I am currently reading the chapter on read-time macros from Paul Graham's "On Lisp" book.
The problem I am encountering is the following. When I run one of his examples:
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\?
#’(lambda (stream char1 char2)
‘#’(lambda (&rest ,(gensym))
,(read stream t nil t))))
I get the following error:
No dispatch function defined for #\’
Why is it happening? Could it be because I am running it at the REPL? What can one do to fix it?
The PDF from which you are copying the code uses punctuation marks outside the range of basic ASCII characters you are supposed to use here:
CL-USER> (char-name #\’)
"RIGHT_SINGLE_QUOTATION_MARK"
The usual quote symbol should instead use the apostrophe character:
CL-USER> (char-name #\')
"APOSTROPHE"
The same goes for backquote:
CL-USER> (char-name #\‘)
"LEFT_SINGLE_QUOTATION_MARK"
You should be writing instead:
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\?
#'(lambda (stream char1 char2)
`#'(lambda (&rest ,(gensym))
,(read stream t nil t))))
The #' is not necessary before lambda, since Common Lisp also defines a macro named lambda which expands into (function (lambda ...)).
You can test your new read macro as follows:
CL-USER> #?10
#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (&REST #:G617)) {1001C541FB}>
CL-USER> (funcall *)
10
When using SBCL, I obtain warnings about unused variables. This happens because the code declares variables in anonymous functions but never uses them. This is not a serious problem, but generally speaking, it is better to declare which variables are ignored:
(set-dispatch-macro-character
#\# #\?
(lambda (stream &rest chars)
(declare (ignore chars))
(let ((rest (gensym)))
`(lambda (&rest ,rest)
(declare (ignore ,rest))
,(read stream t nil t)))))
Related
In miniKanren, succeed can be defined as (define succeed (== #t #t)), and fail can be defined as (define fail (=== #t #f)). But what about #s and #u as short forms of succeed and fail, as they appear in The Reasoned Schemer?
(define #s succeed) produces an error in Racket:
Welcome to Racket v7.2.
> (require Racket-miniKanren/miniKanren/mk)
> (define #s succeed)
; readline-input:2:8: read-syntax: expected `(`, `[`, or `{` after `#s` [,bt
; for context]
#<procedure:...iniKanren/mk.rkt:337:4>
; readline-input:2:18: read-syntax: unexpected `)` [,bt for context]
I have the feeling that this has something to do with reader macros.
How can I define #s for succeed and #u for fail in Scheme and also in Racket?
I am using the canonical miniKanren implementation for Scheme and the canonical miniKanren implementation for Racket.
Identifiers in Racket can not begin with #. It is simple to bind the identifiers s and u. Redefining the meaning of #s and #u is not as simple, since it needs to happen in the reader. Normally #something signals to reader that something special is to be read.
The input (foo bar) will be read as a list, #(foo bar) will be read as a vector, and #s(foo bar) will be read as a structure. You can read about the standard syntax here:
https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/reader.html?q=%23s#%28mod-path._reader%29
Now if you want to change the meaning of #s and #u you need to look at readtables.
Each time the reader sees an # it consults a readtable to see how to handle the following characters. Since reading happens before parsing/expansion and evaluation, you can't change the reader simply by calling a function in your program. You will need to either use
the #reader extension mechanism or create your own language.
For more on readtables: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/readtables.html?q=reader-macro
The Guide has an example of how to use reader extensions:
https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/hash-reader.html
I solved all the book using
(define succeed
(lambda (s)
`(,s)))
(define SUCC succeed)
(define fail
(lambda (s)
'()))
On the other side, you should consult the source code provided by Friedman & Byrd. I solved it using mit-scheme -- no specific feature of racket is used, R6RS is enough.
For Racket, #s and #u can be defined as such (reference: Using Racket for The Reasoned Schemer):
;; #s for succeed.
(current-readtable
(make-readtable (current-readtable)
#\s
'dispatch-macro
(lambda (ch port src line col pos) succeed)))
;; #u for fail.
(current-readtable
(make-readtable (current-readtable)
#\u
'dispatch-macro
(lambda (ch port src line col pos) fail)))
Note that this only works in the REPL.
This defines #s and #u by modifying the readtable.
For Scheme, adding read syntax is defined in SRFI-10 sharp-comma external form, but the resulting #,() forms are probably awkward for most tastes. For Scheme, it is best to just define s and u because there is currently no portable way to define #s and #u.
I'm trying to add completion at point for frame-local variables from backtrace-frames during invocations of read--expression by debugger-eval-expression or edebug-eval-expression.
I constructed the following completion table to add frame-local variables to the already available table for local elisp variables,
;; completion table for locals in current frame
(defvar my-backtrace-locals-completion-table
(completion-table-in-turn
(completion-table-dynamic
(lambda (_string)
(when-let* ((idx (backtrace-get-index)) ;backtrace.el
(frame (nth idx backtrace-frames)))
(backtrace-frame-locals frame)))
'do-switch-buffer)
elisp--local-variables-completion-table)) ;elisp-mode.el
which seems to work fine, eg. to reproduce
(1) evaluate
;; debug-on-error = t
(let ((my-local-var '(1 2))) (mapcan #'car this-local-var))
(2) from debugger's second frame, evaluate with eval-expression
(funcall my-backtrace-locals-completion-table "my-" nil t)
returns expected ("my-local-var").
The problem is following the above steps, but calling instead calling debugger-eval-expression doesn't work. The environment where the table is evaluated isn't finding a backtrace-frame (with or without do-switch-buffer).
How can I define the table to be evaluated in the proper buffer?
emacs v27.0.50
The completion table above doesn't quite return the expected candidates for debugger-eval-expression. The environment where the expression is evaluated has locals from frames higher than, but not including, the one at point in the Backtrace buffer.
So, the available locals should be only those from higher frames, eg.
(eval-when-compile (require 'dash))
(defvar my-backtrace-locals-completion-table
(completion-table-dynamic
(lambda (_string)
(when backtrace-frames
(--mapcat
(-some->> (backtrace-frame-locals it) (--map (car it)))
(nthcdr (1+ (backtrace-get-index)) backtrace-frames))))
'do-switch-buffer))
Then, redefining debugger-eval-expression's interactive spec to use the new locals table in place of the normal elisp table provides the correct completions (passing the 'do-switch-buffer arg completion-table-dynamic to find completions in the original buffer).
(defun my-backtrace#eval (orig-fn exp &optional nframe)
(interactive
(let ((elisp--local-variables-completion-table
my-backtrace-locals-completion-table))
(list (read--expression "[my] Eval in stack frame: "))))
(apply orig-fn (list exp nframe)))
(advice-add 'debugger-eval-expression :around #'my-backtrace#eval)
I'm trying to write the Scheme equivalent of this CL code:
(defmacro alias (new-name prev-name)
`(defmacro ,new-name (&rest args)
`(,',prev-name ,#args)))
;; Sample use:
(alias co concatenate)
My aim is to be able to use shorthand names for symbol and function names like:
(alias sa string-append)
(sa "ok" "not ok")
To do that I've tried this but it didn't work:
(define-syntax alias (new-name prev-name)
`(define-syntax ,new-name (#!rest args)
`(,',prev-name ,#args)))
Any help is appreciated. Thank you.
You can do this easily with a syntax-rules macro that defines another syntax-rules macro:
(define-syntax alias
(syntax-rules ()
((_ new-name prev-name)
(define-syntax new-name
(... (syntax-rules ()
((_ arg ...)
(prev-name arg ...))))))))
The trickiest thing is this macro is the use of ... to escape nested uses of ....
However, this is not necessarily the best way to do this. The best way probably depends on your precise Scheme implementation, as Scheme is less a language and more a family of languages. Writing portable Scheme is usually not very useful.
If your scheme supports R6RS syntax-case and cognates (say, guile or chez scheme), identifier-syntax is the most direct way of implementing what you want:
(define-syntax new-name (identifier-syntax old-name))
Thus:
(define-syntax new-display (identifier-syntax display))
(new-display "hello\n")
Edit: I see you are using chicken. In that case you can use er-macro-transformer to reproduce your defmacro solution (this works with chicken-4.10.0 at any rate):
(define-syntax alias
(er-macro-transformer
(lambda (exp r c)
(let ([new-name (cadr exp)]
[old-name (caddr exp)])
`(define-syntax ,new-name
(ir-macro-transformer
(lambda (exp i c)
`(,',old-name ,#(cdr exp)))))))))
By the way, in Common Lisp you can make an alias a real function, not a macro, by settings symbol-function of a symbol denoting an alias like this:
CL-USER> (defun foo (name)
(format nil "Hello ~A!~%" name))
FOO
CL-USER> (setf (symbol-function 'bar)
#'foo)
#<INTERPRETED-FUNCTION FOO>
CL-USER> (bar "Bob")
"Hello Bob!
"
I have a question about Exercise 4.54 from Section 4.3.3 of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-28.html#%_sec_4.3.3). This exercise concerns the Amb evaluator.
The exercise is the following:
If we had not realized that require could be implemented as an ordinary procedure that uses amb, to be defined by the user as part of a nondeterministic program, we would have had to implement it as a special form. This would require syntax procedures
(define (require? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'require))
(define (require-predicate exp) (cadr exp))
and a new clause in the dispatch in analyze
((require? exp) (analyze-require exp))
as well the procedure analyze-require that handles require expressions. Complete the following definition of analyze-require.
(define (analyze-require exp)
(let ((pproc (analyze (require-predicate exp))))
(lambda (env succeed fail)
(pproc env
(lambda (pred-value fail2)
(if <??>
<??>
(succeed 'ok fail2)))
fail))))
I completed it as follows:
(define (analyze-require exp)
(let ((pproc (analyze (require-predicate exp))))
(lambda (env succeed fail)
(pproc env
(lambda (pred-value fail2)
(if (false? pred-value)
(fail2) ;; or (fail)
(succeed 'ok fail2)))
fail))))
My doubt is the following:
I know that, during execution, when the predicate value pred-value is false, require should fail; that is, it should call a failure continuation procedure. But I'm a bit confused as to whether it should call (fail) or (fail2). Which one is correct?
(fail2) is the correct one. The procedure conforms to a continuation-passing style, and the correct continuation procedure in this case is fail2.
I think (fail) is correct.
Here we have got pred-value, which means pproc evaluates well for now. But if it is false value, we treat it as bad as pproc evaluates wrong. so the continuation here is fail not fail2.
A test can be found here:
https://wizardbook.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/exercise-4-54/
(fail2)is correct, well,most of the time it doesn't matter whichever you choose,but for the following conditons:
1.the predicate part contains (amb) such as
(require (amb false true false true true))
2.the predicate part contains (set! <...> <...>)
you can check it out,this is because most of the process's fail-continuation is the same as its caller's except for the above two kinds of processes. Though it sounds some kind of ridiculous.
(define bootstrap-c-code
(define (from-file file-name)
(let* ((ip (open-input-file file-name))
(res (read-text-file-from-input-port ip)))
(close-input-port ip)
res))
(from-file "llvm.c"))
Error : define: bad syntax (multiple expressions after identifier)
But I can't see anything wrong with it. Can someone explain / fix it please.
It's not clear what you intended with the above code. If you were trying to load a text file and leave the loaded value in a variable called bootstrap-c-code, then try this:
(define bootstrap-c-code
(let ((from-file
(lambda (file-name)
(let* ((ip (open-input-file file-name))
(res (read-text-file-from-input-port ip)))
(close-input-port ip)
res))))
(from-file "llvm.c")))
Of course, the from-file definition will only be visible inside the let, if you need to use it outside, define it outside of the whole expression. If you only need the functionality of from-file inside the let, you can obtain the same result in a much simpler way:
(define bootstrap-c-code
(let* ((ip (open-input-file "llvm.c"))
(res (read-text-file-from-input-port ip)))
(close-input-port ip)
res))
On the other hand, if what you intended was to create a procedure called bootstrap-c-code, then the correct syntax would be:
(define (bootstrap-c-code)
(define (from-file file-name)
(let* ((ip (open-input-file file-name))
(res (read-text-file-from-input-port ip)))
(close-input-port ip)
res))
(from-file "llvm.c"))
According to R5RS, internal definitions can occur only at the beginning of the of a bunch of forms like let, let*, lambda etc. In the case of your code, that is not the case since you have an internal definition inside a non-procedural define. You could fix it by making `bootstrap-c-code' bind to a procedure.