Does anyone know if DrRacket has got an equivalent of Python's pass statement or any other idiom that can be used to instruct the executing code to do nothing?
If you want to write an empty statement (one with no useful result), maybe this will work for you:
(void)
... But it'd be better if you demonstrated with an example what exactly is that you want to do. Anyway, here's a link to the appropriate section in the documentation.
Here is a way to do your hash example.
(hash-ref (hash) "not there" void)
But now you have to check whether you get back a void or a value you want. You may also be interested in hash-update! or hash-update (docs), which combines checking for an existing key with a default behavior for the case where the key does not exist.
As I write this answer, your question is kind of spread among (a) your original question and (b) your comment to Oscar's answer:
Its a case of wanting to indexing a hash map with a key that may or may not exist so if a no key found error returns, I just want to ignore the error and continue with the execution.
Taking that last part literally: The general way to handle -- and effectively "ignore" -- an exception is with-handlers:
(hash-ref (hash) "nothing")
;; hash-ref: no value found for key
;; key: "nothing"
(with-handlers ([exn:fail? (lambda (exn)
"hum dee dum")])
(hash-ref (hash) "nothing"))
;; "hum dee dum"
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with Python pass as described here, but maybe pass can be used to ignore errors in Python; I just don't know it well enough
If you can deal with a syntactic form, then begin works.
(if <conditional> (begin))
if you need a function then this works
(lambda ignore #f)
And you might just avoid the need for 'something that does nothing' by reworking your logic leading to the 'nothing'.
Related
How can we get variable value with a string in scheme language as we can achieve this in Common Lisp:
> (defvar s 3)
> S
> (symbol-value (intern "S"))
> 3
I am accessing a parameter of parent function from the closure.
EDIT: I have found this solution, but I can't use eval because it evaluates at top level. Searching for alternatives.
(eval (string->symbol "s"))
EDIT 2: I have found that Common lisp code also try to find symbol in global space. So this question is basically for both Lisps(Common Lisp, Scheme).
Don't do that!
Variables are for when you know the variable at compile time. In that case it is never a string. You can still reason about strings in compile time but your code also needs to have a relation with the name for it to be interesting. When you use eval or other forms that evaluate structure and compile/run data in runtime you are probably not doing it right (but not always. I've in my 20 year career used eval intentionally in production code twice)
If you want to store values you use a data structure. An assoc would mimic a dynamic environment. You can also use a hash with a level indicator if the size is harmless.
You can't do what you want to do and in fact it is a confused thing to want to do.
Here's why what you are trying to do is confused. Consider how a Lisp system for which it was possible to do what you wanted would work. In particular consider something like this:
(define (foo a name)
(let ([b 10])
(display (get-value name))
(* a b)))
Where get-value is meant to be how you get the binding of whatever something is.
So, if I call (foo 10 "b") it should print 10 and return 100.
But wait: b is a compile-time constant in this code. Any compiler worth its salt is going to immediately turn this into
(define (foo a name)
(display (get-value name))
(* a 10))
And now there is no binding of b.
So there are two options here: what you want to work works and it is impossible to ever write a reasonable compiler for Scheme, or what you want to work doesn't work, and it is.
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.
What is the difference between values and list or cons in Racket or Scheme? When is it better to use one over the other? For example, what would be the disadvantage if quotient/remainder returns (cons _ _) rather than (values _ _)?
Back in 2002 George Caswell asked that question in comp.lang.scheme.
The ensuing thread is long, but has many insights. The discussion
reveals that opinions are divided.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.scheme/ruhDvI9utVc/786ztruIUNYJ
My answer back then:
> What are the motivations behind Scheme's multiple return values feature?
> Is it meant to reflect the difference in intent, or is there a
> runtime-practical reason?
I imagine the reason being this.
Let's say that need f is called by g. g needs several values from f.
Without multiple value return, f packs the values in a list (or vector),
which is passed to g. g then immediately unpacks the list.
With multple values, the values are just pushed on the stack. Thus no
packing and unpacking is done.
Whether this should be called an optimization hack or not, is up to you.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
We don't need no side-effecting We don't need no allocation
We don't need no flow control We don't need no special-nodes
No global variables for execution No dark bit-flipping for debugging
Hey! did you leave the args alone? Hey! did you leave those bits alone?
(Chorus) -- "Another Glitch in the Call", a la Pink Floyd
They are semantically the same in Scheme and Racket. In both you need to know how the return looks like to use it.
values is connected to call-with-values and special forms like let-values are just syntax sugar with this procedure call. The user needs to know the form of the result to use call-with-values to make use of the result. A return is often done on a stack and a call is also on a stack. The only reason to favor values in Scheme would be that there are no overhead between the producer return and the consumer call.
With cons (or list) the user needs to know how the data structure of the return looks like. As with values you can use apply instead of call-with-values to do the same thing. As a replacement for let-values (and more) it's easy to make a destructuring-bind macro.
In Common Lisp it's quite different. You can use values always if you have more information to give and the user can still use it as a normal procedure if she only wants to use the first value. Thus for CL you wouldn't need to supply quotient as a variant since quotient/remainder would work just as well. Only when you use special forms or procedures that take multiple values will the fact that the procedure does return more values work the same way as with Scheme. This makes values a better choice in CL than Scheme since you get away with writing one instead of more procedures.
In CL you can access a hash like this:
(gethash 'key *hash* 't)
; ==> T; NIL
If you don't use the second value returned you don't know if T was the default value or the actual value found. Here you see the second value indicating the key was not found in the hash. Often you don't use that value if you know there are only numbers the default value would already be an indication that the key was not found. In Racket:
(hash-ref hash 'key #t)
; ==> #t
In racket failure-result can be a thunk so you get by, but I bet it would return multiple values instead if values did work like in CL. I assume there is more housekeeping with the CL version and Scheme, being a minimalistic language, perhaps didn't want to give the implementors the extra work.
Edit: Missed Alexis' comment on the same topic before posting this
One oft-overlooked practical advantage of using multiple return values over lists is that Racket's compose "just works" with functions that return multiple values:
(define (hello-goodbye name)
(values (format "Hello ~a! " name)
(format "Goodbye ~a." name)))
(define short-conversation (compose string-append hello-goodbye))
> (short-conversation "John")
"Hello John! Goodbye John."
The function produced by compose will pass the two values returned by hello-goodbye as two arguments to string-append. If you're writing code in a functional style with lots of compositions, this is very handy, and it's much more natural than explicitly passing values around yourself with call-with-values and the like.
It's also related to your programming style. If you use values, then it usually means you want to explicitly return n values. Using cons, list or vector usually means you want to return one value which contains something.
There are always pros/cons. For values: It may use less memory on some implemenentations. The caller need to use let-values or other multiple values specific syntax. (I wish I could use just let like CL.)
For cons or other types: You can use let or lambda to receive the returning value. You need to explicitly deconstruct it to get the value you want using car or other procedures.
Which to use and when? Again depending on your programming style and case by case but if the returning value can't be represented in one object (e.g. quotient and remainder), then it might be better to use values to make the procedure's meaning clearer. If the returning value is one object (e.g. name and age for a person), then it might be better to use cons or other constructor (e.g. record).
I have a let statement in which I would like to dynamically destructure a list. The following is my solution:
symList ;; list of some Strings which will become the vector of Symbols to assign to
valList ;; list of some values, same length as symList
(let [(map read-string symList) valList]
...)
An example value of symList would be ("pt1" "pt2") and an example value of valList would be (1 2)
However, this produces an exception that the first part is an "unsupported binding form". I suspect I am missing something regarding syntax-quoting, or that it's not possible. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT: I will only know these values come run time, hence this approach. Secondly, I need to be able to pass the lexical scope later on, hence the use of let.
If symList and valList have the correct value at compilation time, then you could write a macro to do this. If they are only known at runtime, you are going to have to use/write a function to do the destructuring for you and return the result of that destructuring as some data structure.
In the second case, for something simple like this, you can use (zipmap symList valList) to get a map.
(let [valList (map str symList)]
(somefun valList))
The error you are getting is because your let statement was backwards (let [val SOURCE] STUFF)
maybe matchure can give you what you want
Although I've been unable to find a way to dynamically destructure a list, for those of you who are interested in creating values that are lexically instead of dynamically scoped, I found that intern to whatever namespace you need works well.
This is related to What is call/cc?, but I didn't want to hijack this question for my own purposes, and some of its arguments like the analogy to setjmp/longjmp evade me.
I think I have a sufficient idea about what a continuation is, I think of it as a snapshot of the current call stack. I don't want to go into the discussion why this might be interesting or what you can do with continuations. My question is more specifically, why do I have to provide a function argument to call/cc? Why doesn't call/cc just return the current continuation, so I could do whatever I please with it (store it, call it, you name it)? In a link from this other question (http://community.schemewiki.org/?call-with-current-continuation-for-C-programmers), it talks about "Essentially it's just a clean way to get the continuation to you and keep out of the way of subsequent jumps back to the saved point.", but I'm not getting it. It seems unnecessarily complicated.
If you use a construct like Jay shows, then you can grab the continuation, but in a way, the value that is grabbed is already spoiled because you're already inside that continuation. In contrast, call/cc can be used to grab the continuation that is still pending outside of the current expression. For example, one of the simplest uses of continuations is to implement a kind of an abort:
(call/cc (lambda (abort)
(+ 1 2 (abort 9))))
You cannot do that with the operation you describe. If you try it:
(define (get-cc) (call/cc values))
(let ([abort (get-cc)]) (+ 1 2 (abort 9)))
then you get an error about applying 9 as a procedure. This happens because abort jumps back to the let with the new value of 9 -- which means that you're now doing a second round of the same addition expression, except that now abort is bound to 9...
Two additional related notes:
For a nice an practical introduction to continuations, see PLAI.
call/cc is a little complex in that it takes in a function -- a conceptually easier to use construct is let/cc which you can find in some implementations like PLT Scheme. The above example becomes (let/cc abort (+ 1 2 (abort 9))).
That would be less versatile. If you want that behavior, you can just do:
(call/cc (lambda (x) x))
You could take a look at the example usages of continuations in "Darrell Ferguson and Dwight Deugo. "Call with Current Continuation Patterns". 8th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. September 2001." (http://library.readscheme.org/page6.html) and try to rewrite them using a call/cc-return, defined as above.
I suggest starting by asking yourself: what does it mean to be a first-class continuation?
The continuation of an expression essentially consists of two pieces of data: first, the closure (i.e., environment) of that expression; and second, a representation of what should be done with the result of the expression. A language with first-class continuations, then, is one which has data structures encapsulating these parts, and which treats these data structures just as it would any other.
call/cc is a particularly elegant way to realise this idea: the current continuation is packaged up as a procedure which encapsulates what-is-to-be-done-with-the-expression as what the procedure does when applied to the expression; to represent the continuation this way simply means that the closure of this procedure contains the environment at the site it was invoked.
You could imagine realising the idea of first-class continuations in other ways. They wouldn't be call/cc, and it's hard for me to imagine how such a representation could be simpler.
On a parting note, consider the implementation of let/cc that Eli mentioned, which I prefer to call bind/cc:
(define-syntax bind/cc
(syntax-rules ()
((bind/cc var . body)
(call/cc (lambda (var) . body)))))
And as an exercise, how would you implement call/cc based on bind/cc?
Against common SO netiquette I'm answering my own question, but more as the editor than the provider of the answer.
After a while I started a similar question over at LtU. After all, these are the guys that ponder language design all day long, aren't they, and one of the answers finally kicked in with me. Now things mentioned here, e.g. by Eli or in the original question, make much more sense to me. It's all about what gets included in the continuation, and where the applied continuation sets in.
One of the posters at LtU wrote:
"You can see exactly how call/cc allows you to "keep out of the way." With em or get/cc you need to do some kind of test to determine if you have a back-jump or just the initial call. Basically, call/cc keeps the use of the continuation out of the continuation, whereas with get/cc or em, the continuation contains its use and so (usually) you need to add a test to the beginning of the continuation (i.e. immediately following get/cc / em) to separate the "using the continuation parts" from the "rest of the continuation" parts."
That drove it home for me.
Thank you guys anyway!