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.
Related
Official and most of yaml documentation is written in yaml itself. That is nice demonstration of language power. I get it, that's the main point of this documentation. But documenting language by using that yet unknown language is like solving puzzle. At least for me. Searching in this style of documentation really hard: "which operators can I use for string indentation?" In traditional documentating style one would use chapter say "string indentation". But here, while it's a nice demo, you need to read it all, and understand it all, which is extra subpar if you don't work with yaml daily. And yaml language spec is great, if you want to practice context (free?) grammar definition, but greatly unfit for quick search for basic questions.
My question is. Is there yaml documentation, using traditional structure, documenting most of features, not just very few? One html page, sections and paragraphs? I cannot find one, and I'm always struggling/wasting so much time trying to find something in this style of documentation. And every time I read anything, I feel I'm missing so much information, which is not shown, constantly learning X using not yet explained constructs.
Is it possible to write documentation in source files like in Common Lisp or Go, for example, and extract it from source files? Or everybody uses Scribble to document their code?
The short answer is you can write in-source documentation by using scribble/srcdoc.
Unlike the other languages you mentioned, these aren't "doc strings":
Although you can write plain text, you have full Racket at-expressions and may use scribble/manual forms and functions.
Not only does this allow for "richer" documentation, the documentation goes into its own documentation submodule -- similar to how you can put tests into test submodules. This means the documentation or tests add no runtime overhead.
You do need one .scrbl file, in which you use scribble/extract to include the documentation submodule(s). However you probably want such a file, anyway, for non-function-specific documentation (topics such as introduction, installation, or "user's guide" prose as opposed to "reference" style documentation).
Of course you can define your own syntax to wrap scribble/srcdoc. For example, in one project I defined a little define/doc macro, which expands into proc-doc/names as well as a (module+ test ___) form. That way, doc examples can also be used as unit tests.
How Racket handles in-source documentation intersects a few interesting aspects of Racket:
Submodules let you define things like "test-time" and "doc-time" as well as run-time.
At-expressions are a different syntax for s-expressions, especially good when writing text.
Scribble is an example of using a custom language -- documentation-as-a-program -- demonstrating Racket's ability to be not just a programming language, but a programming-language programming language.
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 just discovered OWL and Protege. Upon reading through this reference page (which I quote below), I am left wondering whether it is possible to not use the abstract OWL syntax, and rather to write in DL syntax. My background is in logic, so it sounds like it would be more fun even if I would have to translate the ontologies later (though I am sure there must be applications to do this--besides, don't reasoners use DL?).
If it is possible, what configuration of settings should I use in Protege (or other software of your suggestion) in order to do this? I suspect it's not possible, but I want to be sure, as I see no good reason for this other than the awkwardness of special symbols.
EDIT: If it is NOT possible, how exactly are DL languages used?
OWL DL is the description logic SHOIN with support of data values, data types
and datatype properties, i.e., SHOIN(D), but since OWL is based on RDF(S), the
terminology slightly differs. ... For description of OWL ontology or knowledge
base, the DL syntax can be used. There is an "abstract" LISP-like syntax
defined that is easier to write in ASCII character set.
Here's a very brief working example of the two syntax styles for the same data.
don't reasoners use DL?
Not necessarily. They use all kinds of logics, some of which are DLs, some are not.
If it is possible, what configuration of settings should I use in Protege (or other software of your suggestion) in order to do this?
I'm pretty sure there is no such pluggin for Protégé. But if you really want some fun, use a text editor and write your ontology by hand. There are many syntaxes you can use: the functional syntax, the OWL/XML syntax, the RDF/XML syntax are all normative. In addition, you can use the Manchester syntax, Turtle, N-Triples, JSON-LD, that will be future recommendations for writing RDF (and therefore OWL). Or the more exotic RDF/JSON, HDT. Or again, more "powerful" syntaxes like Notation3, TriG, TriX, NQuads. Plenty of fun!
In any case, if you would like to write in the DL syntax, you would need to use special Unicode characters or special commands like in LaTeX for instance. And the parser that deals with it would have to read those characters or commands. Not ideal if you are programming. But you can always use the DL syntax in your writings.
BTW, the current standard Web Ontology Language is OWL 2. Its DL variant (viz., OWL 2 DL) is based on the even more irresistible SROIQ.
I find myself in conflict, regarding which code style I should follow when using a different C language.
Currently I am doing work (different projects) in C++, C# and Objective-C
I noticed there is a lot of discrepancy in the conventions basic frameworks follow. Generally, I don't think it's a bad idea to adhere to these conventions, as it makes code feel more "integrated" into the environment. However it is hard for me to remember all the differences and apply principles correctly.
In C# for example, all methods of a class start Uppercase, while Objective-C seems to prefer camelCase style methods.
What tactic would you choose:
One style to rule them all (as far as applicable)
Stick with what is common in the given environment
I do especially like the google styleguides, which seem to recommend the latter. However I disagree with them on using spaces instead of tabs and their indentation in general (e.g. methods on same level as class etc.)
I think you should stick to the "accepted" styles for each language. My rationale for that is that I think it would be much easier to recall what environment you're in when you have to think in the style used for that language. It will also be much easier for someone who is familiar with that environment to look at your code and feel more comfortable with the style and formatting (i.e. less chance for them to misunderstand what they're looking at).
My rule with porting code is: Don't touch it unless you have to.
My rule with modifying old code is: Use the style of the file.
Outside of those two situations, things like coding standards and perhaps your own opinion on good style can come into play.