Is there a lint for Common Lisp or Chicken Scheme? Possibly something akin to C's splint, Haskell's HLint, Perl's B::Lint, etc.?
There's Lisp Critic:
http://www.mail-archive.com/gardeners#lispniks.com/msg00372.html
There is a static debugger for PLT Scheme, called "MrSpidey", and "bugloo" if you are using the "Bigloo" Scheme compiler, but that is all I could find. see this Stack Overflow question about static analyzers for scheme.
Specifically for CHICKEN Scheme, in the 4 series a "scrutinizer" has been added, which will perform (limited) flow analysis of your data types. Especially if you put your code inside a module (making the code a "closed world" so to speak), it can be extremely helpful in detecting type mistakes.
In 4.9.0 and later the scrutinizer is enabled by default. In older versions, you can enable it through the -scrutinize command line option.
No, there is nothing like that for Common Lisp.
sblint ? A linter for Common Lisp, based on SBCL.
Related
A 4-year-old old post suggests that one might be able access the current-seconds and related functions in the r5rs language.
Here's why I ask: I'm a high school teacher new to Racket and we are using the r5rs language. I would like to introduce students to functions by starting with a function that needs no arguments to make sense. The example that occurs to me is minutes-past-the-hour. But I am ignorant of how to make those functions recognized in an r5rs program.
Thanks for any helpful advice.
First of all, why not use #lang racket instead of r5rs? Racket is very much built with education in mind. It even has various teaching languages for use with the How to Design Programs textbook (or its second edition, which is still being worked on).
Racket's implementation of R5RS is intentionally limited—it's not usually intended to be used for anything practical, since Racket itself has outgrown its Scheme roots. It can be useful as a teaching tool, but as you've seen, it doesn't include any special extensions (beyond a small set of internal forms).
If you're really interested in using R5RS Scheme, there exists an implementation of SRFI 19: Time Data Types and Procedures bundled with Racket. R5RS does not have a module system, so there is no formally-specified way of loading external libraries in pure Scheme. You'll need to use the Racket #%require extension to load the SRFI implementation:
(#%require srfi/19)
This will give you access to all the SRFI 19 functions and values.
You could also just include the functionality you want from Racket itself, since the languages are actually interoperable. To include current-seconds, you'd want to do something like this:
(#%require (only racket/base
current-seconds))
If you're going to do that, though, it seems almost pointless to use the r5rs language. Just use racket or racket/base instead.
I have been curious lately about DSLs, specifically, how to implement them in Lisp,
since it looks like a piece of cake compare to the alternatives.
Looking for information I cannot find any evidence of a non-lisp DSEL in Lisp in internet.
So my question is:
Is it possible to implement a DSL with non-lisp syntax in lisp with the use of macros?
How is this achieved?
Can the reader of lisp be replaced by a custom reader that translates code to lisp structure?
If the former is true: is this a common way to implement "non-lispy" DSELs?
Short version: Racket does this.
In more detail: Racket, a descendant of Scheme, has a really well-thought-out story here. A Racket module/file can begin with a language declaration, e.g.
#lang algol60
... and then the rest of the file can be written in the given language. (Yes, algol60 is built in.)
In order to develop your own language, you need to write a package that is a language specification, that shows how to expand the syntax of this language into the syntax of the underlying language (in this case, Racket). Anyone can write such packages, and then distribute them to allow others to write programs in this language. There are examples of such language specifications included with Racket, e.g. the algol 60 example mentioned earlier.
I think this is exactly what you're asking for?
ObDisclaimer: Yes, I am a Racket developer.
How do you implement the surface language of a programming language? You write a parser or use a parser generator. You can do that in Lisp, too.
There are many examples of general purpose and domain specific languages written in Lisp - not using s-expression syntax.
Historically the first ML (an extension language for a theorem prover) was written in Lisp. Macsyma (a language for computer algebra) is written in Lisp. In many cases there is some kind of 'end user', for which a non-s-expression language needs to be written/supported. Sometimes there are languages which exist and need to be supported.
Using macros and read macros you can implement some languages or extend the Lisp language. For example it is easy to add JSON syntax to Lisp using a read macro. Also some kind of infix syntax. XML (example: XMLisp).
There's no problem in supporing non-Lisp syntax DSLs in Lisp. You'll need to use some parser/parser generator library as Rainer has mentioned. A good example is esrap that is used to parse markdown (see 3bmd) and also for the pgloader command language which is just an example of an external DSL you're asking about.
From Let Over Lambda, there is an implementation of Perl style regular expressions: http://letoverlambda.com/index.cl/guest/chap4.html#sec_4.
Also there are several attempts at making a "non-lispy" version of Lisp, the main one being the Readable Lisp S-expression Project: http://readable.sourceforge.net/.
One implementation-specific solution that sticks out (if you want to use Scheme rather than CL) is Gambit Scheme's built-in support for infix syntax via its SIX-script extension.
This provides a rich set of loosely C-like operators and syntax forms, which can either be used out-of-the-box to write code in a C-like style, or redefined to mean whatever you want (you can easily redefine e.g. the function definition format, if you aren't a fan of type name(args) {}). for, case, := and so on (even goto) are all already present and ready to mean whatever you need.
The actual core of the syntax (operator precedence, expressions vs. statements) is fixed, but you can assign things like a Scheme binding construct to the s-expression produced by an operator for a reasonably large amount of freedom.
a = b * c;
is translated by the reader into
(six.x=y (six.identifier a) (six.x*y (six.identifier b) (six.identifier c)))
You can then override the definitions of those macros with your own to make the syntax do whatever you want. Turning the C-style base into a Haskell-looking functional language isn't too hard (strategically redefine = and -> and you're halfway there...).
I am learning my way around Scheme, and I am especially interested in how the language is constructed. I'm trying to find a nice description of the core syntax for a Scheme implementation. I don't know enough about the standards, but I assume that they all contain macro systems. If not, I'd like to read about a standard that also includes macros (they can't possibly be implemented in simpler Scheme constructs, can they?).
Does anyone have a good reference for the minimal syntax needed for a Scheme dialect?
Just an update:
I also stumbled upon this: http://matt.might.net/articles/compiling-to-java/#sec1. If you also add define-syntax and delay then it seems like it might be a good start.
In the R5RS specification, the following page appears to be what I was looking for: formal syntax
Although it may be a bit dry, you should read over the R5RS spec or the R6RS spec.
The docs really do not take that long to read through and you can just skim most of the sections until you need more detail. But either document does cover all of the minimal syntax required, including macros.
Is there a reference website to look up syntax for Scheme library function like http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/?
I'm looking for syntax of fold, but google gave me nothing :(
Thanks,
fold is from SRFI 1. Many functions have good documentation if you know where it "comes from".
Also, since you're using Racket (as mentioned in your previous questions), you should check out the Racket documentation. It has a very nice search facility. (Also, you might like to know about Racket's foldl, which is identical to SRFI 1's fold.)
I am using a softerware who has a build-in scheme interpreter. Users can communicate / manipulate the software by typing command in the interpreter. And users also could load some binary file to the environment. I have write some scheme code like this:
(define test (lambda() (display "This is a test!"))) ---- d:/test.scm
And then compile it into binary file which will be loaded and excuted much faster. But the document has no information about compilation of the scheme code.
After compilation user could load the binary file by typing:
(fast-load "d:/test.bin" (the-environment))
I think the "fast-load" just do read and eval things. So does the compilation is just a encrypting process? Does anybody know about these things? Any information will be appreciated! Thanks in advance.
And there is another example: the AutoCAD system. Users can write lisp code to manipulate the AutoCAD. And user could compile the lisp code into *.fas file which will be loaded into AutoCAD. So if it is really only an encrypting process, how can I write a compiler? Is there any documents about it?
Joe
If you are strictly talking about the application's built-in interpreter (as seems to be the case based on your question), there's no standard answer. You'll need to see if the application designer built compilation into their implementation and exposed that functionality for you. If not you're out of luck.
If you were to ask about stand-alone Scheme applications or libraries, many implementations (such as Chicken) provide Scheme compilers of one sort or another (the previously-mentioned Chicken Scheme compiles to C first).
If you were asking about Common Lisp (ignoring the fact that you mention Scheme specifically in your title and question). You can use the standard function, compile-file, which produces the .fasl format you alluded to at the end of your question.