somewhere…
;; The "class"
(defun create-bank-account ()
(let ((balance))
(labels ((init (x)
(setf balance x))
(increment (x)
(setf balance (+ balance x)))
(get-balance ()
balance))
(lambda (func)
(case func (init #'init)
(increment #'increment)
(get-balance #'get-balance))))))
;; The "methods"
(defun init-balance (object amount)
(funcall (funcall object 'init) amount))
(defun increment-balance (object amount)
(funcall (funcall object 'increment) amount))
(defun get-balance (object)
(funcall (funcall object 'get-balance)))
;; Example usage
(defparameter bank-account (create-bank-account))
(init-balance bank-account 42) ; => 42
(increment-balance bank-account 10) ; => 52
(get-balance bank-account) ; => 52
As mentioned in other answers, the resulting object might be hard to extend. That could be a feature, but one possible way to improve on it is to let it be redefined dynamically. You can even switch from classes to protoypes.
(ql:quickload :optima)
(defpackage :obj (:use :cl :optima))
(in-package :obj)
(defun make-object (&optional prototype)
(let ((properties (make-hash-table :test #'eq))
(self))
(flet ((resolve (key)
(or (gethash key properties)
(and prototype (funcall prototype :get key)))))
(setf self
(lambda (&rest args)
(optima:ematch args
((list :get :prototype) prototype)
((list :get key) (resolve key))
((list :set :prototype p)
(cerror "Continue" "Changing prototype object, are you sure?")
(setf prototype p))
((list :set key value)
(if value
(setf (gethash key properties) value)
(remhash key properties)))
((list :invoke method args)
(let ((resolved (resolve method)))
(if resolved
(apply resolved self args)
(funcall (or (resolve :no-such-method)
(error "No such method: ~a in ~a"
method
self))
self
method))))))))))
Some helper symbols:
;; call built-in command
(defmacro $ (obj method &rest args)
`(funcall ,obj ,method ,#args))
;; access property
(declaim (inline # (setf #)))
(defun # (o k) ($ o :get k))
(defun (setf #) (v o k) ($ o :set k v))
;; invoke method
(defun % (o m &rest a)
($ o :invoke m a))
A simple test
(let ((a (make-object)))
;; set name property
(setf (# a :name) "a")
;; inherit
(let ((b (make-object a)))
(print (list (# b :name)
;; shadow name property
(setf (# b :name) "b")
(# a :name)))
;; define a method
(setf (# a :foo) (lambda (self) (print "FOO")))
;; invoke it
(% a :foo)))
Bank account
(defun create-bank-account (&optional parent)
(let ((account (make-object parent)))
(prog1 account
(setf (# account :init)
(lambda (self x)
(setf (# self :balance) x)))
(setf (# account :increment)
(lambda (self increment)
(incf (# self :balance) increment))))))
(let ((account (create-bank-account)))
(% account :init 0)
(% account :increment 100)
(# account :balance))
100
By "artificial", I mean one created from a string using intern or make-symbol.
I have a section of my code that declares up to 49 global variables:
(defparameter *CHAR-COUNT-1-1* (make-hash-table))
...
(defparameter *CHAR-COUNT-1-7* (make-hash-table))
...
(defparameter *CHAR-COUNT-7-7* (make-hash-table))
I thought, instead, I could create a function to do all that:
(loop for n from 1 to 7 do
(loop for i from 1 to 7 do
(defparameter (symbol-value (intern (concatenate 'string "*CHAR-COUNT-" (write-to-string n) "-" (write-to-string i) "*")))
(make-hash-table :test 'equalp))))
But get the error(sbcl):
unhandled SIMPLE-ERROR in thread #<SB-THREAD:THREAD "main thread" RUNNING
{1002978EE3}>:
Can't declare a non-symbol as SPECIAL: (SYMBOL-VALUE
(INTERN
(CONCATENATE 'STRING "*CHAR-COUNT-"
(WRITE-TO-STRING N) "-"
(WRITE-TO-STRING I)
"*")))
What is the correct way to do this?
Defparameter is a macro, not a function. That means that it defines a special syntax. The defparameter form needs to have a symbol as its second argument, but you're providing the list:
(symbol-value (intern (concatenate 'string "*CHAR-COUNT-" (write-to-string n) "-" (write-to-string i) "*")))
What you want is a form like
(progn
(defparameter *foo-1-1* (make-hash-table ...))
...
(defparameter *foo-n-n* (make-hash-table ...)))
You seem familiar enough with loop and creating the symbols to create that list; just change
(loop … do (loop … do (defparameter …)))
to
`(progn
,#(loop … nconcing
(loop … collecting
`(defparameter ,(intern …) …))))
and you can get the form you need. Then it's just a matter of putting it all into a macro
(defmacro … (…)
`(progn
,#(loop … nconcing
(loop … collecting
`(defparameter ,(intern …) …)))))
and calling the macro.
One of "use a macro that returns a PROGN with DEFPARAMETER stanzas" or "use PROCLAIM, it is a function, not a macro".
The correct way is to use a proper data structure instead of encoding dimensions in symbol names. Do you really want to calculate and encode symbol names any time you want to access the correct table?
(defparameter *char-counts* (make-array '(7 7)))
(dotimes (i 49) ; or (reduce #'* (array-dimensions *char-counts*))
(setf (row-major-aref *char-counts* i) (make-hash-table)))
Now you can access the array of tables just with the indices (x and y in this example):
(gethash (aref *char-counts* x y) :foo)
Is it possible to write a Common Lisp macro that takes a list of dimensions and variables, a body (of iteration), and creates the code consisting of as many nested loops as specified by the list?
That is, something like:
(nested-loops '(2 5 3) '(i j k) whatever_loop_body)
should be expanded to
(loop for i from 0 below 2 do
(loop for j from 0 below 5 do
(loop for k from 0 below 3 do
whatever_loop_body)))
Follow up
As huaiyuan correctly pointed out, I have to know the parameters to pass to macro at compile time. If you actually need a function as I do, look below.
If you are ok with a macro, go for the recursive solution of 6502, is wonderful.
You don't need the quotes, since the dimensions and variables need to be known at compile time anyway.
(defmacro nested-loops (dimensions variables &body body)
(loop for range in (reverse dimensions)
for index in (reverse variables)
for x = body then (list y)
for y = `(loop for ,index from 0 to ,range do ,#x)
finally (return y)))
Edit:
If the dimensions cannot be decided at compile time, we'll need a function
(defun nested-map (fn dimensions)
(labels ((gn (args dimensions)
(if dimensions
(loop for i from 0 to (car dimensions) do
(gn (cons i args) (cdr dimensions)))
(apply fn (reverse args)))))
(gn nil dimensions)))
and to wrap the body in lambda when calling.
CL-USER> (nested-map (lambda (&rest indexes) (print indexes)) '(2 3 4))
(0 0 0)
(0 0 1)
(0 0 2)
(0 0 3)
(0 0 4)
(0 1 0)
(0 1 1)
(0 1 2)
(0 1 3)
(0 1 4)
(0 2 0)
(0 2 1)
...
Edit(2012-04-16):
The above version of nested-map was written to more closely reflect the original problem statement. As mmj said in the comments, it's probably more natural to make index range from 0 to n-1, and moving the reversing out of the inner loop should improve efficiency if we don't insist on row-major order of iterations. Also, it's probably more sensible to have the input function accept a tuple instead of individual indices, to be rank independent. Here is a new version with the stated changes:
(defun nested-map (fn dimensions)
(labels ((gn (args dimensions)
(if dimensions
(loop for i below (car dimensions) do
(gn (cons i args) (cdr dimensions)))
(funcall fn args))))
(gn nil (reverse dimensions))))
Then,
CL-USER> (nested-map #'print '(2 3 4))
Sometimes an approach that is useful is writing a recursive macro, i.e. a macro that generates code containing another invocation of the same macro unless the case is simple enough to be solved directly:
(defmacro nested-loops (max-values vars &rest body)
(if vars
`(loop for ,(first vars) from 0 to ,(first max-values) do
(nested-loops ,(rest max-values) ,(rest vars) ,#body))
`(progn ,#body)))
(nested-loops (2 3 4) (i j k)
(print (list i j k)))
In the above if the variable list is empty then the macro expands directly to the body forms, otherwise the generated code is a (loop...) on the first variable containing another (nested-loops ...) invocation in the do part.
The macro is not recursive in the normal sense used for functions (it's not calling itself directly) but the macroexpansion logic will call the same macro for the inner parts until the code generation has been completed.
Note that the max value forms used in the inner loops will be re-evaluated at each iteration of the outer loop. It doesn't make any difference if the forms are indeed numbers like in your test case, but it's different if they're for example function calls.
Hm. Here's an example of such a macro in common lisp. Note, though, that I am not sure, that this is actually a good idea. But we are all adults here, aren't we?
(defmacro nested-loop (control &body body)
(let ((variables ())
(lower-bounds ())
(upper-bounds ()))
(loop
:for ctl :in (reverse control)
:do (destructuring-bind (variable bound1 &optional (bound2 nil got-bound2)) ctl
(push variable variables)
(push (if got-bound2 bound1 0) lower-bounds)
(push (if got-bound2 bound2 bound1) upper-bounds)))
(labels ((recurr (vars lowers uppers)
(if (null vars)
`(progn ,#body)
`(loop
:for ,(car vars) :upfrom ,(car lowers) :to ,(car uppers)
:do ,(recurr (cdr vars) (cdr lowers) (cdr uppers))))))
(recurr variables lower-bounds upper-bounds))))
The syntax is slightly different from your proposal.
(nested-loop ((i 0 10) (j 15) (k 15 20))
(format t "~D ~D ~D~%" i j k))
expands into
(loop :for i :upfrom 0 :to 10
:do (loop :for j :upfrom 0 :to 15
:do (loop :for k :upfrom 15 :to 20
:do (progn (format t "~d ~d ~d~%" i j k)))))
The first argument to the macro is a list of list of the form
(variable upper-bound)
(with a lower bound of 0 implied) or
(variable lower-bound upper-bounds)
With a little more love applied, one could even have something like
(nested-loop ((i :upfrom 10 :below 20) (j :downfrom 100 :to 1)) ...)
but then, why bother, if loop has all these features already?