On first look it seems somewhat silly to have a function which returns the name of a symbol, which must be called using the name of that same symbol. i.e. it should already be obvious in the calling context what the function will return. On the other hand there is identity which is sometimes useful (I forget where just now) but I supposed (perhaps wrongly) that symbol-function is there for a reason other than simply to act as a kind of identity.
However, the hyperspec offers a possible hint:
(symbol-name 'temp) => "TEMP"
(symbol-name :start) => "START"
(symbol-name (gensym)) => "G1234" ;for example
I note that :start means get the name of the symbol start from the keyword package, where the keyword package is denoted simply by :.
(:keyword being its longer form, unnecessary to use). Thus, in this case symbol-name plays the role of simply removing the package prefix.
The other thing it might do is, given an implementation is case insensitive, it would get the actual name by removing case in the symbol name supplied.
Is that roughly it or is there any importance to this function I am missing?
One thing I was confused by about symbols (cleared up now) is that symbol-plist does not tell you everything about the symbol (say, whether it holds the value of a special variable or function). Rather, plist is a mainly legacy feature now largely replaced by hashtables. So, a call to symbol-plist is going to return NIL even if one has set a special variable on the symbol.
One final question on that, Paul Graham says in Chapter 8 (p133), that "You can use symbols as data objects and as names for things without understanding how the two are related". Would it be correct say that if we rarely now use plists, that, today, we generally don't use symbols "as data objects" at all, instead, just as names for things (allbeit with the duality in CL of course, i.e. symbol-function and symbol-value simultaneously).
Symbols are objects. You can create them and pass them around programmatically. One of the properties of these objects is their name, which is a string. Symbol-name is the reader (not accessor) for that. That's all.
Symbols are also used in the representation of code. In this case, they are created by the reader and used by the compiler. This is not their only use, however, and the spec makes no such assumptions either. I hope that this addresses the core of your question.
Here is a function that, given a symbol, returns a symbol interned in the same package but with a reversed name:
(defun reverse-symbol (symbol)
(intern (make-symbol (reverse (symbol-name symbol)))
(symbol-package symbol)))
Here is a function that, given a string designator, returns the designated string:
(defun designated-string (string-designator)
(ctypecase string-designator
(string string-designator)
(symbol (symbol-name string-designator))))
You can also do all kinds of shenanigans in macros and compiler macros by inspecting the names of the symbols in the given form and applying some conventions (not that you should…).
Let's assume you want to write some protocol for transmitting bits of structure between two different systems over some serial channel
(defgeneric transmit-object (o stream))
What is the method for symbols going to look like?
(defmethod transmit-object ((o symbol) stream)
... (symbol-name o) ...)
In particular you certainly do not know the name of the symbol at the point where you need to reason about it, and you could not write such a protocol without using symbol-name (or some absolutely appalling hack like printing the symbol to a string and using that).
Regarding symbol-plist, the implementation is completely at liberty to keep all sorts of information on the property list of a symbol. I am not even sure that the implementation is not allowed to do (a cleverer version of):
(defun symbol-value (s)
(let* ((d (load-time-value (cons nil nil)))
(v (get s secret-value-indicator d)))
(when (eq v d)
(error ...))
v))
It may be that this is not allowed, but I am not sure. Certainly it was once fairly common for function definitions to be kept in this way.
It's not so silly when you process symbol names. When you for example build preprocessor - you read some data, convert it to list structures and then some code is processing those list and trigger some additional logic when symbol-name is lets say defun-my-ubermacro. It's exactly what's in Graham quote - you treat symbols as data.
And (in my opinion) it's not correct to say, that when you don't use plists, you generally don't use symbols as data. Plists are only on of many places where it's useful feature. A lot of what macros do is processing symbols as data / names.
On first look it seems somewhat silly to have a function which returns the name of a symbol, which must be called using the name of that same symbol.
That's wrong. symbol-name is called with a symbol and not a name. It returns the name as a string.
I note that :start means get the name of the symbol start from the keyword package, where the keyword package is denoted simply by :. (:keyword being its longer form, unnecessary to use). Thus, in this case symbol-name plays the role of simply removing the package prefix.
No, symbol-name returns the name of the symbol as a string. The keyword symbol is an object of type symbol.
A symbol is a data type and has several cells:
the name, a string
possibly a function
possibly a value
a property list
optionally the home package it is interned in
don't use symbols "as data objects" at all, instead, just as names for things
No, symbols as data objects have many purposes. For example Lisp source code uses many symbols. But it can also appear in all sorts of data.
CL-USER 6 > 'foo
FOO
CL-USER 7 > (type-of 'foo)
SYMBOL
CL-USER 8 > (symbol-name 'foo)
"FOO"
CL-USER 9 > (type-of (symbol-name 'foo))
SIMPLE-BASE-STRING
CL-USER 10 > (mapcar #'symbol-name '(a b c defun foo bar))
("A" "B" "C" "DEFUN" "FOO" "BAR")
CL-USER 11 > (mapcar #'type-of *)
(SIMPLE-BASE-STRING SIMPLE-BASE-STRING SIMPLE-BASE-STRING SIMPLE-BASE-STRING SIMPLE-BASE-STRING SIMPLE-BASE-STRING)
Since you haven't accepted an answer, here is my take.
For most day-to-day programming symbols, and therefore SYMBOL-NAME,
aren't very useful. Mostly they are used for their
unique-ness. However they shine when you are modifying the compiler
with macros.
Here are 3 examples where SYMBOL-NAME is used:
Firstly, LOOP is the CL generic looping construct, it works via
placeholder symbols in a way that some claim is un-lispy, but it
remains very handy, especially if you are stepping things in parallel.
The following 3 forms are equivalent (at run-time):
(loop for i in list collect i)
(loop :for i :in list :collect i)
(loop #:for i #:in list #:collect i)
I, personally, prefer the third form because it makes it really
obvious where the LOOP magic is happening, and also avoids interning
symbols in any package (which is usually harmless, but not
always). That the third works at all requires the existence of
SYMBOL-NAME
Secondly, I don't make much use of CLOS but classes are undeniably
useful. DEFCLASS tends to be too verbose for what I want to do though,
so I often employ a macro that uses implied symbols. So:
(defbean peer ()
(id)
(next
beats))
Becomes:
(defclass peer nil
((id :initarg :id :reader peer-id)
(next :initarg :next :accessor peer-next)
(beats :initarg :beats :accessor peer-beats)))
Saving much typing. Notice how the slot name is converted to a keyword
for the initargs, and how reader and accessor names are created.
Some don't like this sort of macro, and I can see how it might be
problematic if you have a large team with everyone doing this all over
the shop (though M-. and C-c ret are always available), but for
small teams I think this is one of the best reasons to use lisp,
customising it to how you actually want to use it.
Thirdly, my sqlite helper library uses SYMBOL-NAME to generate SQL
statements (along with some more implied symbols) for even more
code-saving:
(defsqlite-table artists
(id :auto-key)
(artist-name :t)
(sort-artist-name :t :n))
Becomes something pretty huge:
(progn
(defparameter +create-artists-sql+
"CREATE TABLE artists (
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
artist_name TEXT NOT NULL,
sort_artist_name TEXT
)")
(defun create-artists-table (pjs-sqlite::db pjs-sqlite::recursive log)
###)
(eval-when (:load-toplevel)
###)
(defun insert-artists
(pjs-sqlite::db artist-name sort-artist-name &key (id nil id-p))
###)
(defun update-artists
(pjs-sqlite::db id
&key (artist-name nil artist-name-p)
(sort-artist-name nil sort-artist-name-p))
###)
(defun delete-artists (pjs-sqlite::db id)
(with-sqlite-statements (pjs-sqlite::db
(pjs-sqlite::stmt
"DELETE FROM artists WHERE id = ?"))
###)))
(I stripped out a lot of code that would be distracting, but it should
be clear how I mapped symbols to sql identifiers)
I hope this gives you some ideas on what sort of things SYMBOL-NAME
can be used for.
Related
It appears that I can use setf to create special variables. For example, if I start the REPL and enter (setf x 123), a special variable x will be created. There is no error in CLISP and ECL. SBCL gives a warning (undefined variable: COMMON-LISP-USER::X), but creates the special variable anyway. Is setf a valid way to create special variables?
It is not valid to use setf to create new variables. The HyperSpec is pretty clear that setf is only intended to update existing variables:
setf changes the value of place to be newvalue.
(setf place newvalue) expands into an update form that stores the result of evaluating newvalue into the location referred to by place.
setf is intended for updating a place. There is no behavior specified for attempting to use setf to update the value of a place that does not already exist.
In the section which discusses assignment, CLTL2 says a bit more:
Such alteration is different from establishing a new binding. Constructs for establishing new bindings of variables are described in section 7.5.
While this may seem to work, you can't rely on it. It often works in REPLs, and it is fine if you want to use setf this way when playing around in a REPL, but you should not do this in any program.
Actually it is a bit tricky.
This is one of the things in Common Lisp which are underspecified. Unfortunately.
LispWorks:
CL-USER 61 > (setf foo 1)
1
CL-USER 62 > (defun bar () foo)
BAR
CL-USER 63 > (bar)
1
CL-USER 64 > (let ((foo 2))
(bar))
1
The last foo in the let is using lexical binding and thus there it is not assumed to be special.
In the forms (setf foo 1) and (defun bar () foo) the variable foo is assumed by the particular Lisp implementation to be special and it even could be declared to be special by setf (-> which most implementations don't).
Whether above let form returns 1 or 2 is unspecified in the Common Lisp language standard. Most implementations will return 1, though.
Next:
CL-USER 65 > (let ((foo 2))
(declare (special foo))
(bar))
2
Above we see that the use of foo inside bar is actually using the dynamic binding of foo in the let.
Basically the exact effects of setting an undefined variable is unspecified. The variable could be assumed to be special or not. Most implementations prefer to NOT declare it special, such that further use of the variable must be special.
But whether the variable is special or not, and the exact effects using it, is actually undefined in the Common Lisp language standard.
Most implementations agree
that setf setting an undefined variable only changes the symbol value of the symbol
that setting and retrieving the variable is assuming a special variable
that rebinding the variable by let(or similar) does not create a special variable
that a compiler (if used) will warn about an undefined variable and/or about assuming a special variable.
One implementation where the default disagrees is CMUCL -> there the setf also declares the variable to be special, similar to what defparameter would do.
For a general style rule see the last paragraph of ad absurdum's answer.
Is there a way, in common lisp, to receive a user input, say "foo", and defvar a global variable *foo*?
For example (which does NOT work):
(defun global-name (s)
"Takes s and changes it to *s*"
(concatenate 'string "*" s "*"))
(defun add-global-var (var)
"defvars a global variable and adds it to *global-list*"
(let ((var-name (global-name var)))
(defvar var-name var)
(push var-name *global-list*)))
; Used like this:
(add-global-var "myvar")
In this case, the var-name is a string, and will not work with defvar.
Déjà vu... I asked these kinds of questions 20+ years ago ;-)
Your question
Yes, you can do that (but no, you do not want to!)
(defun add-global-var (var-name &optional (package *package*))
(let ((var (intern var-name package)))
(proclaim `(special ,var))
(push var *global-list*)))
Please see
proclaim
intern
*package*
Alternatively, you can use a macro as the other answer suggests - in
fact, symbol creation at macroexpansion time (which is part of
compilation) is a very common thing,
cf. gensym.
Your problem
There is little reason to do this though.
Global variables created at run time were not available at compile time
and are, therefore, pretty useless.
Why do you want to do this?
If you want to map strings to values, you are much better off using an
equal hash table.
If you want to integrate with read,
you should call it while binding
*package*
to your internal temp package and then use
symbol-value
to store and retrieve values.
You will use intern to
map "variable names" to the symbols.
This is most likely a XY problem since it's very unusual to need to make a variable with a name made up in runtime. It's very common in compile time, but not runtime. #coredump has already covered compile time macros if that is what you are after.
Here is how you do it though:
(defun add-global-var (var)
"defvars a global variable and adds it to *global-list*"
(let ((var-name (intern (string-upcase (global-name var)))))
(set var-name var)
(push var-name *global-list*)))
set is deprecated, but I doubt it will ever be removed. Implementations might not be able to run as fast though since this is like messing with internals.
Since the names are not from source you you have no good use for the bidnings. because of this I would rather use a hash:
(defvar *bindings* (make-hash-table :test #'eq))
(defun add-binding (var)
(let ((var-name (intern (string-upcase (global-name var)))))
(setf (gethash var-name *bindings*) var)
*bindings*))
A reason to do this is as a part of your own little interpreter symbol table or something. You don't need a list of them since you can get all the keys from the hash as well as get the bound values.
Yes, with a macro:
(defvar *global-list* nil)
I changed global-name so that it also accepts symbols, to avoid thinking about whether the string should be upcased or not. With a symbol, the case is given by readtable-case (you can use uninterned symbols if you want to avoid polluting packages).
(defun global-name (name)
(check-type name (or string symbol))
(intern
(concatenate 'string "*" (string name) "*")))
I named the macro defvar*:
(defmacro defvar* (name)
`(push
(defvar ,(global-name name) ',name)
*global-list*))
Tests:
CL-USER> (defvar* #:foo)
(*FOO*)
CL-USER> (defvar* #:bar)
(*BAR* *FOO*)
Note:
You can also add an optional package argument like in #sds's answer, that's better.
I'm reviving an old LISP program from the early 1980s.
(It's the Nelson-Oppen simplifier, an early proof system.
This version was part of the Ford Pascal-F Verifier,
and was running in Franz LISP in 1982.) Here's
the entire program:
https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv/tree/master/src/CPC4
I'm converting the code to run under clisp on Linux,
and need some advice. Most of the problems are with
macros.
HUNKSHELL
Hunkshell was a 1970s Stanford SAIL hack to support records with named fields in LISP. I think I've converted this OK; it seems to work.
https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv/blob/master/src/CPC4/hunkshell.l
The original macro generated more macros as record update functions.
I'm generating defuns. Is there any reason to generate macros?
By the way, look at what I wrote for "CONCAT". Is there a better way
to do that?
DEFMAC
More old SAIL macros, to make macro definition easier before defmacro became part of the language.
https://github.com/John-Nagle/pasv/blob/master/src/CPC4/defmac.l
I've been struggling with "defunobj". Here's my CL version, partly converted:
; This macro works just like defun, except that both the value and the
; function-binding of the symbol being defined are set to the function
; being defined. Therefore, after (defunobj f ...), (f ...) calls the
; defined function, whereas f evaluates to the function itself.
;
(defmacro defunobj (fname args &rest b)
`(progn
(defun ,fname ,args ,b)
;;;;(declare (special ,fname)) ;;;; ***declare not allowed here
(setq ,fname (getd ',fname))))
If I made that declare a proclaim, would that work right?
And what replaces getd to get a function pointer?
SPECIAL
There are lots of (DECLARE (SPECIAL FOO)) declarations at top
level in this code. That's not allowed in CL. Is it
appropriate to use (PROCLAIM (SPECIAL FOO)) instead?
Concat
Essentially correct, but indentation is broken (like everywhere else - I suggest Emacs to fix it).
Also, you don't need the values there.
defunobj
I suggest defparameter instead
of setq. Generally speaking, before setting a variable (with, e.g., setq) one should establish it (with, e.g., let or defvar).
fdefinition is what
you are looking for instead of getd.
I also don't think you are using backquote right:
(defmacro defunobj (fname &body body)
`(progn
(defun ,fname ,#body)
(defparameter ,fname (fdefinition ',fname))))
Special
I think defvar and defparameter
are better than proclaim
special.
PS. Are you aware of the CR.se site?
The other day (perhaps yesterday) I was quite perplexed about this #+nil read-time conditional found in https://github.com/billstclair/defperson/blob/master/defperson.lisp#L289.
After some deep thinking I came to the conclusion that this is very lispy way of commenting out code. Can someone confirm this?
Perhaps my assumptions are completely wrong. Anyway, thanks in advance.
Yes, it is a lispy way of commenting code, but you shouldn't leave this out in production code.
A better alternative is #+(or).
It only takes one more character, it takes the same key presses if you use Emacs paredit or some other mode that automatically inserts the closing parenthesis, and it's not subject to the existence of the symbol :nil in *features*.
See CLHS 2.4.8.17 Sharpsign Plus
To conditionalize reading expressions from input, Common Lisp uses feature expressions.
In this case it has been used to comment out a form.
It's a part of the reader. #+ looks if the next item, usually as a keyword symbol with the same name, is a member of the list *features*. If yes, the then next item is read as normal, if not, it is skipped.. Usually :NIL is not a member of that list, so the item is skipped. Thus it hides the expression from Lisp. There might have been a Lisp implementation, where this would not work : NIL, New Implementation of Lisp. It might have had the symbol :NIL on the *features* list, to indicate the name of the implementation.
Features like NIL are by default read in the keyword package:
#+NIL -> looks for :NIL in cl:*features*
#+CL:NIL -> looks for CL:NIL in cl:*features*
Example
(let ((string1 "#+nil foo bar")) ; string to read from
(print (read-from-string string1)) ; read from the string
(let ((*features* (cons :nil *features*))) ; add :NIL to *features*
(print (read-from-string string1))) ; read from the string
(values)) ; return no values
It prints:
BAR
FOO
Note that Common Lisp has other ways to comment out forms:
; (sin 3) should we use that?
#| (sin 3) should we use that?
(cos 3) or this? |#
I've just been reading up on the sharpsign colon reader macro and it sounded like it had a very similar effect to gensym
Sharpsign Colon: "introduces an uninterned symbol"
Gensym: "Creates and returns a fresh, uninterned symbol"
So a simple test
CL-USER> #:dave
; Evaluation aborted on #<UNBOUND-VARIABLE DAVE {1002FF77D3}>.
CL-USER> (defparameter #:dave 1)
#:DAVE
CL-USER> #:dave
; Evaluation aborted on #<UNBOUND-VARIABLE DAVE {100324B493}>.
Cool so that fails as it should.
Now for the macro test
(defmacro test (x)
(let ((blah '#:jim))
`(let ((,blah ,x))
(print ,blah))))
CL-USER> (test 10)
10
10
CL-USER>
Sweet so it can be used like in a gensym kind of way.
To me this looks cleaner than gensym with an apparently identical result. I'm sure I'm missing a vital detail so my question is, What it it?
Every time the macro is expanded, it will use the same symbol.
(defmacro foo () `(quote #:x))
(defmacro bar () `(quote ,(gensym)))
(eq (foo) (foo)) => t
(eq (bar) (bar)) => nil
Gensym will create a new symbol every time it is evaluated, but sharp colon will only create a new symbol when it is read.
While using sharp colon is unlikely to cause problems, there are a couple rare cases where using it would lead to nearly impossible to find bugs. It is better to be safe to begin with by always using gensym.
If you want to use something like sharp colon, you should look at the defmacro! macro from Let Over Lambda.
GENSYM is like MAKE-SYMBOL. The difference is that GENSYM supports fancy naming by counting up -> thus symbols kind of have unique names, which makes debugging a bit easier when having gensyms for example in macro expansions.
#:foo is a notation for the reader.
So you have a function which creates these and a literal notation. Note that, when *print-circle* is true, some kind of identity maybe preserved in s-expressions: #(#1=#:FOO #1#).
Generally this is similar to (a . b) and (cons 'a 'b), #(a b) and (vector 'a 'b)... One is literal data and the other one is a form which will create ('cons') fresh objects.
If you look at your macro, the main problem is that nested usage of it could cause problems. Both lexically or dynamically.
lexically it could be the same variable, which is rebound.
dynamically, if it is a special variable it could also be rebound
Using a generated symbol at macro expansion time would make sure that different and expanded code would not share bindings.