Common Lisp newbie here. I am having trouble understanding parameter passing in Lisp functions. For example, imagine the following function definition in Common Lisp (say, SBCL):
(defun foo (x <&-keyword goes here> args)
(let ((v (make-hash-table args)))
(setf (gethash "foo" v) x)
v))
My question is: is there a &-keyword I could specify to pass keyword arguments in foo to make-hash-table in this situation? I already tried &rest as a &-keyword, and it always gives me the following warning:
; caught WARNING:
; The function MAKE-HASH-TABLE is called with odd number of keyword arguments.
I also read about &allow-other-keys as a possible &-keyword, yet don't seem to find how can the other keys be used by make-hash-table within foo. Thus, I'm stumped. Can keyword parameters be passed to internal function calls in Common Lisp? If so, how?
What you are looking for is apply:
(defun foo (x &rest mht-arguments)
(let ((v (apply #'make-hash-table mht-arguments)))
(setf (gethash "foo" v) x)
v))
See also my other answer on how to combine that with &key.
Related
I am learning Common Lisp (SBCL).
I want to create a facility to invoke two (or more) macros with several similar expressions that differ only in some parameters.
I would like to define the base of the expression, then modify it with the parameters I supply. For this a lambda function definition came to mind.
As far as I know, there is no analogue to funcall for macros, so I've also wrapped the macros in lambdas.
I feel like I'm overcomplicating with with all these lambda-s and funcall-s. Is there a more elegant way?
The macros are from an external lib, so I'd prefer not to modify them. (Specifically, the fiveam testing library's finishes and signals.)
Here is a sample code:
(defmacro macro1 (body) ())
(defmacro macro2 (body) ())
(defun check-expr-with-args (do-m func args)
(dolist (arg args)
(format t "~a " arg)
(funcall do-m (lambda () (funcall func arg)))))
(let ((test-expr
#'(lambda (val) (format t "~a" val)))
(cases (list
(list #'(lambda (func) ( macro1 (funcall func)))
(list 1 2 3 4 5))
(list #'(lambda (func) ( macro2 (funcall func)))
(list -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9)))))
(dolist (c cases)
(check-expr-with-args (first c) test-expr (second c))))
Originally I've tried to pass the macro names to my check-expr-with-args function, and the expressions in quoted form, relying on lexical scoping for the parameter insertion. That didn't work out.
I think you can write a wrapper macro that produces code that invokes macro1 (and macro2). For example here I'm defining m1 that takes (i) a test expression and (ii) an expression that is expected to evaluates at runtime to a list of values.
(defmacro m1 (test-expr input-expr)
(let ((arg (gensym)))
`(dolist (,arg ,input-expr)
(macro1 ,test-expr ,arg))))
Both test-expr and input-expr are injected in a dolist expression, which binds a variable named arg. Here arg is a fresh symbol introduced with gensym, to avoid accidentally shadowing a variable or symbol-macro possibly used in test-expr.
For example:
(m1 (some-test-p) (list 1 2 3 4))
The above expands as:
(DOLIST (#:G1909 (LIST 1 2 3 4))
(MACRO1 (SOME-TEST-P) #:G1909))
The resulting expression contains MACRO1, which will also be expanded. But it is now wrapped in an expression that iterates over some list computed at runtime. Here, it is a constant but you could replace it with any other expression.
In conclusion, it is often best to combine macros at the macro level, by expanding your own macros into other ones.
I want to create a facility to invoke two (or more) macros
(defmacro invoke-macros (macro-forms)
`(progn ,#macro-forms))
with several similar expressions that differ only in some parameters.
(defmacro invoke-macros (macro-names &rest macro-arguments)
`(progn ,#(loop for m in macro-names
appending (loop for a in macro-arguments
collecting `(,m ,#a)))))
Check:
[1]> (macroexpand '(invoke-macros (m1 m2) (a b c) (d e f)))
(PROGN (M1 A B C) (M1 D E F) (M2 A B C) (M2 D E F)) ;
T
Of course, this works with any operators, including functions, not only macros; we should call this invoke-operators. Or some better name reflecting that we are creating a cartesian product from operators and argument syntax.
If we need the returned values, we can change progn to list. Or possibly values if the number of combinations isn't expected to be large.
If this had to be a function:
(defun invoke-ops (op-names &rest op-arguments)
(loop for o in op-names
appending (loop for a in op-arguments
collecting (eval `(,o ,#a)))))
Check:
[1]> (invoke-ops '(list +) '(1 2) '(10 20))
((1 2) (10 20) 3 30)
Since invoke-ops is now a function, we have to quote the arguments.
There is no funcall for macros. If you gain access to the expander function of a macro, then there is a funcall, but all it does is perform the code transformation; it won't invoke the macro.
The only ways to invoke the code generated by a macro are: you can eval the code, or you can compile the code and funcall it. The latter approach requires a function, so you place the code into a lambda expression first:
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () ,code-output-by-macro)))
The nil argument of compile is the function name; we are telling compile that we are not dealing with a named function definition. We supply the code in the second argument. In some Common Lisp implementations, there is no evaluator; the eval function does something similar to:
(defun eval (code)
(funcall (compile nil `(lambda () ,code))))
For a course project I got to write a program in lisp.
The program should contain the most important lisp functions, their input and output parameters and maybe optional parameters.
For example: function - first, input - list, output - object (first member of list).
The program should work in 2 different ways:
You give the program the name of a function and it should return the function parameters.
You enter function parameters and if a function with these parameters exists, it should return the name of the function.
My questions:
What would be the right way to approach a task like this in lisp? I think maybe a tree would be a way to handle it? (make a tree with all functions and parameters and then write a program which handles it).
Does anyone have a better idea than that to approach this task? Or some suggestions where / how to start? Or Tutorials containing any info?
At the moment I'm a little lost how to start. Any help you can give would be highly appreciated.
English isn't my first language, so I hope everything is understandable.
Greetings.
First of all take a look to prepare your common lisp development environment. After that I think that you should, investigate:
create functions with defun,
declare types.
and things like that. Ffter that take a look to two common lisp functions:
documentation
describe
Here is a little example:
CL-USER> (defun my-sum (a b) "Add my-sum parameters A and B." (+ a b))
MY-SUM
CL-USER> (my-sum 2 3)
5 (3 bits, #x5, #o5, #b101)
CL-USER> (describe #'my-sum)
#<FUNCTION MY-SUM>
[compiled function]
Lambda-list: (A B)
Derived type: (FUNCTION (T T) (VALUES NUMBER &OPTIONAL))
Documentation:
Add my-sum parameters A and B.
Source form:
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA MY-SUM
(A B)
"Add my-sum parameters A and B."
(BLOCK MY-SUM (+ A B)))
; No values
CL-USER> (documentation 'my-sum 'function)
"Add my-sum parameters A and B."
CL-USER> (defun my-sum (a b) "Add my-sum parameters A and B." (declare (type fixnum a b)) (+ a b))
WARNING: redefining COMMON-LISP-USER::MY-SUM in DEFUN
MY-SUM
CL-USER> (describe #'my-sum)
#<FUNCTION MY-SUM>
[compiled function]
Lambda-list: (A B)
Derived type: (FUNCTION (FIXNUM FIXNUM)
(VALUES
(INTEGER -9223372036854775808 9223372036854775806)
&OPTIONAL))
Documentation:
Add my-sum parameters A and B.
Source form:
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA MY-SUM
(A B)
"Add my-sum parameters A and B."
(DECLARE (TYPE FIXNUM A B))
(BLOCK MY-SUM (+ A B)))
; No values
Finally, one last tip to work with strings from the output of describe:
CL-USER> (with-output-to-string (*standard-output*)
(describe #'my-sum))
"#<FUNCTION MY-SUM>
[compiled function]
Lambda-list: (A B)
Derived type: (FUNCTION (FIXNUM FIXNUM)
(VALUES
(INTEGER -9223372036854775808 9223372036854775806)
&OPTIONAL))
Documentation:
Add my-sum parameters A and B.
Source form:
(SB-INT:NAMED-LAMBDA MY-SUM
(A B)
\"Add my-sum parameters A and B.\"
(DECLARE (TYPE FIXNUM A B))
(BLOCK MY-SUM (+ A B)))
"
At face value, the task seems to be the construction of a simple symbolic database in memory, which is searchable in two ways. Entries in the database are understood to be functions. The "output parameters" can probably be understood as one or more return values. These things are not named in ANSI Lisp. A useful interpretation of the task is to give return values symbolic labels anyway. Moreover, we can perhaps use type symbols for the return values as well as parameters. So for instance, a database entry for the cons function might look like:
(cons (t t) cons) ;; function named cons takes two objects, returns a cons
The type t is the supertype of all types in ANSI Lisp; it means "any value".
A list of such records can be put into some global variable. Then we write a function that is perhaps named get-params-by-name such that:
(get-params-by-name 'cons) -> (t t)
and another one: get-names-by-params:
(get-names-by-params '(t t)) -> (cons)
This function returns all the matching functions, as a list. More than one function could have this signature.
The trick is then finding a good representation of optional and rest parameters. It could just be the same notation that the language uses:
(list (&rest t) list) ;; list takes rest arguments of any type, returns list
Since we are only interested in exact matches, we don't have to actually parse the &rest notation. When the user queries by parameter, their query object will be literally (&rest t), in that same syntax.
The equal function can be used to tell whether two lists of symbols are identical:
(equal '(&rest t) '(&rest t)) -> t
(equal '(t t) '(t t)) -> nil
So the exercise is not difficult: just mapping through lists, looking for matches.
(defun get-name-by-params (database params)
(let ((matching-entries (remove-if-not (lambda (entry)
(equal (second entry) params))
database)))
(mapcar #'first matching-entries))) ;; just the names, please
Here, the function takes the database list as a parameter, instead of referring to a global variable. The overall program into which we integrate this can provide alternative interfaces, but this is our low-level lookup function.
Test:
[1]> (get-name-by-params '((cons (t t) cons) (list (&rest t) list)) '(integer string))
NIL
[3]> (get-name-by-params '((cons (t t) cons) (list (&rest t) list)) '(t t))
(CONS)
[4]> (get-name-by-params '((cons (t t) cons) (list (&rest t) list)) '(&rest t))
(LIST)
I'd get clarification from the instructor whether this is the right interpretation of the vague requirements, before the assignment is due.
Given that this is a course project I'm going to provide an incomplete answer, and leave you to fill in the blanks.
What the program should do
My interpretation of what you're being asked to do is to provide a utility which will
given the name of a function return its argument list (called a 'lambda list' below);
given a lambda list return all the functions with that lambda list.
So, first of all you need to decide whether two lambda lists are the same or not. As an example is (x) the same as (y), as a lambda list? Yes, it is: the names of formal parameters only matter in the implementation of a function and you generally won't know them: both of these lambda lists mean 'function of one argument'.
The interestring thing is optional arguments of various kinds: (a &optional b) is clearly not the same as (a), but is the same as (b &optional c) but is it the same as (a &optional (b 1 bp))? In this code I say that yes, it is the same: default values and present parameters for optional arguments don't alter whether lambda lists are the same. That's because very often these are implementation details of functions.
A package
We'll put it into a package so it's clear what the interface is:
(defpackage :com.stackoverflow.lisp.fdesc-search
(:use :cl)
(:export
#:defun/recorded
#:record-function-description
#:clear-recorded-functions
#:name->lambda-list
#:lambda-list->names))
(in-package :com.stackoverflow.lisp.fdesc-search)
Recording information
So, to start with we need a mechanism of recording information about functions. We'll do this with a macro which is like defun but records information, which I'll call defun/recorded. We want to be able to record information about things even before the program exists & we do this by having defun/recorded stash 'pending' records on a list which, once the program exists, it will pull off and record properly. That lets us use defun/recorded throughout this code.
;;; These define whether there is a recorder, and if not where pending
;;; records should be stashed
;;;
(defvar *function-description-recorder* nil)
(defvar *pending-function-records* '())
(defmacro defun/recorded (name lambda-list &body forms)
"Like DEFUN but record function information."
;; This deals with bootstrapping by, if there is not yet a recording
;; function, stashing pending records in *PENDING-FUNCTION-RECORDS*,
;; which gets replayed into the recorder at the point it becomes
;; available.
`(progn
;; do the DEFUN first, which ensures that the LAMBDA-LIST is OK
(defun ,name ,lambda-list ,#forms)
(if *function-description-recorder*
(progn
(dolist (p (reverse *pending-function-records*))
(funcall *function-description-recorder*
(car p) (cdr p)))
(setf *pending-function-records* '())
(funcall *function-description-recorder*
',name ',lambda-list))
(push (cons ',name ',lambda-list)
*pending-function-records*))
',name))
Matching lambda lists, first steps
Now we want to be able to match lambda lists. Since we're obviously going to store things indexed by lambda list in some kind of tree we only really need to be able to deal with matching elements of them. And (see above) we don't care about things like default values. I've chosen to do this by first of all simplifying lambda lists to remove them and then matching the simplifies elements: there are other approaches.
simplify-lambda-list does the simplification and argument-matches-p tells you if two arguments match: the interesting bit is that it needs to know about lambda list keywords, which must match exactly, while everything else matches anything. The lambda-list-keywords constant is conveniently provided by the CL standard.
(defun/recorded simplify-lambda-list (ll)
;; Simplify a lambda list by replacing optional arguments with inits
;; by their names. This does not validate the list
(loop for a in ll
collect (etypecase a
(symbol a)
(list (first a)))))
(defun/recorded argument-matches-p (argument prototype)
;; Does an argument match a prototype.
(unless (symbolp argument)
(error "argument ~S isn't a symbol" argument))
(unless (symbolp prototype)
(error "prototype ~S isn't a symbol" prototype))
(if (find-if (lambda (k)
(or (eq argument k) (eq prototype k)))
lambda-list-keywords)
(eq argument prototype)
t))
Function descriptions (partial)
Information about functions is stored in objects called fdescs: the definition of these objects is not given here, but one question we need to answer is 'do two fdescs refer to versions of the same function?' Well, they do if the names of the functions are the same. Remember that function names do not have to be symbols ((defun (setf x) (...) ...) is allowed), so we must compare with equal not eql:
(defun/recorded fdescs-equivalent-p (fd1 fd2)
;; do FD1 & FD2 refer to the same function?
(equal (fdesc-name fd1)
(fdesc-name fd2)))
Storing fdescs indexed by lambda list (partial)
To index things efficiently by lambda list we build a tree. The nodes in this tree are called lambda-list-tree-nodes and their definition is not given here.
There are functions which intern a fdesc in a tree, and which return a list of fdescs indexed by a given lambda list. Neither have an implementation here, but this is what they look like:
(defun/recorded intern-lambda-list (lambda-list tree-node fdesc)
;; return the node where it was interned
...)
(defun/recorded lambda-list-fdescs (lambda-list tree-node)
;; Return a list of fdescs for a lambda list & T if there were any
;; or NIL & NIL if there were not (I don't think () & T is possible,
;; but it might be in some future version)
...)
The implementation of these functions will probably need to use use argument-matches-p and fdescs-equivalent-p.
The top-level databases (slightly partial)
Now we can define the top-level database objects: the root of the tree for indexing by lambda list, and a hashtable for indexing by name
(defvar *lambda-list-tree* (make-lambda-list-tree-node))
(defvar *tree-nodes-by-name* (make-hash-table :test #'equal))
Note that *tree-nodes-by-name* maps from names to the node where the information about that function is stored: that's done to make redefinition easier, as seen in the following function:
(defun/recorded record-function-description (name lambda-list)
"Record information about a function called NAME with lambda list LAMBDA-LIST.
Replace any existing information abot NAME. Return NAME."
(let ((fdesc (make-fdesc :name name :lambda-list lambda-list)))
;; First of all remove any existing information
(multiple-value-bind (node foundp) (gethash name *tree-nodes-by-name*)
(when foundp
(setf (lambda-list-tree-node-values node)
(delete fdesc (lambda-list-tree-node-values node)
:test #'fdescs-equivalent-p))))
(setf (gethash name *tree-nodes-by-name*)
(intern-lambda-list lambda-list *lambda-list-tree* fdesc)))
name)
Note that this function first of all looks up any existing information for name, and if it exists it removes it from the node where it was found. This makes sure that function redefinition does not leave obsolete information in the tree.
This function is the actual recorder which defun/recorded wants to know about, so tell it that:
(setf *function-description-recorder*
#'record-function-description)
Now the next time we invoke defun/recorded it will bootstrap the system by inserting all the the pending definitions.
record-function-description is part of the API to the package: it can be used to record information about functions we don't define.
User-interface functions
Apart from defun/recorded & record-function-description we want some functions which let us make enquiries into the database, as well as one which resets things:
(defun/recorded clear-recorded-functions ()
"Clear function description records. Return no values"
(setf *lambda-list-tree* (make-lambda-list-tree-node)
*tree-nodes-by-name* (make-hash-table :test #'equal))
(values))
(defun/recorded name->lambda-list (name)
"Look up a function by name.
Return either its lambda list & T if it is found, or NIL & NIL if not."
(multiple-value-bind (node foundp) (gethash name *tree-nodes-by-name*)
(if foundp
(values
(fdesc-lambda-list
(find-if (lambda (fd)
(equal (fdesc-name fd) name))
(lambda-list-tree-node-values node)))
t)
(values nil nil))))
(defun/recorded lambda-list->names (lambda-list)
"find function names matching a lambda-list.
Return a list of name & T if there are any, or NIL & NIL if none.
Note that lambda lists are matched so that argument names do not match, and arguments with default values or presentp parameters match just on the argument."
(multiple-value-bind (fdescs foundp) (lambda-list-fdescs lambda-list
*lambda-list-tree*)
(if foundp
(values (mapcar #'fdesc-name fdescs) t)
(values nil nil))))
And that's it.
Examples
After compiling, loading & using the package (with the missing bits added) we can first inject some useful extra functions into it (this is just a random scattering)
> (dolist (x '(car cdr null))
(record-function-description x '(thing)))
nil
> (dolist (x '(car cdr))
(record-function-description `(setf ,x) '(new thing)))
nil
> (record-function-description 'cons '(car cdr))
cons
> (record-function-description 'list '(&rest args))
Now we can make some enquiries:
> (lambda-list->names '(x))
(null cdr
car
lambda-list->names
name->lambda-list
com.stackoverflow.lisp.fdesc-search::simplify-lambda-list)
t
> (lambda-list->names '(&rest anything))
(list)
t
> (name->lambda-list 'cons)
(car cdr)
t
An example of storing things in trees
Below is some code which demonstrates one approach to storing information in trees (often known as tries). This is not usable above for a lot of reasons, but reading it might help implement the missing parts.
;;;; Storing things in trees of nodes
;;;
;;; Node protocol
;;;
;;; Nodes have values which may or may not be bound, and which may be
;;; assigned. Things may be interned in (trees of) nodes with a
;;; value, and the value associated with a thing may be retrieved
;;; along with an indicator as to whether it is present in the tree
;;; under the root.
;;;
(defgeneric node-value (node)
;; the immediate value of a node
)
(defgeneric (setf node-value) (new node)
;; Set the immediate value of a node
)
(defgeneric node-value-boundp (node)
;; Is a node's value bound?
)
(defgeneric intern-thing (root thing value)
;; intern a thing in a root, returning the value
(:method :around (root thing value)
;; Lazy: this arround method just makes sure that primary methods
;; don't need to beother returning the value
(call-next-method)
value))
(defgeneric thing-value (root thing)
;; return two values: the value of THING in ROOT and T if is it present, or
;; NIL & NIL if not
)
;;; Implementatation for STRING-TRIE-NODEs, which store strings
;;;
;;; The performance of these will be bad if large numbers of strings
;;; with characters from a large alphabet are stored: how might you
;;; fix this without making the nodes enormous?
;;;
(defclass string-trie-node ()
;; a node in a string trie. This is conceptually some kind of
;; special case of an abstract 'node' class, but that doesn't
;; actually exist.
((children-map :accessor string-trie-node-children-map
:initform '())
(value :accessor node-value)))
(defmethod node-value-boundp ((node string-trie-node))
(slot-boundp node 'value))
(defmethod intern-thing ((root string-trie-node) (thing string) value)
;; intern a string into a STRING-TRIE-NODE, storing VALUE
(let ((pmax (length thing)))
(labels ((intern-loop (node p)
(if (= p pmax)
(setf (node-value node) value)
(let ((next-maybe (assoc (char thing p)
(string-trie-node-children-map node)
:test #'char=)))
(if next-maybe
(intern-loop (cdr next-maybe) (1+ p))
(let ((next (cons (char thing p)
(make-instance (class-of node)))))
(push next (string-trie-node-children-map node))
(intern-loop (cdr next) (1+ p))))))))
(intern-loop root 0))))
(defmethod thing-value ((root string-trie-node) (thing string))
;; Return the value associated with a string in a node & T or NIL &
;; NIL if there is no value for this string
(let ((pmax (length thing)))
(labels ((value-loop (node p)
(if (= p pmax)
(if (node-value-boundp node)
(values (node-value node) t)
(values nil nil))
(let ((next (assoc (char thing p)
(string-trie-node-children-map node)
:test #'char=)))
(if next
(value-loop (cdr next) (1+ p))
(values nil nil))))))
(value-loop root 0))))
;;; Draw node trees in LW
;;;
#+LispWorks
(defgeneric graph-node-tree (node))
(:method ((node string-trie-node))
(capi:contain
(make-instance 'capi:graph-pane
:roots `((nil . ,node))
:children-function (lambda (e)
(string-trie-node-children-map (cdr e)))
:edge-pane-function (lambda (pane parent child)
(declare (ignore pane parent))
(make-instance
'capi:labelled-line-pinboard-object
:text (format nil "~A" (car child))))
:print-function (lambda (n)
(let ((node (cdr n)))
(format nil "~A"
(if (node-value-boundp node)
(node-value node)
""))))))))
I am trying to identify a safe way to check whether an object is a function (named or anonymous).
As functionp or fboundp do not work as I expected giving errors, I am trying with:
(defun function-check (x)
(and (boundp 'x)
(if (symbolp x) (fboundp x)
(functionp x))))
Apparently it works with several types of objects:
(setq lfun (lambda () "hello"))
(function-check lfun) ; -> t
(setq nfun 'buffer-name)
(function-check nfun) ; -> t
(setq slfun '(lambda () "hello"))
(function-check slfun) ; -> t
(function-check 'not-bound) ; -> safe nil
Anyway, looking at my code it seems too verbose and convoluted for such a simple task.
Is it possible to make it better?
Update:
As asked, I clarify what I mean with "functionp, fboundp do now work as I expected".
Say we want to detect a valid hook. This does not work:
(setq var 'buffer-name)
(functionp 'var) ;nil
(fboundp 'var) ;nil
We need to use:
(functionp var) ;t
(fboundp var) ;t
While this works, we need to make sure that var is not void, otherwise we get errors:
(functionp void-var) ;Lisp-error
(fboundp void-var) ;Lisp-error
Depending on the situations, this implies adding extra control code, compiling the code, etc.
A valid hook can be any callable object: macros, functions, lambdas are valid hooks. Anyway functionp does not work with macros:
(defmacro mac () "hello")
(functionp 'mac) ;nil
While fbound does not work with lambda expressions:
(functionp '(lambda () t)) ;t
(functionp (lambda () t)) ;t
(fboundp '(lambda () t)) ;Lisp error
(fboundp (lambda () t)) ;Lisp error
This happens also if assigning the expression to a variable:
(setq var '(lambda () t))
(functionp var) ;t
(fboundp var) ;Lisp error
which might require testing if var is a symbol.
As I understand, there is no straight way to test an object is callable, hence my attempt.
The (boundp 'x) check is a bit tautological here. If you're compiling your code with dynamic binding, (boundp 'x) will always be t, since x is bound when entering the function. If you're compiling your code with lexical binding, (boundp 'x) will probably be nil, unless you somehow create a "global" variable called x. In neither case will the result depend on the argument you pass to the function.
So I think you just need this:
(defun function-check (x)
(if (symbolp x)
(fboundp x)
(functionp x)))
That is, check that x is either a symbol that has a function binding, or a lambda function.
I found an interesting example of a function predicate used in the AUCTeX package.
(defun TeX-function-p (arg)
"Return non-nil if ARG is callable as a function."
(or (and (fboundp 'byte-code-function-p)
(byte-code-function-p arg))
(and (listp arg)
(eq (car arg) 'lambda))
(and (symbolp arg)
(fboundp arg))))
This test is used in AUCTeX before calling the (component of) TeX commands obtained by parsing the alist TeX-expand-list.
If an expansion found in the alist is a function, then it is called with:
(apply expansion arguments)
TeX-function-p is thorough, as TeX-expand-list is huge and customisable, and expansions might also result in objects which are not symbols or symbols which are not bound.
This function answers my question in that it shows that functionp might not always be sufficient to test for a callable object.
I'm new to macros and struggling with a requirement in a macro of JSON-RPC.
It is asking for a type and I don't know how to enter it correctly.
(defmacro defun-json-rpc (name type lambda-list &body body)
"Defines a function and registers it as a json-rpc target."
(unless (json-rpc-encoding-p type)
(error "New version of defun-json-rpc requires a TYPE argument"))
`(progn
(defun ,name ,lambda-list ,#body)
(export-as-json-rpc ',name (lisp-to-camel-case (symbol-name ',name)) ,type)))
A piece of sample code I found follows, but it does not contain the type argument:
(json-rpc:defun-json-rpc add (x y)
(+ x y))
How would I enter the type?
Found it. It is a JSON-RPC specific keyword, not a lisp type. I just needed to look at json-rpc-encoding-p to see that only 3 keywords are valid.
(defgeneric json-rpc-encoding-p (keyword)
(:documentation "Is KEYWORD a valid JSON-RPC value encoding?")
(:method (keyword)
"Default is no."
(declare (ignore keyword))
nil)
;;; built-in methods
(:method ((keyword (eql :guessing)))
t)
(:method ((keyword (eql :streaming)))
t)
(:method ((keyword (eql :explicit)))
t))
I'm trying to learn Lisp but I got stuck by this example (you can find it on "ANSI Common Lisp", by Paul Graham, page 170):
(defmacro in (obj &rest choices)
(let ((insym (gensym)))
`(let ((,insym ,obj))
(or ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (c) `(eql ,insym ,c))
choices)))))
Graham then states:
The second macro [...] in returns true if its first argument is eql to any of the other arguments. The Expression that we can write as:
(in (car expr) '+ '- '*)
we would otherwise have to write as
(let ((op (car expr)))
(or (eql op '+)
(eql op '-)
(eql op '*)))
Why I should write a macro when the following function I wrote seems to behave in the same way?
(defun in-func (obj &rest choices)
(dolist (x choices)
(if (eql obj x)
(return t))))
I do not understand if I am missing something or, in this case, in-func is equivalent to in.
The difference in using the macro vs function is in whether all the choices always are evaluated.
The expanded in macro evaluates the choices sequentially. If it reaches a choice that is eql to the first argument, it returns a true value without evaluating any more
forms.
In contrast, the in-func function will evaluate all the choices at the time the function is called.
The two other answers are correct, but to make things more concrete, consider this interaction:
CL-USER(1): (defmacro in ...)
IN
CL-USER(2): (defun in-func ...)
IN-FUNC
CL-USER(3): (defvar *count* 0)
*COUNT*
CL-USER(4): (defun next () (incf *count*))
NEXT
CL-USER(5): (in 2 1 2 3 (next))
T
CL-USER(6): *count*
0
CL-USER(7): (in-func 2 1 2 3 (next))
T
CL-USER(8): *count*
1