In org-mode, strike M-} which invoke org-forward-element is very handy to jump around.
However, the matching line always stay at the bottom. So I have to manually execute (recenter).
How could add the action (recenter) to org-forward-element?
I tried a decorator solution, but does not work.
(defun add-recenter(func)
(lambda ()
(func)
(recenter)))
(setq org-element-forward (add-recenter org-element-forward))
This seems to work:
(advice-add 'org-forward-element :after (lambda () (recenter)))
I first tried (advice-add 'org-forward-element :after 'recenter), but that didn't work, because if the advice function being added (in this case recenter) is interactive, its interactive spec overrides that of the old function (org-forward-element), which causes an error since recenter generates one argument while org-forward-element takes zero arguments.
The reason your code doesn't work is that in Emacs Lisp variables and functions are in separate namespaces, just like Common Lisp and unlike Scheme. This is sometimes described as "Lisp-2", as opposed to "Lisp-1". See e.g. this article: http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/lisp1_vs_lisp2.html
Basically every symbol has both a "value cell" and a "function cell". setq changes the symbol's value cell, and calling a symbol, like (foo), accesses its function cell. The corresponding Emacs Lisp code would be something like:
(defun add-recenter(func)
(lambda ()
(funcall func)
(recenter)))
(fset 'org-element-forward (add-recenter (symbol-function 'org-element-forward)))
That is essentially what the advice-add call above does.
Related
I am still having some troubles with this concept. The key paragraph in the r7rs standard is:
"Identifiers that appear in the template but are not pattern
variables or the identifier ellipsis are inserted into the output as literal identifiers. If a literal identifier is inserted as a
free identifier then it refers to the binding of that identifier
within whose scope the instance of syntax-rules appears.
If a literal identifier is inserted as a bound identifier then
it is in effect renamed to prevent inadvertent captures of
free identifiers."
By "bound identifier" am I right that it means any argument to a lambda, a top-level define or a syntax definition ie. define-syntax, let-syntax or let-rec-syntax? (I think I could handle internal defines with a trick at compile time converting them to lambdas.)
By "free identifier" does it mean any other identifier that presumably is defined beforehand with a "bound identifier" expression?
I wonder about the output of code like this:
(define x 42)
(define-syntax double syntax-rules ()
((_) ((lambda () (+ x x)))))
(set! x 3)
(double)
Should the result be 84 or 6?
What about this:
(define x 42)
(define-syntax double syntax-rules ()
((_) ((lambda () (+ x x)))))
(define (proc)
(define x 3)
(double))
(proc)
Am I right to suppose that since define-syntax occurs at top-level, all its free references refer to top-level variables that may or may not exist at the point of definition. So to avoid collisions with local variables at the point of use, we should rename the outputted free reference, say append a '%' to the name (and disallow the user to create symbols with % in them). As well as duplicate the reference to the top-level variable, this time with the % added.
If a macro is defined in some form of nested scope (with let-syntax or let-rec-syntax) this is even trickier if it refers to scoped variables. When there is a use of the macro it will have to expand these references to their form at point of definition of the macro rather than point of use. So I'm guessing the best way is expand it naturally and scan the result for lambdas, if it finds one, rename its arguments at point of definition, as the r7rs suggests. But what about references internal to this lambda, should we change these as well? This seems obvious but was not explicitly stated in the standard.
Also I'm still not sure whether it is best to have a separate expansion phase separate from the compiler, or to interweave expanding macros with compiling code.
Thanks, and excuse me if I've missed something obviously, relatively new to this.
Steve
In your first example, properly written:
(define x 42)
(define-syntax double
(syntax-rules ()
( (_) ((lambda () (+ x x))) ) ))
(set! x 3)
(double)
the only possibility is 6 as there is only one variable called x.
In your second example, properly written:
(define x 42)
(define-syntax double
(syntax-rules ()
((_) ((lambda () (+ x x))) )))
(define (proc)
(define x 3)
(double))
(proc)
the hygienic nature of the Scheme macro system prevents capture of the unrelated local x, so the result is 84.
In general, identifiers (like your x) within syntax-rules refer to what they lexically refer to (the global x in your case). And that binding will be preserved because of hygiene. Because of hygiene you do not have to worry about unintended capture.
Thanks, I think I understand... I still wonder how in certain advanced circumstances hygiene is achieved, eg. the following:
(define (myproc x)
(let-syntax ((double (syntax-rules ()
((double) (+ x x)))))
((lambda (x) (double)) 3)))
(myproc 42)
The site comes up with 84 rather than 6. I wonder how this (correct) referential transparency is achieved just by renaming. The transformer output does not bind new variables, yet still when it expands on line 4, we have to find a way to get to the desired x rather than the most recent.
The best way I can think of is simply rename every time a lambda argument or definition shadows another, ie. keep appending %1, %2 etc... macro outputs will have their exact versions named (eg. x%1) while references to identifiers simply have their unadorned name x and the correct variable is found at compile time.
Thanks, I hope for any clarification.
Steve
Is there a way in Chicken Scheme to determine at run-time if a variable is currently defined?
(let ((var 1))
(print (is-defined? var)) ; #t
(print (is-defined? var)) ; #f
EDIT: XY problem.
I'm writing a macro that generates code. This generated code must call the macro in mutual recursion - having the macro simply call itself won't work. When the macro is recursively called, I need it to behave differently than when it is called initially. I would use a nested function, but uh....it's a macro.
Rough example:
(defmacro m (nested)
(if nested
BACKQUOTE(print "is nested")
BACKQUOTE(m #t)
(yes, I know scheme doesn't use defmacro, but I'm coming from Common Lisp. Also I can't seem to put backquotes in here without it all going to hell.)
I don't want the INITIAL call of the macro to take an extra argument that only has meaning when called recursively. I want it to know by some other means.
Can I get the generated code to call a macro that is nested within the first macro and doesn't exist at the call site, maybe? For example, generating code that calls (,other-macro) instead of (macro)?
But that shouldn't work, because a macro isn't a first-class object like a function is...
When you write recursive macros I get the impression that you have an macro expansion (m a b ...) that turns into a (m-helper a (b ...)) that might turn into (let (a ...) (m b ...)). That is not directly recursive since you are turning code into code that just happens to contain a macro.
With destructuring-bind you really only need to keep track of two variables. One for car and one for cdr and with an implicit renaming macro the stuff not coming from the form is renamed and thus hygenic:
(define-syntax destructuring-bind
(ir-macro-transformer
(lambda (form inject compare?)
(define (parse-structure structure expression optional? body)
;;actual magic happens here. Returns list structure with a mix of parts from structure as well as introduced variables and globals
)
(match form
[(structure expression) . body ]
`(let ((tmp ,expression))
,(parse-structure structure 'tmp #f body))))))
To check if something from input is the same symbol you use the supplied compare? procedure. eg. (compare? expression '&optional).
There's no way to do that in general, because Scheme is lexically scoped. It doesn't make much sense to ask if a variable is defined if an referencing an undefined variable is an error.
For toplevel/global variables, you can use the symbol-utils egg but it is probably not going to work as you expect, considering that global variables inside modules are also rewritten to be something else.
Perhaps if you can say what you're really trying to do, I can help you with an alternate solution.
I am trying to dynamically find the name of the current function (this-function) running i.e.
(defun my-func ()
(remove-hook 'some-hook this-function)
(do-something))
I haven't tested this, but why not write a macro to encapsulate what you want? Something like the following, maybe?
(defmacro one-shot-hook (name hook &rest body)
`(defun ,name ()
(remove-hook ',hook ',name)
,#body)
Then, for example
(macroexpand-all-1
'(one-shot-hook test c-mode-hook
(message "Yay!")))
gives
(defun test nil
(remove-hook (quote c-mode-hook) (quote test))
(message "Yay!"))
(when I've reformatted it).
This removes the problem of needing to know the name of the function you're in, which would need nasty macrology anyway (I'm not sure whether it's possible).
One more thing, I'd probably suggest just having a flag variable set to nil initially which your code tests to decide whether to run. Then you don't have to mess around adding and removing hooks all the time: the result will probably be much easier to customise and understand for anyone else using your code.
I am reading DrRacket document http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/binding.html
There is a function
(define f
(lambda (append)
(define cons (append "ugly" "confusing"))
(let ([append 'this-was])
(list append cons))))
> (f list)
'(this-was ("ugly" "confusing"))
I see that we define function f, inside we define lambda that takes (append), why ?
Procedure (body) for lambda is another function called cons, that appends two strings.
I don't understand this function at all.
Thanks !
The section that you're referring to demonstrates lexical scope in Racket. As in other Scheme implementations, the main point is that you can "shadow" every binding in the language. Unlike most "mainstream" languages, there are no real keywords that are "sacred" in the sense that they can never be shadowed by a local binding.
Note that a really good tool to visualize what is bound where is DrRacket's "check syntax" button: click it, and you'll see your code with highlights that shows which parts are bindings, which are special forms -- and if you hover the mouse over a specific name, you'll see an arrow that tells you where it came from.
Scheme takes some getting used to :)
f is assigned the function returned by the lambda.
lambda defines the function that takes a parameter (called append).
(define cons (append "ugly" "confusing")) is not a function per se, but calls append with the two strings as parameter and assigns the result to cons.
inside the let block, append is re-assigned a different value, the symbol this-was.
the let block creates a list of append (which now contains 'this-was) and cons (which contains '("ugly" "confusing") from 3 above
since 5 is the last statement that value is returned by the whole function which is called f
f is called with the parameter list (the list function). which gets passed as the parameter append. And this is why 3 above creates a list '("ugly" "confusing") which gets assigned to cons.
Hope that cleared up things a bit.
Cheers!
Quite often I define a ruby symbol (eg. :some_value), then I want to create a method with the same name def some_value.
Unfortunately, the autocompletion(M + /) for the second occurrence of some_value string does not work, being slightly different (:some_value vs some_value).
How can I setup emacs to handle such events?
Assuming that M-/ is bound to dabbrev-expand, you can configure dabbrev-mode to ignore certain prefixes when expanding strings. To make a single colon a prefix to be ignored, type
M-x customize-group
and then
dabbrev
This will take you to the customization page for dabbrev-mode. Go to the point Dabbrev Abbrev Skip Leading Regexp and click on Value menu. From the menu, pick "Regexp".
Now you see a textfield labeled "Regexp: " next to the value menu in which you enter a single colon.
:
Then click on the button State in the next line and choose the value "Save for Future Sessions".
First, my results! I typed :some_crazy_symbol in my model. On a newline, I typed def so, hit M-/ twice, and ended up with
def some_crazy_symbol
end
(Rinari supplied the end.)
I got this to work quite well by using hippie-expand. If you want to test it out, bind hippie-expand to M-/ like so:
(global-set-key (kbd "M-/") 'hippie-expand)
Heres' the documentation. Hippie expand works by trying out a number of different expansions on the current point. These expansions are stored in the hippie-expand-try-functions-list variable. On my system (and be default), this variable is set to:
(try-complete-file-name-partially try-complete-file-name try-expand-all-abbrevs try-expand-list try-expand-line try-expand-dabbrev try-expand-dabbrev-all-buffers try-expand-dabbrev-from-kill try-complete-lisp-symbol-partially try-complete-lisp-symbol)
The minibuffer readout showed that this particular expansion was accomplished using the try-expand-dabbrev function.
Not a direct answer to your question, but you should get more intelligent Ruby autocompletion by using auto complete mode paired with rsense.
If Dabbrev Abbrev Skip Leading Regexp and hippie-expand doesn't do exactly what you want and you've got some elisp skills, you could create a custom function for hippie-expand.
See the section about "substring expansion" on the hippie-expand page on the emacs-wiki. There's a function you could use there you could tailor to customize..
Substring Expansion
When doing lisp programming standard dabbrev is less useful, because Emacs has no namespaces, so in a package symbols begin with the same prefix, therefore the same prefix has to be typed again and again if one wants to complete symbols from the package. As with IswitchBuffers it is much more effective if a unique substring can be typed to get to the desired symbol.
Dabbrev offers nothing in this regard, so I turned to Hippie Expand which I had never used before.
Here’s a function based on hippie expand dabbrev expansion which performs substring expansion:
(defun try-my-dabbrev-substring (old)
(let ((old-fun (symbol-function 'he-dabbrev-search)))
(fset 'he-dabbrev-search (symbol-function 'my-dabbrev-substring-search))
(unwind-protect
(try-expand-dabbrev old)
(fset 'he-dabbrev-search old-fun))))
(defun my-dabbrev-substring-search (pattern &optional reverse limit)
(let ((result ())
(regpat (cond ((not hippie-expand-dabbrev-as-symbol)
(concat (regexp-quote pattern) "\\sw+"))
((eq (char-syntax (aref pattern 0)) ?_)
(concat (regexp-quote pattern) "\\(\\sw\\|\\s_\\)+"))
(t
(concat (regexp-quote pattern)
"\\(\\sw\\|\\s_\\)+")))))
(while (and (not result)
(if reverse
(re-search-backward regpat limit t)
(re-search-forward regpat limit t)))
(setq result (buffer-substring-no-properties (save-excursion
(goto-char (match-beginning 0))
(skip-syntax-backward "w_")
(point))
(match-end 0)))
(if (he-string-member result he-tried-table t)
(setq result nil))) ; ignore if bad prefix or already in table
result))
I figured I'd share the solution I came up with that works for hippie-expand.
To summarize:
(defun hippie-expand-ruby-symbols (orig-fun &rest args)
(if (eq major-mode 'ruby-mode)
(let ((table (make-syntax-table ruby-mode-syntax-table)))
(modify-syntax-entry ?: "." table)
(with-syntax-table table (apply orig-fun args)))
(apply orig-fun args)))
(advice-add 'hippie-expand :around #'hippie-expand-ruby-symbols)
hippie-expand will expand symbols in ruby-mode when : is considered a punctuation character, so this advice creates a temporary syntax table where : is a punctuation character and calls hippie-expand with it.