Hi I am doing a condition which I just want to call a method if the condition is true, the problem is I cannot find the syntax how to create a method in C-Lisp I am new with this language here's the code.
/* I want to create a method here which i can all anytime in my condition but I am having problem with a syntax
(void method()
(print "Invalid")
)
*/
(print "Enter number")
(setq number(read())
(cond((< 1 number) (print "Okay"))
((> 1 number) /*I want to call a method here (the invalid one)*/ )
)
To create a function in common lisp you can use the defun operator:
(defun signal-error (msg)
(error msg))
Now you can call it like so:
(signal-error "This message will be signalled as the error message")
Then you can insert it in your code like this:
(print "Enter number")
(setq number (read)) ;; <- note that you made a syntax error here.
(cond ((< 1 number) (print "Okay"))
((> 1 number) (signal-error "Number is smaller than 1."))))
In your question you are asking about a method. Methods operate on classes. For example imagine you have two classes human and dog:
(defclass human () ())
(defclass dog () ())
To create a method specific for each class you use defmethod:
(defmethod greet ((thing human))
(print "Hi human!"))
(defmethod greet ((thing dog))
(print "Wolf-wolf dog!"))
Let's create two instances for each class:
(defparameter Anna (make-instance 'human))
(defparameter Rex (make-instance 'dog))
Now we can greet each living being with the same method:
(greet Anna) ;; => "Hi human"
(greet Rex) ;; => "Wolf-wolf dog!"
The process of common lisp knowing which method to execute is called "Dynamic dispatch". Basically it matches the given argument's classes to the defmethod definitions.
But I have no idea why you need methods in your code example.
Here is how I would write the code if I was you:
;; Let's wrap the code in a function so we can call it
;; as much as we want
(defun get-number-from-user ()
(print "Enter number: ")
;; wrapping the number in a lexical scope is a good
;; programming style. The number variable is not
;; needed outside the function.
(let ((number (read)))
;; Here we check if the number satisfies our condition and
;; call this function again if not.
(cond ((< number 1) (print "Number is less than 1")
(get-number-from-user))
((> number 1) (print "Ok.")))))
I would suggest you read "The Land of Lisp". It is great book for beginners.
Related
I want some reader macros to print as as shortened expression that the macro understands. Lets say I want to extend the #' macro to take #'~[rest-of-symbol] and turn that into (complement #'rest-of-symbol).
What controls how that is printed? On SBCL, for instance, '(function +) prints as #'+. How do i make '(complement #'listp) print as #~listp?
My first thought was
(defmethod print-object :around ((obj cons) stream)
;; if #'~fn-name / (complement (function fn-name))
;; => fn-name otherwise NIL
(let ((fn-name
(ignore-errors
(destructuring-bind (complement (function fn-name))
obj
(when (and (eq complement 'complement)
(eq function 'function))
fn-name)))))
(if fn-name
(format stream "#'~~~S" fn-name)
(call-next-method))))
This works insofar as (print-object '(complement #'evenp) *standard-output*) prints it the way I want, but the REPL doesn't. Also (print-object '#'+ *standard-output*) prints it as (function +) so the REPL isn't using print-object. With defining the print-object method for user defined classes the REPL always picks up on the new definition.
This is my first post and I'm sorry I can't get the code to format properly. If someone can put a link on how to do that I would appreciate it.
Evaluation time
You are mixing code with data in your example:
(function +)
Is a special form that evaluates to a function object, which admits a shorter syntax:
#'+
But when you are writing:
'(function +)
or
'(complement fn)
Then in both cases you are writing quoted, literal lists, which evaluates to themselves (namely a list starting with symbol function or complement, followed respectively by symbol + and fn).
However, you want the code to be evaluated at runtime to actual function objects; if you type this in the REPL:
(complement #'alpha-char-p)
The result is a value that is printed as follows:
#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (&REST SB-IMPL::ARGUMENTS) :IN COMPLEMENT) {101AAC8D9B}>
You have an actual function object that you can funcall. In other words, by the time you reach print-object, you no longer have access to source code, you are manipulating data at runtime which happens to be functions. So you cannot use destructuring-bind to get the complement symbol that was present in the source code.
What you need to do instead is to attach metadata to your function. There is a way to do that in Common Lisp by defining a new type of function, thanks to the Meta-Object Protocol.
Funcallable objects
I'm relying on Closer-MOP for all the symbols prefixed with c2cl: below. I define a new class of functions, annotated-fn, which is a function with addditional data:
(defclass annotated-fn (c2cl:funcallable-standard-object)
((data :initform :data :initarg :data :reader annotated-fn-data))
(:metaclass c2cl:funcallable-standard-class))
Notice that this class is a funcallable-standard-object (like the usual functions), and its metaclass is funcallable-standard-class. Such an object has an additional implicit slot that is a function to call.
More precisely, you have to call c2cl:set-funcallable-instance-function to set a function associated with the object, and when later you use funcall or apply with the object, then the wrapped function is called instead. So you can transparently use this class of functions wherever you usually use a function. It just has additional slots (here data).
For example, here is how I instantiate it, with a function to wrap additional data:
(defun annotate-fn (function data)
(let ((object (make-instance 'annotated-fn :data data)))
(prog1 object
(c2cl:set-funcallable-instance-function object function))))
Let's try it:
(describe
(annotate-fn (constantly 3)
'(:category :constantly)))
#<ANNOTATED-FN {1006275C7B}>
[funcallable-instance]
Lambda-list: UNKNOWN
Derived type: FUNCTION
Documentation:
T
Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;FUNUTILS.LISP
Slots with :INSTANCE allocation:
DATA = (:CATEGORY :CONSTANTLY)
You can also use this object like any other function.
Now, your reader macros can expand into calls to annotate-fn, and add any kind of additional metadata you need to the function.
Reader macro
For our example, imagine you define a reader macros for constant functions:
(set-macro-character #\[ 'read-constantly t)
(set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
(defun read-constantly (stream char)
(declare (ignore char))
(let* ((list (read-delimited-list #\] stream t))
(value (if (rest list) list (first list)))
(var (gensym)))
`(let ((,var ,value))
(annotate-fn (constantly ,var)
(list :category :constantly
:constant ,var)))))
Using this syntax:
> [(+ 8 5)]
=> #<ANNOTATED-FN ...>
By the way, the syntax I defined also allows the following:
> [+ 8 5]
Pretty-printing
Let's define a generic function that prints an annotated function given its :category field:
(defgeneric print-for-category (category data object stream))
(defmethod print-object ((o annotated-fn) s)
(let* ((data (annotated-fn-data o))
(category (getf data :category)))
(print-for-category category data o s)))
Then, we can specialize it for :constantly, and here we assume also that the data associated with the function contains a :constant field:
(defmethod print-for-category ((_ (eql :constantly)) data o s)
(format s "[~s]" (getf data :constant)))
For example:
(let ((value (+ 8 6)))
(annotate-fn (constantly value)
`(:constant ,value
:category :constantly)))
This above is printed as:
[14]
Which would be the same as your hypothetical reader macro.
To do this you need to understand the pretty printer. I have understood it in the past but no longer do completely. It dispatches on type and the trick for things like this is that you can specify very specific types for trees of conses, although doing so is verbose.
Here is an example which is almost certainly not completely correct, but does achieve what you want in this case:
(defparameter *ppd* (copy-pprint-dispatch))
(defun pprint-complement-function (s form)
;; This is the thing that the pretty printer will call. It can
;; assume that the form it wants to print is already correct.
(destructuring-bind (complement (function name)) form
(declare (ignore complement function))
(format s "#'~~~W" name)))
;;; Now set this in the table with a suitable hairy type specification
;;;
(set-pprint-dispatch '(cons (eql complement)
(cons (cons (eql function)
(cons t null))
null))
'pprint-complement-function
0
*ppd*)
And now
> (let ((*print-pprint-dispatch* *ppd*))
(pprint '(complement (function foo)))
(pprint '((complement (function foo)) (function foo))))
#'~foo
(#'~foo #'foo)
You can make the awful nested cons type specifier easier by defining this (which, perhaps, should be the compound type specifier for list except you can't do that):
(deftype list-of-types (&rest types)
(labels ((lot (tt)
(if (null tt)
'null
`(cons ,(first tt) ,(lot (rest tt))))))
(lot types)))
And then
(set-pprint-dispatch '(list-of-types (eql complement)
(list-of-types (eql function)
*))
'pprint-complement-function
0
*ppd*)
is perhaps easier to read.
I am working through the MP3 database example in Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp. Seibel demonstrates how macros can be used to shorten the code for the where function; so now, I am trying to use a macro to shorten the code for the update function. (The original version of the update function is included for reference.) When I run my code, the following error originates from the second-to-last line --
*** - CAR: TERMS is not a list
What am I doing wrong? Here is my code.
(defvar *db* nil)
(defun add-record (cd)
(push cd *db*))
(defun dump-db ()
(dolist (cd *db*)
(format t "~{~a:~10t~a~%~}~%" cd)))
(defun make-cd (title artist rating ripped)
(list :title title :artist artist :rating rating :ripped ripped))
(defun prompt-read (prompt)
(format *query-io* "~a: " prompt)
(force-output *query-io*)
(read-line *query-io*))
(defun prompt-for-cd ()
(make-cd
(prompt-read "Title")
(prompt-read "Artist")
(or (parse-integer (prompt-read "Rating") :junk-allowed t) 0)
(y-or-n-p "Ripped [y/n]: ")))
(defun add-cds ()
(loop (add-record (prompt-for-cd) )
(if (not (y-or-n-p "Another? [y/n]: ")) (return) )))
(defun save-db (filename)
(with-open-file (out filename
:direction :output
:if-exists :supersede)
(with-standard-io-syntax
(print *db* out))))
(defun load-db (filename)
(with-open-file (in filename)
(with-standard-io-syntax
(setf *db* (read in) ))))
(defun select (selector-fn)
(remove-if-not selector-fn *db*))
(defun make-comparison-expr (field value)
`(equal (getf cd ,field) ,value))
(defun make-comparison-list (func fields)
(loop while fields
collecting (funcall func (pop fields) (pop fields))))
(defmacro where (&rest clauses)
`#'(lambda (cd) (and ,#(make-comparison-list 'make-comparison-expr clauses))))
(defun make-update-expr (field value)
`(setf (getf row ,field) ,value))
(defmacro make-update-list (fields)
(make-comparison-list 'make-update-expr fields))
(defun update (selector-fn &rest terms)
(print (type-of terms))
(setf *db*
(mapcar
#'(lambda (row)
(when (funcall selector-fn row)
(make-update-list terms))
row)
*db*)))
;(defun update (selector-fn &key title artist rating (ripped nil ripped-p))
; (setf *db*
; (mapcar
; #'(lambda (row)
; (when (funcall selector-fn row)
; (if title (setf (getf row :title) title) )
; (if artist (setf (getf row :artist) artist) )
; (if rating (setf (getf row :rating) rating) )
; (if ripped-p (setf (getf row :ripped) ripped) ))
; row)
; *db*)))
(defun delete-rows (selector-fn)
(setf *db* (remove-if selector-fn *db*)))
;(loop (print (eval (read))))
(add-record (make-cd "Be" "Common" 9 nil))
(add-record (make-cd "Like Water for Chocolate" "Common" 9 nil))
(add-record (make-cd "Be" "Beatles" 9 nil))
(dump-db)
(update (where :artist "Common" :title "Be") :rating 8)
(dump-db)
-----Edit-----
I figured it out. The solution was to make update a macro and to make make-update-list a function. This way, make-update-list could evaluate fields at run-time and update can still abstract away some tedious if statements. Here is the updated update and make-update-list below:
(defun make-update-list (fields)
(make-comparison-list 'make-update-expr fields))
(defmacro update (selector-fn &rest terms)
`(setf *db*
(mapcar
#'(lambda (row)
(when (funcall ,selector-fn row)
,#(make-update-list terms))
row)
*db*)))
Macroexpansion of that make-update-list is done in a separate phase (called "macroexpansion phase") - which occurs around the time a piece of code is compiled or loaded; in this case we're talking about compilation / loading of update. The macro gets expanded with fields bound to the symbol terms, which (the symbol itself) is used as a value in make-comparison-list; I suppose that was not what you expected.
Note, if you go and compile the file line-by-line (C-c C-c in Emacs + SLIME), it'll tell you right during compilation of update that the macro expansion fails because "the value TERMS is not of type LIST".
Generally, think of macros as functions that take in their arguments unevaluated - i.e. a form (make-update-list foo) will get expanded with the macro parameter's fields value bound to foo. What you're trying to achieve here - code generation based on run-time values - is a bit more difficult to do.
You are trying to take the car of a symbol!
> (car 'terms)
*** - CAR: TERMS is not a list
Think of macros as a function that, when used, replaces the code with the result of the macro function everywhere it's used. At this time variables are just symbols and have no meaning besides that.
When you do (make-update-list terms) it will call the macro function with the argument fields being the symbol you passed, which is terms. Since it's a symbol it cannot be iterated like you are trying. You may iterate it at runtime when it surely is a list, but as a macro it isn't a list until you are passing it a list like (make-update-list (title artist rating ripped)).
If it is dynamic in runtime then your macro needs to expand to code that does most of its magic at runtime. Thus a macro is just a source rewriting service and should not have anything to do with what variable might be at runtime since then it has already done its thing.
I am writing a common lisp program and I have a variable that can contain either a string or a function. I want to call the function if it is one and return that as well as the string. How do I test if a variable is a function?
Code so far:
(defun string-or-function (var)
(if (typep var 'simple-array)
var
(if "Function equivalent of typep goes here."
(setf temp (fn-that-does-something))
(string-or-function temp)
Edit: Code that works:
(defun string-or-function (var)
(let ((s-or-f (type-of var)))
(if (equal s-or-f 'function)
(print "function")
(if (equal (car s-or-f) 'simple-array)
(print "string")))))
Is there a better way to do it?
Common Lisp has a predicative type system. The notion that a value has a "principal" type doesn't make as much sense in Lisp. The type-of function is actually fairly infrequently used, as it makes less sense to ask "What is the type of X" and more sense to ask "Is X of type Y". This can be done with typep, or in your case more concisely with typecase, which is just a case statement for types.
(defun string-or-function (var)
(typecase var
(string (format t "string"))
(function (format t "function"))
(t (format t "something else"))))
I want to call the function if it is one and return that as well as the string.
I think you mean something like this:
(defun evaluate (arg)
"Returns something from evaluating ARG in some manner. If ARG is a string,
return it. If ARG is a function, call it with no arguments and return its
return value(s)."
(ctypecase arg
(string arg)
(function (funcall arg))))
If you need extensibility:
(defgeneric evaluate (arg)
(:documentation "Returns something from evaluating ARG in some manner."))
(defmethod evaluate ((arg string))
arg)
(defmethod evaluate ((arg function))
(funcall arg))
Here are some other ways:
(defun string-or-function-p (x)
(typep x '(or string function)))
...but you can probably also use check-type, which is not a predicate but a check which signals a restartable condition in case the value does not satisfy the type specification:
(check-type place (or string function))
If you happen to use this type a lot, define a custom type:
(deftype string-or-fun () '(or string function))
Of course, you can also use generic functions depending on your needs (silly example):
(defgeneric execute (object)
(:method ((s string)) (eval (read-from-string s)))
(:method ((f function)) (funcall f)))
But note that generic function dispatch on classes, not types, which are different things.
(eq (type-of var) 'function)
However, remember that Common Lisp keeps variables and function names in different namespaces, so (var 1 2 3) and (cons var 1) are looking in two different places. You probably cannot call var like (var), but will rather need to use (funcall var), depending on which namespace this is in.
Basically, you probably shouldn't be stuffing a function-or-maybe-a-string into one variable.
[solved]
I have something similar with these four functions: base, init, func and some. The func is recursive and calls itself: in the "stop case" it would call some and return its value, then it should return control back to "init", wherefrom it is invoked; the latter being once called from base.
base
-> init
-> func
-> init
-> func
-> some
|
_________+
|
v
; should continue from here (in `func`)
[not anymore]
Instead, after the first call to some, the control is yielded directly to base, skipping what I would expect to be the intermediate (init,func) pair call(s).
I actually tried several simpler cases using block, return and recursion (e.g., "mutual tail-recursive factorial"), and all worked well. I mention that func uses a test helper function that catch a throw (but I tried even an example with (catch 'test (throw 'test 0)), and it was ok); just so whatever could my real program have something causing the issue.
This is elisp: each defun commences with block, and all functions use return, as in the following.
[I switched from using "defun/block" to "defun*"]
(defmacro 4+ (number)
"Add 4 to NUMBER, where NUMBER is a number."
(list 'setq number (list '1+ (list '1+ (list '1+ (list '1+ number))))))
(defmacro 4- (number)
"Subtract 4 from NUMBER, where NUMBER is a number."
(list 'setq number (list '1- (list '1- (list '1- (list '1- number))))))
(defun mesg (s &optional o)
"Use ATAB to tabulate message S at 4-multiple column; next/prev tab if O=1/0."
(when (null o) (setq o 0))
(case o (0 (4- atab)) (1 nil))
(message (concat "%" (format "%d" (+ atab (length s))) "s") s)
(case o (0 nil) (1 (4+ atab))))
(defun* base ()
(let (pack)
(setq atab 0)
(mesg "base->" 1)
(setq pack (init))
(mesg "<-base")))
(defun* init ()
(mesg "init->" 1)
(return-from init (progn (setq temp (func)) (mesg "<-init") temp)))
(defun* func (&optional pack)
(mesg "func->" 1)
(when (not (null pack)) (return-from func (progn (mesg "<+func") pack)))
(when (< 0 (mod (random) 2)); stop case
(return-from func (progn (setq temp (some)) (mesg "<-func") temp)))
(setq pack (init))
(case (mod (random) 2)
(0 (return-from func (progn (mesg "<0func") pack)))
(1 (return-from func (progn (setq temp (func pack)) (mesg "<1func") temp))) ; use tail-recursion instead of `while'
(t (error "foo bar"))))
(defun* some ()
(mesg "some->" 1)
(return-from some (progn (mesg "<-some") (list 2 3 4))))
(base)
The pack variable is my value-list as data structure. I also use func to reiterate itself (in tail-recursive call) with a special accumulating-parameter so that I avoid "imperative" while.
So instead of what I would expect (each > is paired by <)
base->
init->
func->
init->
func->
some->
<-some
<-func
<-init
func-> ; tail-recursion
<+func
<1func
<-init
<-base
my program behaves as follows.
base
-> init
-> func
-> init
-> func
-> some
|
__________________________+
|
v
; control yielded here (to `base`)
[not anymore]
Why is the control yielded too soon back to the start of the program, and not continue in the first call to func, after return from the second call via init?
Appreciate any help,
Sebastian
Looking at your code, it is not clear to me what's the extent of the block in func. If the block includes the whole func definition, then yes, the control reaches func when returning, but the block is skipped completely, hence the function completely, and comes back all the way up where it was called (eventually base). May be that the case?
If that's so, you have to put the code that you want to execute after a return after the block.
EDIT: Looking again at your code, I think you're not using the return as it should be used. For instance in init you have
(block nil
...
(return (func ...)))
This return "cancels" the block, and takes the same effect as not having the block at all, unless some function called in "..." does have a return without a block. So the return here cancels the possible return points of func.
Thanks both for your answer: inserting into my program those messages I tried as with the code I added for explanations revealed there are no defun* problems with elisp, but some things I mistook in design.
I'm trying to write a simple calculator with addition, subtraction, etc.
My problem is with getting the user input. How do I turn the string of numerical values into a vector? And also what is a better way to write the program?
(ns scalc.core)
(defn add
[numbers]
(println (apply + numbers)))
(defn numchoose
[]
(println "What numbers?: ")
(let [numbers (read-line)] numbers))
(defn opchoose
[]
(println "What operation would you like to do?: ")
(let [operation (read-line)]
(if (= operation "add")
(do
(println "You chose to add.")
(let [numvect (numchoose)]
(add [numvect]))))))
(defn -main
[& args]
(opchoose)
(numchoose))
And this is the error:
~/clj/scalc 1/7 % lein trampoline run -m scalc.core
What operation would you like to do?:
add
You chose to add.
What numbers?:
5 7
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: Cannot cast java.lang.String to java.lang.Number
at java.lang.Class.cast(Class.java:3005)
at clojure.core$cast.invoke(core.clj:318)
at clojure.core$_PLUS_.invoke(core.clj:927)
at clojure.lang.AFn.applyToHelper(AFn.java:161)
at clojure.lang.RestFn.applyTo(RestFn.java:132)
at clojure.core$apply.invoke(core.clj:601)
at scalc.core$add.invoke(core.clj:5)
at scalc.core$opchoose.invoke(core.clj:21)
at scalc.core$_main.doInvoke(core.clj:27)
at clojure.lang.RestFn.invoke(RestFn.java:397)
at clojure.lang.Var.invoke(Var.java:411)
at user$eval15.invoke(NO_SOURCE_FILE:1)
at clojure.lang.Compiler.eval(Compiler.java:6511)
at clojure.lang.Compiler.eval(Compiler.java:6501)
at clojure.lang.Compiler.eval(Compiler.java:6477)
at clojure.core$eval.invoke(core.clj:2797)
at clojure.main$eval_opt.invoke(main.clj:297)
at clojure.main$initialize.invoke(main.clj:316)
at clojure.main$null_opt.invoke(main.clj:349)
at clojure.main$main.doInvoke(main.clj:427)
at clojure.lang.RestFn.invoke(RestFn.java:421)
at clojure.lang.Var.invoke(Var.java:419)
at clojure.lang.AFn.applyToHelper(AFn.java:163)
at clojure.lang.Var.applyTo(Var.java:532)
at clojure.main.main(main.java:37)
EDIT: the solved program now looks like this:
(ns scalc.core)
(defn add [numbers]
(reduce + numbers))
(defn numchoose []
(let [nums (re-seq #"\d+" (read-line))]
(map #(Integer/parseInt %) nums)))
(defn delegate []
(println "What operation would you like to do?: ")
(let [operation (read-line)]
(when (= operation "add")
(println "You chose to add.")
(println "What numbers? ")
(add (numchoose)))))
(defn -main
[& args]
(delegate))
For getting the numbers, you can use re-seq:
(re-seq #"\d+" "123 456 789") => ("123" "456" 789")
You still only have strings rather than numbers though. You can use read-string to get the numbers (read-string is convenient, but not safe in all cases. Here we make sure there are really only numbers in these strings so it's fine).
(read-string "5") => 5
Instead of (apply + numbers) you could use reduce: (reduce + numbers), also your add function really shouldn't print anything (you should try to separate functional functions from side-effecty functions whenever possible).
This (let [numbers (read-line)] numbers) is equal to (read-line). Don't overcomplicate things!
Instead of
(if (= operation "add")
(do ... ))
you can write
(when (= operation "add")
...)
when is just a macro that's useful when you don't need the else case in your ifs (it wraps everything after the condition in a do, and evaluates to nil when the condition evaluates to false).