What is this self reference for?
Could it be written in any other way?
Is there any advantage?
(defmacro sublet (bindings% &rest body)
(let ((bindings (let-binding-transform
bindings%)))
(setq bindings
(mapcar
(lambda (x)
(cons (gensym (symbol-name (car x))) x))
bindings))
`(let (,#(mapcar #'list
(mapcar #'car bindings)
(mapcar #'caddr bindings)))
,#(tree-leaves
body
#1=(member x bindings :key #'cadr)
(caar #1#)))))
It's just a way of reusing structure somewhere else. In the macro you have:
(tree-leaves body
#1=(member x bindings :key #'cadr)
(caar #1#))
Which is just a fancy way of writing:
(tree-leaves body
(member x bindings :key #'cadr)
(caar (member x bindings :key #'cadr)))
On the positive side if you correct a bug in the member form you'll fix it both places, but it's runs the same code twice so if member was expensive this wouldn't be the wise way to do it. However it is a macro, thus run at compile time, and member is fairly fast on mall lists (small == millions of elements or below) so I guess it won't matter if you read the references just as good as any other CL code. An alternative and perhaps more readable for other kind of lispers would be:
(let ((found (member x bindings :key #'cadr)))
(tree-leaves body found (caar found)))
Related
I am trying to use generic functions' ability to specify behaviour based on the first argument of a list.
In other words, I want the list (atypelist 1 2 3) and the list (btypelist 1 2 3) to have their individual behaviour when passed to foo. So far, this is what I came up with:
(deftype atypelist (lst)
`(eq (car ,lst) 'atypelist))
(deftype btypelist (lst)
`(eq (car ,lst) 'btypelist))
(defmethod foo ((lst atypelist))
(format nil "success atypelist: ~S" lst))
(defmethod foo ((lst btypelist))
(format nil "success btypelist: ~S" lst))
However, when I call (typep (list 'atypelist 1 2 3) 'atypelist) I get the following error:
error while parsing arguments to DEFTYPE ATYPELIST:
too few elements in
()
to satisfy lambda list
(LST):
exactly 1 expected, but got 0
I am guessing the error is in my definition of atypelist.
Questions:
Is there a better way to get the functionality I am looking for?
If yes - what is the way?
If not - how to properly define a type on a list/cons that has a particular symbol in the car?
Before I start: what you want to do can't work, and is confused in two ways.
Firstly deftype defines a type in terms of other type specifiers: the body of a deftype form must expand into a type specifier, not an expression, as yours does. And deftype's arguments are not the thing you want to check the type for, they are parts of the type specification.
In this case you want to specify that the thing is a cons, and that its car is eql to something. Fortunately there are specializing type specifiers for both of these things, and you end up with something like this:
(deftype cons-with-specified-car (x)
`(cons (eql ,x) t))
And now
> (typep '(1) '(cons-with-specified-car 1))
t
> (typep '(a) '(cons-with-specified-car a))
t
> (typep '() '(cons-with-specified-car a))
nil
And if you want:
(deftype cons-with-a ()
'(cons-with-specified-car a))
and now
> (typep '(a) 'cons-with-a)
t
Secondly none of this will work because this it not how CLOS works. CLOS dispatches on classes not types, and you have merely defined a type, not a class: your method definitions simply cannot work, since classes cannot be parametrized in this way like types can.
Some ways you might achieve what you want.
If what you want to do is to dispatch on the first element of a list, then the obvious approach, if you want to use CLOS, is to use a two-level approach where you first dispatch on the class of the thing (cons is a class), and then use eql specializers to pick out the things you want.
(defgeneric select (it)
(:method ((it cons))
(select* (car it) it))
(:method (it)
nil))
(defgeneric select* (key it)
(:method (key it)
(format t "~&unknown key ~S in ~S~%" key it)))
(defmethod select* ((key (eql 'a)) it)
(format t "~&~S begins with a~%" it))
However in a case like this, unless you very much want the extensibility that CLOS gets you (which is a good reason to use CLOS here), I'd just use typecase. You could do this using the type defined above:
(defun select (it)
(typecase it
((cons-with-specified-car a)
'(cons a))
(cons
'cons)
(t
nil)))
or, probably simpler, just use what the deftype expands into:
(defun select (it)
(typecase it
((cons (eql a) t)
'(cons a))
(cons
'cons)
(t
nil)))
Finally probably what anyone doing this would actually write (again, assuming you do not want the extensibility CLOS gets you) is:
(defun select (it)
(typecase it
(cons
(case (car it)
...))
(t
...)))
Here is a possible solution, using the type specifier satisfies:
CL-USER> (defun is-atypelist (list)
(eq (car list) 'atypelist))
IS-ATYPELIST
CL-USER> (defun is-btypelist (list)
(eq (car list) 'btypelist))
IS-BTYPELIST
CL-USER> (deftype atypelist ()
`(satisfies is-atypelist))
ATYPELIST
CL-USER> (deftype btypelist ()
`(satisfies is-btypelist))
BTYPELIST
CL-USER> (typep (list 'atypelist 1 2 3) 'atypelist)
T
CL-USER> (typep (list 'atypelist 1 2 3) 'btypelist)
NIL
Note that this does not define a class, but a type, if this is what you need.
Is there a better way to get the functionality I am looking for?
1. Wrap your lists in container types
(defclass lst () ((items :initarg :items :reader items)))
(defclass alst (lst) ())
(defclass blst (lst) ())
It may be a little bit more cumbersome to work with but this is pretty much straightforward and not too suprising.
2. Douple-dispatch
(defgeneric foo (val))
(defgeneric foo/tag (tag val))
For example:
(defmethod foo ((c cons))
(destructuring-bind (tag . list) c
(foo/tag tag list)))
3. Define a custom method combination
It should be possible to hack the meta-object protocol dispatch mechanism to dispatch on the first item of a list. I wouldn't recommend it however.
4. Use a different dispatch mechanism
Use a completely different dispatching mechanism outside of CLOS, like pprint-dispatch does. For example you may want to use trivia or optima pattern-matching libraries, or cl-algebraic-data-type. This may be more useful if you are dealing with trees of symbols.
I have a struct with :name and :value that I'd like to use as arguments to a macro. But I'm not sure how to tell lisp that.
I can write out the call like
(sxql:yield (sxql:set= :name "a" :value 1))
"SET name = ?, value = ?"
("a" 1)
But I'd like to use an already existing structure
(defstruct my-struct name value)
(setq x (make-my-struct :name "a" :value 1))
; #S(MY-STRUCT :NAME "a" :VALUE 1)
using answers from Common LISP: convert (unknown) struct object to plist?
I've made
(defun struct-plist (x)
"make struct X into a property list. ugly kludge"
(let* ((slots (sb-mop:class-slots (class-of x)))
(names (mapcar 'sb-mop:slot-definition-name slots)))
(alexandria:flatten
(mapcar (lambda (n) (list (intern (string n) "KEYWORD")
(slot-value x n)))
names))))
(setq p (struct-plist x)) ; (:NAME "a" :VALUE 1)
My naive attempts are
(sxql:set= p) ; error in FORMAT: No more argument SET ~{~A = ~A~^, ~}
(funcall 'sxql:set= p) ; SXQL:SET= is a macro, not a function.
(macroexpand (sxql:set= p)) ; error in FORMAT ...
I imagine this is an easy/fundamental lisp programming question. But I'm not sure how to ask it (or search for answers). I'm also hoping there is an better struct<->plist story than what I've stumbled across so far.
EDIT: In case this is really an xy-problem. I've used flydata:defmodel to create the struct and I want to insert to a database using the same model.
This is definitely an xy problem: unfortunately I don't understand y (flydata?) well enough to answer the y part.
Here's why what you are trying to do can't work however. Consider this code in a file being compiled:
(defstruct mine name value)
...
(sxql:set= <anything derived from mine>)
Compiling this file must satisfy two constraints:
It does not fully create the structure type mine (see defstruct);
It must macroexpand sxql:set=.
What these constraints mean is that sxql:set= can't know about the structure at the time it is expanded. So any trick which relies on information about the structure must make that information available at compile time.
As I said, I don't understand the y part well enough to understand what you are trying to do, but a hacky approach to this is:
write a wrapper for defstruct which stashes information at compile time (strictly: at macro-expansion time);
write a wrapper for sxql:set= which uses that information to expand into something which makes sense.
Here is a mindless wrapper for defstruct. Note that this is mindless: it can only understand the most simple defstruct forms, and even then it may be wrong. It exists only as an example.
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
(defvar *structure-information* '()))
(defmacro define-mindless-structure (name &body slots)
(assert (and (symbolp name)
(every #'symbolp slots))
(name slots)
"I am too mindless")
(let ((found (or (assoc name *structure-information*)
(car (push (list name) *structure-information*)))))
(setf (cdr found) (mapcar (lambda (slot)
(list slot (intern (symbol-name slot)
(find-package "KEYWORD"))
(intern (concatenate 'string
(symbol-name name)
"-"
(symbol-name slot)))))
slots)))
`(defstruct ,name ,#slots))
So now
(define-mindless-structure mine
name value)
Will expand into (defstruct mine name value) and, at macroexpansion time will stash some information about this structure in *structure-information*.
Now I stop really understanding what you need to do because I don't know what sxql:set= is meant to do, but it might be something like this:
(defmacro mindless-set= ((s o))
(let ((info (assoc s *structure-information*))
(ov (make-symbol "O")))
(unless info
(error "no information for ~A" s))
`(let ((,ov ,o))
(sxql:set= ,#(loop for (slot initarg accessor) in (cdr info)
;; the compiler will whine about slot annoyingly
collect initarg
collect `(,accessor ,ov))))))
So with this macro, assuming a suitable define-mindless-structure for mine form has been seen by the time the macro is expanded, then
(mindless-set= (mine it))
Will expand into
(let ((#:o it))
(set= :name (mine-name #:o) :value (mine-value #:o)))
But, as I said, I am not sure what the expansion you actually want is.
Finally, before even thinking about using anything like the above, it would be worth looking around to see if there are portability libraries which provide compile/macroexpansion-time functionality like this: there very well may be such, as I don't keep up with things.
So I'm attempting to implement a Caesar cipher in LISP recursively, and I've got the basic functionality working. The problem is it returns a list of characters, and calling concatenate 'string on the return statement just returns the same list of characters plus a "". What am I doing wrong here?
(defun caesar (s n)
(if (null (concatenate 'list s))
'()
(cons
(code-char (+ n (char-code (car (concatenate 'list s)))))
(caesar (coerce (cdr (concatenate 'list s)) 'string) n)
)
)
)
The right approach to something like this is to do the conversion between string & list in a wrapper of some kind & then have the main function work on the list.
Here is an approach to doing that which uses some of the power and elegance of CL. This:
uses CLOS methods to do wrapping -- this will presumably make it ineligible for submission as homework, in case that is what it is, but is a good demonstration of how pretty CLOS can be I think, and is also how I would actually write something like this;
uses coerce in the wrapper method rather than concatenate to change types, since that's what it's for;
intentionally does not deal with some of the other problems of the original code around recursion & char-codes.
First of all here is a version which uses two methods: a wrapper method (defined in the generic function definition for convenience) and then the recursive method which does the work:
(defgeneric caesar (text n)
(:method ((text string) n)
;; if we're given a string just turn it into a list, then recurse
;; on the list & turn it back to a string (of the same type, hence
;; TYPE-OF).
(coerce (caesar (coerce text 'list) n) (type-of text))))
(defmethod caesar ((text list) n)
;; The recursive level (note this has various issues which are in
;; the original code & not addressed here
(if (null text)
'()
(cons (code-char (+ n (char-code (first text))))
(caesar (rest text) n))))
Secondly here is a slightly too-clever approach, using a special termination-on-null method. I would not recommend this, but it's a neat demonstration of the kind of thing CLOS can do.
(defgeneric caesar (text n)
(:method ((text string) n)
;; if we're given a string just turn it into a list, then recurse
;; on the list & turn it back to a string (of the same type, hence
;; TYPE-OF).
(coerce (caesar (coerce text 'list) n) (type-of text))))
(defmethod caesar ((text null) n)
;; termination
'())
(defmethod caesar ((text list) n)
;; The recursive level (note this has various issues which are in
;; the original code & not addressed here
(cons (code-char (+ n (char-code (first text))))
(caesar (rest text) n)))
I would be tempted to combine with-output-to-string and labels (for the recursive bit):
(defun caesar (s n)
(with-output-to-string (cipher)
(labels ((beef (s)
(when s
(princ <whatever> cipher)
(beef (rest s)))))
(beef (coerce s 'list)))))
Caveat: the above is thoroughly untested and simply typed into this message, so likely will not even compile. It just makes the suggestions more cncrete.
I've put together the following rudimentary stopwatch in Racket (just learning now, the final aim is a pomodoro-timer).
#lang racket
(define start-time 0)
(define end-times '())
(define (start);; stores start-time
(set! start-time (current-seconds)))
(define (lap);; stores "laps" in list
(set! end-times (cons (current-seconds) end-times)))
(define (stop);; stores final time, displays lap-times in h, m, s and resets end-times
(begin
(set! end-times (cons (current-seconds) end-times))
(display
(reverse
(map (lambda (an-end)
(let ((the-date (seconds->date(- an-end start-time))))
(list
(sub1(date-hour the-date))
;; sub1 is needed because (date-hour(seconds->date 0) = 1
(date-minute the-date)
(date-second the-date)))) end-times)))
(set! end-times '())
))
While this does exactly what it should, I was wondering how I could avoid mutable state. If I follow HTDP, this is the kind of situation where mutable state is warranted, but after browsing Wadler's "Monads for Functional Programming", I'm still curious about how I could do without set!.
I know that to make it functional, I should add arguments to my functions. For instance, start would become
(define (start [now (current-seconds)])
now)
and a similar approach could work with lap and stop.
Still, while I know that after adding additional arguments to restore functionality, I should also pass arguments rather than storing values in variables, I don't see how in this case I can leverage this to avoid set! as well.
Update: Since all three answers below are highly valuable (thanks!), I didn't mark any of them as the unique correct one. Below is the minimal solution to my initial question. It is a combination of the loop-proposal of #Metaxal, with the example-usage of #Greg Hendershott.
#lang racket
(define (run)
(displayln "Enter 'lap' or 'quit':")
(let loop ([t0 (current-seconds)] [times '()])
(match (read-line)
["quit" (reverse
(map (lambda (x)
(let ((the-date (seconds->date x)))
(list
(sub1(date-hour the-date))
(date-minute the-date)
(date-second the-date)))) times))]
["lap" (loop t0 (cons (- (current-seconds) t0) times))]
[_ (loop t0 times)])))
What will likely happen in the following of your program is that you will have a loop.
Then this loop can be a function that takes as input the whole current state, and when you want to update its state, just call the loop again with the new state (you may also call the loop again with the same exact state of course).
Simplified example:
(define (loop [t0 (current-seconds)] [times '()])
;; ... do things here, possibly depending on user input ...
;; then loop with a new state:
(cond [<some-start-condition> (loop (current-seconds) '())]
[<some-lap-condition> (loop t0 (cons (- (current-seconds) t0) times))]
[<some-stop-condition> times])) ; stop, no loop, return value
This certainly changes the approach to your design though.
It's harder to use this approach when designing GUI programs, because the event loop often prevents you from (or makes it difficult) passing values from one event to the next.
However, in Racket, there is (the pedagogical, but still very good) big-bang that is made just for that.
In this case using set! is justified and hard to avoid, because we must "remember" state between invocations of the procedures. What we can do is improving the encapsulation of state, by hiding the variables that change inside a procedure and using a message dispatcher for accessing the procedures that refer to the mutable state. This is very similar to what we do with object-oriented programming, but only lambdas are required to implement it!
(define (make-timer)
; the "attributes" of the object
(let ([start-time 0]
[end-times '()])
; the "methods" of the object
(define (start)
(set! start-time (current-seconds)))
(define (lap)
(set! end-times (append end-times (list (current-seconds)))))
(define (stop)
(lap)
(display
(map (lambda (an-end)
(let ((the-date (seconds->date (- an-end start-time))))
(list
(sub1 (date-hour the-date))
(date-minute the-date)
(date-second the-date))))
end-times))
(set! end-times '()))
; return a dispatch procedure
(lambda (msg)
(case msg
((start) (start)) ; call the start procedure defined above
((lap) (lap)) ; call the lap procedure defined above
((stop) (stop)) ; call the stop procedure defined above
(else (error "unknown message:" msg))))))
I took the liberty of modifying some of your procedures to make them a bit simpler. Here's how we would use the timer object we just created:
(define timer (make-timer))
(timer 'start)
(sleep 1)
(timer 'lap)
(sleep 1)
(timer 'lap)
(sleep 1)
(timer 'lap)
(sleep 1)
(timer 'stop)
=> ((18 0 1) (18 0 2) (18 0 3) (18 0 4))
This technique is called "message passing", learn more about it in the wonderful SICP book.
For a simple example like this, I would probably do what #Metaxal
suggested.
However another approach is that you could explicitly define the state
as a struct:
(struct state (start-time end-times))
Then change the start, lap, and stop to be functions on state:
;; start : -> state
;; stores start-time
(define (start)
(state (current-seconds) '()))
;; lap : state -> state
;; stores "laps" in list
(define (lap st)
(match-define (state start-time end-times) st)
(state start-time
(cons (current-seconds) end-times)))
;; stop : state -> list
;; stores final time, displays lap-times in h, m, s
(define (stop st)
(match-define (state start-time end-times*) st)
(define end-times (cons (current-seconds) end-times*))
(reverse
(map (lambda (an-end)
(let ((the-date (seconds->date(- an-end start-time))))
(list
(sub1(date-hour the-date))
;; sub1 is needed because (date-hour(seconds->date 0) = 1
(date-minute the-date)
(date-second the-date)))) end-times)))
As in #Metaxal's answer, your "main loop" needs to handle the state and "thread" it through the functions as appropriate:
Example usage:
(define (run)
(displayln "Enter 'lap' or 'quit':")
(let loop ([st (start)])
(match (read-line)
["quit" (stop st)]
["lap" (loop (lap st))]
[_ (loop st)])))
Whereas #Óscar López's answer shows a style of OOP as explained in SICP.
A nice thing about Racket (and Scheme) is that you can choose whatever approach on the spectrum you think best fits the problem at hand, and your taste -- simple imperative, OOP imperative, pure functional.
I have a set of functions named "ip", "date", "url" etc.
With these, I want to generate another set of functions "ip-is", "date-is" etc.
I finally have the following solution, thats working fine, but that uses "eval".
(loop for name in '(ip date url code bytes referer user-agent) do
(let ((c-name (intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name name) "-IS"))))
(eval `(defun ,c-name (c)
#'(lambda (l) (equal (,name l) c))))))
Can someone help me, how to get rid of the "evil eval"? It is essential for my program that the function names are provided as a list. So a call to some marcro
(define-predicate ip)
(define-predicate date)
(define-predicate url)
etc.
would not fit my needs. I have no real problem with "eval", but I read very often, that eval is considered bad style and should be avoided if possible.
Thanks in Advance!
You should use a macro here. Macros are evaluated during compile (or load) and can be used to programatically generate a function definition. Your code could be written something like this:
(defmacro define-predicates (&rest names)
`(progn
,#(loop
for name in names
collect (let ((c-sym (gensym))
(l-sym (gensym)))
`(defun ,(intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name name) "-IS")) (,c-sym)
#'(lambda (,l-sym) (equal (,name ,l-sym) ,c-sym)))))))
(define-predicates ip date url)
Note that the symbols are generated using GENSYM in the functions. In this particular case, that's not strictly necessary, but I usually prefer to do it this way just so that there is no chance of having any leaking if I were to refactor the code at a later stage.
If you want to use a function (instead of a macro as in the other answer), you should be using (setf fdefinition):
(loop for name in '(ip date url code bytes referer user-agent) do
(let ((c-name (intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name name) "-IS"))))
(setf (fdefinition c-name)
(lambda (c) (lambda (l) (equal (funcall name l) c))))))