How to evaluate some lisp code using eval in not null lexical environment ? I need this feature for proper interpolation functionality.
If you model your environment as bindings like those found in let:
((x 3) (y 2))
... then you can evaluate any form f with those bindings in place, like so:
(eval `(let ,e ,f))
This is the simplest case, but you can easily convert your data to fit this syntax. You can also bind functions, macros, etc. if needed.
Note that if you need values at runtime, then maybe dynamic bindings are better. You can use hash-tables, etc. but note that there is also the lesser-known PROGV special operator:
Among other things, progv is useful when writing interpreters for languages embedded in Lisp; it provides a handle on the mechanism for binding dynamic variables.
Although I think the OP knows the answer already, let me try to give a somewhat more descriptive solution, hoping more experienced lispers can point to mistakes I may make below:
As #coredump mentions, progv is an option as well as a let form in eval. Here is an example:
Let's create a list with some numbers and a cons that has a lambda form, bypassing the reader lambda conversion:
(setf list1 '(1
1
(lambda ()
(print a))))
we can eval:
(eval
`(let ((a 3))
;; statement after comma is turned to a function by the reader.
;; same effect with explicit (funcall (function ,(third list1)))
;; because of the (lambda ..) macro form
(funcall ,(third list1))))
3
3
Note that variable a above is lexical, not special.
now, with progv we can create special variables and eval will use them.
Let's first start with a mistake:
(progv '(a) '(4)
(funcall (function (third list1))))
Error: (THIRD LIST1) is not a valid argument for FUNCTION.
or similarly:
(progv '(a) '(4)
(funcall (third list1)))
Error: Argument to apply/funcall is not a function: (LAMBDA NIL (PRINT A)).
Then, let's evaluate or compile:
(progv '(a) '(4)
(funcall (eval (third list1))))
4
4
or
(progv '(a) '(4)
(funcall (compile nil (third list1))))
Warning in 246: A assumed special
4
4
Above is the behaviour I got with LispWorks 7.1. eval didn't give the warning for special assumption, because:
(eval (third list1))
#<anonymous interpreted function 40600009EC>
eval returned an interpreted function, not compiled. If we further compile, then we'll see the same warning:
(eval (third list1))
#<anonymous interpreted function 40600009EC>
(compile nil *)
;;;*** Warning in 248: A assumed special
To make things right with progv, since it creates special variables, change the function:
(setf list1 '(1
1
(lambda ()
(declare (special a))
(print a))))
(progv '(a) '(4)
(funcall (compile nil (third list1))))
4
4
Note that to make the example politically correct, as CLHS does in progv page, we should better use (progv '(*a*) '(4) ...) and the lambda function should be defined with the *a* variable.
Related
In SBCL 2.0.1, (macroexpand '(dolist (x '(1 2 3)) (princ x))) returns:
(BLOCK NIL
(LET ((#:N-LIST385 '(1 2 3)))
(TAGBODY
#:START386
(UNLESS (ENDP #:N-LIST385)
(LET ((X (TRULY-THE (MEMBER 3 2 1) (CAR #:N-LIST385))))
(SETQ #:N-LIST385 (CDR #:N-LIST385))
(TAGBODY (PRINC X)))
(GO #:START386))))
NIL)
T
What is TRULY-THE? It appears to be non-standard because I could not find it in the Common Lisp HyperSpec.
What is the difference between TRULY-THE and THE?
From the SBCL manual:
Special Operator: truly-the [sb-ext] value-type form
Specifies that the values returned by form conform to the value-type, and causes the compiler to trust this information unconditionally.
Consequences are undefined if any result is not of the declared type -- typical symptoms including memory corruptions. Use with great care.
In other words, the the operator in certain cases (for instance with a high level of debugging) compiles to a test to check the correctness of the type specified, while truly-the instructs the compiler to NEVER perform this check.
I am learning Common Lisp using Emacs, SBCL and Slime.
I would like to know exactly what is the code definition of the built-in functions.
I know how to use (documentation ...) and (describe ...). However, they provide only high level information. I would like to see the code details.
For instance, take the nth built-in function.
Documentation gives us:
CL-USER> (documentation 'nth 'function)
"Return the nth object in a list where the car is the zero-th element."
Describe gives me:
CL-USER> (describe 'nth)
COMMON-LISP:NTH
[symbol]
NTH names a compiled function:
Lambda-list: (SB-IMPL::N LIST)
Declared type: (FUNCTION (UNSIGNED-BYTE LIST) (VALUES T &OPTIONAL))
Derived type: (FUNCTION (T T) (VALUES T &OPTIONAL))
Documentation:
Return the nth object in a list where the car is the zero-th element.
Inline proclamation: MAYBE-INLINE (inline expansion available)
Known attributes: foldable, flushable, unsafely-flushable
Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;LIST.LISP
(SETF NTH) names a compiled function:
Lambda-list: (SB-KERNEL::NEWVAL SB-IMPL::N LIST)
Derived type: (FUNCTION (T UNSIGNED-BYTE LIST) (VALUES T &OPTIONAL))
Inline proclamation: INLINE (inline expansion available)
Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;SETF-FUNS.LISP
(SETF NTH) has a complex setf-expansion:
Lambda-list: (SB-IMPL::N LIST)
(undocumented)
Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;DEFSETFS.LISP
; No value
I would like to see something like:
(unknown-command 'nth)
Which would return something like:
(defun nth (x xs)
(if (equal x 0)
(car xs)
(my-nth (- x 1) (cdr xs))))
Lisp languages are fantastic and have a huge ecossystem built by awesome programmers. I hope there is some tool or command for that.
Thanks
First, some general clarifications
In your own code, hitting Meta-. should take you to the source of the code
This will also "just work" for libraries installed via Quicklisp.
Now for SBCL code itself:
If the code is in the "expected place", hitting Meta-. on built-in functions (like nth in your example above) will also take you to its source. I believe the default is /usr/share/sbcl-source/src/code/ but there's possibly a way to configure it.
However, there's another practical way to view this: if you look at the output of (describe ...) above, the line was:
Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;LIST.LISP
Note: not the last line, that is for (setf nth), something slightly different
This tells you which file in the SBCL source code you can expect to find the function definition.
So, within [the repo](https:/ /github.com/sbcl/sbcl/tree/master/src), if you locate src/code/list.lisp, you should find the definition you're looking for; reproducing here:
(defun nth (n list)
"Return the nth object in a list where the car is the zero-th element."
(declare (explicit-check)
(optimize speed))
(typecase n
((and fixnum unsigned-byte)
(block nil
(let ((i n)
(result list))
(tagbody
loop
(the list result)
(if (plusp i)
(psetq i (1- i)
result (cdr result))
(return (car result)))
(go loop)))))
(t
(car (nthcdr n list)))))
When such information is available, it should be accessible via function-lambda-expression :
* (FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION #'nth)
(LAMBDA (SB-IMPL::N LIST)
(DECLARE (SB-INT:EXPLICIT-CHECK)
(OPTIMIZE SPEED))
(BLOCK NTH
(TYPECASE SB-IMPL::N
((AND FIXNUM UNSIGNED-BYTE)
(BLOCK NIL
(LET ((SB-IMPL::I SB-IMPL::N) (SB-IMPL::RESULT LIST))
(TAGBODY
LOOP
(THE LIST SB-IMPL::RESULT)
(IF (PLUSP SB-IMPL::I)
(PSETQ SB-IMPL::I (1- SB-IMPL::I)
SB-IMPL::RESULT (CDR SB-IMPL::RESULT))
(RETURN (CAR SB-IMPL::RESULT)))
(GO LOOP)))))
(T (CAR (NTHCDR SB-IMPL::N LIST))))))
NIL
NTH
However, it is not always available, in which case you would have to go to the SBCL source code repository.
Say, I have the following:
(declaim (inline fun-1 fun-2))
(defun fun-1 (a)
a)
(define-compiler-macro fun-1 (&whole form a &environment env)
(print (introspect-environment:variable-type a env))
form)
(defun fun-2 (a)
(declare (type number a))
(fun-1 a))
(define-compiler-macro fun-2 (&whole form a &environment env)
(print (introspect-environment:variable-type a env))
form)
Then, on compiling (fun-2 a) form, the additional type information gets lost.
CL-USER> (compile nil `(lambda (a)
(declare (type fixnum a))
(fun-2 a)))
FIXNUM
NUMBER
#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (A)) {52E6BBDB}>
NIL
NIL
Is there a way to preserve that a is fixnum without using compiler-macros?
*The 'portable' in the title is because, SBCL does infer that a is a fixnum even inside fun-1 in its later stages of compilation; I wanted a portable-to-other-implementations method of doing it using cltl2.
**The compiler macros here are only for demonstration purposes. My original use case involved having a compiler macro for fun-1 but not for fun-2. And indeed, this can be achieved using compiler-macros; I wanted to know if there is a way to do it without them.
I thought I would be able to find this through Google, SO, or the books I'm reading, but it is proving elusive.
In the implementation I'm learning with, I can do the following at the top-level:
(defvar *foo* 4)
(set 'bar 3)
If I then call (describe '*foo*) and (describe 'bar), I get a description saying that *foo* is special and bar is non-special (among other details).
Is there a function that takes a symbol variable as an argument and returns true or false if it is special? If so, is describe probably implemented in part by calling it?
Context: I'm learning Common Lisp, but at work I have a system with a dialect of Lisp similar to Common Lisp, but the describe function is unimplemented. There's sort of an XY thing going on here, but I'm also trying to grok Lisp and CL.
Many Common Lisp implementations provide the function variable-information in some system dependent package.
Here in SBCL:
* (require :sb-cltl2)
NIL
* (sb-cltl2:variable-information '*standard-output*)
:SPECIAL
NIL
((TYPE . STREAM))
This function was proposed as part of some other functionality to be included into ANSI CL, but didn't make it into the standard. Still many implementations have it. For documentation see: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node102.html
A non-special variable's environment will be captured when you create a closure over it:
(let ((x 1))
(let ((f (lambda () x)))
(let ((x 2))
(eql 2 (funcall f)))))
;;=> NIL
A special variable's lexical environment will not:
(defvar *x*) ; *x* is special
(let ((*x* 1))
(let ((f (lambda () *x*)))
(let ((*x* 2))
(eql 2 (funcall f)))))
;;=> T
Using this approach, you could easily define a macro that will expand to code like the previous that will let you determine whether a symbol is globally proclaimed special:
(defmacro specialp (symbol)
(let ((f (gensym "FUNC-")))
`(let ((,symbol 1))
(let ((,f (lambda () ,symbol)))
(let ((,symbol 2))
(eql 2 (funcall ,f)))))))
(specialp x) ;=> NIL
(specialp *x*) ;=> T
Note that this isn't a function, it's a macro. That means that the macro function for specialp is getting called with the symbols X and *X*. This is important, because we have to construct code that uses these symbols. You can't do this with a function, because there'd be no (portable) way to take a symbol and create a lexical environment that has a lexical variable with that name and a lambda function that refers to it.
This also has some risks if you try to use it with certain symbols. For instance, in SBCL, if you try to bind, e.g., *standard-output* to something that isn't a stream or a stream designator, you'll get an error:
CL-USER> (specialp *standard-output*)
; in: SPECIALP *STANDARD-OUTPUT*
; (LET ((*STANDARD-OUTPUT* 1))
; (LET ((#:FUNC-1038 (LAMBDA # *STANDARD-OUTPUT*)))
; (LET ((*STANDARD-OUTPUT* 2))
; (EQL 2 (FUNCALL #:FUNC-1038)))))
;
; caught WARNING:
; Constant 1 conflicts with its asserted type STREAM.
; See also:
; The SBCL Manual, Node "Handling of Types"
;
; compilation unit finished
; caught 1 WARNING condition
Defining globals with set or setq is not supported. There are 2 common ways to define globals:
(defparameter *par* 20) ; notice the earmuffs in the name!
(defvar *var* 30) ; notice the earmuffs in the name!
All global variables are special. Lexically scoped variables (not special) are not possible to get described. E.g.
(let ((x 10))
(describe 'x)) ; ==> X is the symbol X
It describes not the lexical variable but the symbol representation. It really doesn't matter since you probably never need to know in run time since you know this when you're writing if it's a bound lexical variable or global special by conforming to the earmuffs naming convention for global variables.
I believe the only way to get this information at run time* is by either using an extension to CL, as Rainer noted, or to use eval.
(defun specialp (x)
(or (boundp x)
(eval `(let (,x)
(declare (ignorable ,x))
(boundp ',x)))))
(Defect warning: If the variable is unbound but declared to be a type incompatible with nil, this could raise an error. Thanks Joshua for pointing it out in his answer.)
* The macro approach determines which symbol it is checking at macro expansion time, and whether that symbol is lexical or special at compile time. That's fine for checking the status of a variable at the repl. If you wanted to e.g. print all of the special variables exported by a package, though, you would find that to use the macro version you would end up having to use eval at the call site:
(loop for s being the external-symbols of :cl-ppcre
when (eval `(specialp-macro ,s)) do (print s))
Can someone explain why I get different results for the following simple program with sbcl and clisp? Is what I am doing undefined by the language, or is one of the two lisp interpreters wrong?
; Modify the car of the passed-in list
(defun modify (a) (setf (car a) 123))
; Create a list and print car before and after calling modify
(defun testit () (let ((a '(0)))
(print (car a))
(modify a)
(print (car a))))
(testit)
SBCL (version 1.0.51) produces:
0
0
CLISP (version 2.49) produces (what I would expect):
0
123
I agree with Seth's and Vsevolod's comments in that this behavior is due to your modification of literal data. Try using (list 0) instead of '(0). Questions relating to this come up relatively frequently, so I'll quote the HyperSpec here.
3.7.1 Modification of Literal Objects:
The consequences are undefined if literal objects are destructively
modified.
The definition of "literal":
literal adj. (of an object) referenced directly in a program rather
than being computed by the program; that is, appearing as data in a
quote form, or, if the object is a self-evaluating object, appearing
as unquoted data. ``In the form (cons "one" '("two")), the expressions
"one", ("two"), and "two" are literal objects.''
Note that often (in many implementations), if you modify literal values, you'll really modify them in the code itself – writing self modifying code. Your example code will not work as you expect.
Your example code in CCL:
CL-USER> (defun modify (a) (setf (car a) 123))
MODIFY
CL-USER> (defun testit ()
(let ((a '(0)))
(print (car a))
(modify a)
(print (car a))))
TESTIT
CL-USER> (testit)
0
123
123
CL-USER> (testit)
123
123
123
Take a look at the second evaluation of testit, where the let itself really already contains the modified value, thus the first print also yields 123.
Also see: Lisp, cons and (number . number) difference, where I explained this in more detail, or the question linked in Vsevolod's comment above.