I have this ns with a macro in it. The annoying thing im dealing with is that the taoensso.timbre macro only works as a variadic expression (timbre/info "a" "b" "c"). A list of items wont log right (timbre/info ["a" "b" "c"]). Im trying to create a wrapper macro that lets the code call (logger/info) in the same variadic form, then process all elements, and then pass to timbre/info
(ns logger
(:require [taoensso.timbre :as timbre :include-macros true])) ; a third party logger
;; A bit of pseudo code here. If you pass in a vector of args, you should get a vector of args with some changes
(defn scrub [args]
(if (listy)
(mapv (fn [a] (scrub args) args)
(if (is-entry a) {:a "xxx"} a)
(defmacro info
[& args]
`(timbre/info ~#(scrub args)))
This doesnt work because scrub is called immediately and wont resolve symbols passed in. I need something like either of these that dont work.
(defmacro info
[& args]
`(timbre/info #(scrub-log-pii ~args)))
(defmacro info
[& args]
`(timbre/info ~#('scrub-log-pii args)))
My last thought was to try to wrap the timbre macro in a function so the macro and evaluation happen in the right order. There is however, no way to "apply" to a macro.
(defn info3
[& args]
(timbre/info (scrub-log-pii (vec args))))
Any ideas?
not exactly an answer to the question as phrased (macro application stuff), but rather the practical timbre solution, that may be applicable in your specific case:
here you can see that all timbre macros use log! macro, which in turn accepts the collection of args.
so, just implementing your procedure as
(defmacro info* [args] `(log! :info :p ~args ~{:?line (fline &form)}))
should do the trick.
You have encountered a problem of using macros known as "turtles all the way down". That is, instead of using function composition, you may need to write a wrapper macro, then another wrapper macro for that, etc.
The detailed steps to writing a macro are described in this answer:
How do I write a Clojure threading macro?
For your specific problem, we could to this:
(ns tst.demo.core
(:use demo.core tupelo.core tupelo.test)
(:require
[clojure.pprint :as pp]))
(defn infix-impl
[a op b]
(list op a b))
(defmacro infix
"Allows user to have Java-style infix operators:
(infix 2 + 3)
"
[a op b] (infix-impl a op b))
(defn infix-seq-impl
[args]
`(let [form# (cons 'infix ~args)
result# (eval form#)]
result#))
(defmacro infix-seq
[args] (infix-seq-impl args))
(dotest
(is= 5 (infix 2 + 3))
(let [params '[2 + 3]]
(pp/pprint (infix-seq-impl 'params))
(is= 5 (infix-seq params))))
Here we use the infix macro to show how to create a wrapper macro infix-seq that accepts a sequence of params instead of N scalar params. The printed output shows the generated code:
(clojure.core/let
[form__24889__auto__ (clojure.core/cons 'tst.demo.core/infix params)
result__24890__auto__ (clojure.core/eval form__24889__auto__)]
result__24890__auto__)
A more general version
The applied macro below allows you to pass in the name of the macro to be "applied" to the param sequence:
(defn applied-impl
[f args]
`(let [form# (cons ~f ~args)
result# (eval form#)]
result#))
(defmacro applied
[f args] (applied-impl f args))
(dotest
(nl)
(let [params '[2 + 3]]
; (applied 'infix params) ; using a single quote fails
(is= 5 (applied `infix params)) ; using a backquote works
(is= 5 (applied 'tst.demo.core/infix params)) ; can also use fully-qualified symbol with single-quote
(is= 5 (applied (quote tst.demo.core/infix) params)) ; single-quote is a "reader macro" for (quote ...)
))
Related
In clojure, can one idiomatically obtain a function's name inside of its body, hopefully accomplishing so without introducing a new wrapper for the function's definition? can one also access the function's name inside of the body of the function's :test attribute as well?
For motivation, this can be helpful for certain logging situations, as well as for keeping the body of :test oblivious to changes to the name of the function which it is supplied for.
A short elucidation of the closest that meta gets follows; there's no this notion to supply to meta, as far as I know, in clojure.
(defn a [] (:name (meta (var a))))
Obviously it is easy to accomplish with a wrapper macro.
Edit: luckily no one so far mentioned lambda combinators.
There are 2 ways to approach your question. However, I suspect that to fully automate what you want to do, you would need to define your own custom defn replacement/wrapper.
The first thing to realize is that all functions are anonymous. When we type:
(defn hello [] (println "hi"))
we are really typing:
(def hello (fn [] (println "hi"))
we are creating a symbol hello that points to an anonymous var which in turn points to an anonymous function. However, we can give the function an "internal name" like so:
(def hello (fn fn-hello [] (println "hi")))
So now we can access the function from the outside via hello or from the inside using either hello of fn-hello symbols (please don't ever use hello in both locations or you create a lot of confusion...even though it is legal).
I frequently use the fn-hello method in (otherwise) anonymous functions since any exceptions thrown will include the fn-hello symbol which makes tracking down the source of the problem much easier (the line number of the error is often missing from the stack trace). For example when using Instaparse we need a map of anonymous transform functions like:
{
:identifier fn-identifier
:string fn-string
:integer (fn fn-integer [arg] [:integer (java.lang.Integer. arg)])
:boolean (fn fn-boolean [arg] [:boolean (java.lang.Boolean. arg)])
:namespace (fn fn-namespace [arg] [:namespace arg])
:prefix (fn fn-prefix [arg] [:prefix arg])
:organization (fn fn-organization [arg] [:organization arg])
:contact (fn fn-contact [arg] [:contact arg])
:description (fn fn-description [arg] [:description arg])
:presence (fn fn-presence [arg] [:presence arg])
:revision (fn fn-revision [& args] (prepend :revision args))
:iso-date (fn fn-iso-date [& args] [:iso-date (str/join args)])
:reference (fn fn-reference [arg] [:reference arg])
:identity (fn fn-identity [& args] (prepend :identity args))
:typedef (fn fn-typedef [& args] (prepend :typedef args))
:container (fn fn-container [& args] (prepend :container args))
:rpc (fn fn-rpc [& args] (prepend :rpc args))
:input (fn fn-input [& args] (prepend :input args))
...<snip>...
}
and giving each function the "internal name" makes debugging much, much easier. Perhaps this would be unnecessary if Clojure had better error messages, but that is a longstanding (& so far unfullfilled) wish.
You can find more details here: https://clojure.org/reference/special_forms#fn
If you read closely, it claims that (defn foo [x] ...) expands into
(def foo (fn foo [x] ...))
although you may need to experiment to see if this has already solved the use-case you are seeking. It works either way as seen in this example where we explicitly avoid the inner fn-fact name:
(def fact (fn [x] ; fn-fact omitted here
(if (zero? x)
1
(* x (fact (dec x))))))
(fact 4) => 24
This version also works:
(def fact (fn fn-fact [x]
(if (zero? x)
1
(* x (fn-fact (dec x))))))
(fact 4) => 24
(fn-fact 4) => Unable to resolve symbol: fn-fact
So we see that the "internal name" fn-fact is hidden inside the function and is invisible from the outside.
A 2nd approach, if using a macro, is to use the &form global data to access the line number from the source code. In the Tupelo library this technique is used to improve error messages for the
(defmacro dotest [& body] ; #todo README & tests
(let [test-name-sym (symbol (str "test-line-" (:line (meta &form))))]
`(clojure.test/deftest ~test-name-sym ~#body)))
This convenience macro allows the use of unit tests like:
(dotest
(is (= 3 (inc 2))))
which evalutes to
(deftest test-line-123 ; assuming this is on line 123 in source file
(is (= 3 (inc 2))))
instead of manually typing
(deftest t-addition
(is (= 3 (inc 2))))
You can access (:line (meta &form)) and other information in any macro which can make your error messages and/or Exceptions much more informative to the poor reader trying to debug a problem.
Besides the above macro wrapper example, another (more involved) example of the same technique can be seen in the Plumatic Schema library, where they wrap clojure.core/defn with an extended version.
You may also wish to view this question for clarification on how Clojure uses the "anonymous" var as an intermediary between a symbol and a function: When to use a Var instead of a function?
I started with the following code (imagine more than this, but I think this gets the point across):
(defn fun1 [arg] {:fun1 arg})
(defn funA [arg] {:funA arg})
(defn funOne [arg] {:funOne arg})
(defn funBee [arg] {:funBee arg})
(defn -main [& args] (prn (fun1 "test-data")))
My next pass rendered it so:
(defmacro item-defn [a]
`(defn ~(symbol a) [arg#] {~(keyword a) arg#}))
(item-defn "fun1")
(item-defn "funA")
(item-defn "funOne")
(item-defn "funBee")
(defn -main [& args] (prn (fun1 "test-data")))
Is there a way to get this down to something like:
(defmacro item-defn [a]
`(defn ~(symbol a) [arg#] {~(keyword a) arg#}))
(map #(item-defn %) ["fun1" "funA" "funOne" "funBee"])
(defn -main [& args] (prn (fun1 "test-data")))
(I tried that in the repl, and it seems to work, but when I load a clj file with it in it, then it doesn't work. It gives me a "CompilerException" "Unable to resolve symbol: fun1")
Am I misusing macros? How would you do this?
You may define another macro for this purpose, e.g.:
(defmacro item-defn [a]
`(defn ~(symbol a) [arg#] {~(keyword a) arg#}))
(defmacro items-defn [& names]
`(do ~#(for [n names] `(item-defn ~n))))
then you'll be able to use it to define any number of functions:
(items-defn "fun1" "funA" "funOne" "funBee")
I wonder if you map expression really works in the REPL. I suspect that the fun1 and funA functions you have are still in your REPL because you first eval-ed (item-defn "fun1") and (item-defn "funA"). On my box I get:
(map #(item-defn %) ["fun1" "funA"])
;=> (#'user/p1__22185# #'user/p1__22185#)
So no function is defined with name fun1 or funA. The problem is that map is a function and item-defn is a macro. What happens in your map epxression is that item-defn gets macroexpanded at compile time at which moment the strings with function names are not visible. The macroexpander has no way of knowing that you want to use "fun1" as a name for your to be defn-ed function. Instead the macroexpander just sees % and then uses a gen-symed name as name of the defn-ed function. The map expression is evaluated at runtime but then it is too late for the macroexpanded function to do anything with the supplied strings.
The solution of Leonid works because he uses another macro to iterate over the function names. So that the iteration also happens at compile time. You see, macros are kind of contagious. Once you start, you cannot stop.
Inside your macro, the name is already a symbol so you can do:
(defmacro item-defn [name]
`(defn ~name [arg#] {~(keyword name) arg#}))
then
(item-defn fun1)
EDIT: Turned out I was using require instead of :require in the namespace declaration. With :require, tools.namespace refreshes the logging namespace, and the problem goes away. I still find it curious, however, that the expression (eval `(var ~(symbol "A/func"))) does not work in the situation described below (that is, if B below is not refreshed).
Summary: I'm using tools.namespace. If I have namespaces A and B, and in B do (eval `(var ~(symbol "A/func"))), and (tools.namespace/refresh) and run the code, that works. But if I make a change to A, do (tools.namespace/refresh), so that only A refreshes, then running that expression gives the error: Cannot resolve var: A/func in this context, even though A/func exists. Why?
Longer version:
In my project, I have a logging module/namespace that uses robert-hooke (see below). I'm using tools.namespace to reload my code when I make changes.
The problem is the following: When I want to log (my logging currently just prints) something, I list the functions that I want to log in my logging namespace and do (t.n/refresh). That works. But if I make changes to the the namespaces that contain the functions that I want to log, and do (t.n/refresh) without making changes to the logging namespace, the logging no longer works (for the functions that have been refreshed). As soon as I make a change to logging, so that it too is refreshed by tools.namespace, it starts working again.
So, it's like the vars in namespaces that have been refreshed don't properly get their logging hooks. But I don't understand why.
Below is my logging namespace. I call add-logging-wrappers each time I run my program.
If I add (eval `(var ~(symbol "sv/register-damage"))) inside add-logging-wrappers, that's fine when logging has just been refreshed and the logging works. But those times the logging does not work, that expression causes the error Cannot resolve var: sv/register-damage in this context.
(ns game.logging
(require [robert.hooke :as rh]
[clojure.pprint :as pp]
[game.server.core :as sv]
[game.client.core :as cl]
[game.math :as math]
(game.common [core-functions :as ccfns]
[graphics :as gfx])
(game.server [pathfinding :as pf]))
(:use [game.utils]))
(defn log-println [name type object]
(println (str (current-thread-name) " // " name " " type ":\n"
(with-out-str
(pp/pprint object)))))
(defn print-output [name f & args]
(let [result (apply f args)]
(log-println name "output" result)
result))
(defn print-input [name f & args]
(log-println name "input" args)
(apply f args))
(defn print-call [name f & args]
(println (str (current-thread-name) "//" name))
(apply f args))
(defmacro make-name-var-list [fn-list]
`[~#(for [fn fn-list]
[(str fn) `(var ~fn)])])
(defmacro defloglist [name & fns]
`(def ~name (make-name-var-list [~#fns])))
(defn add-hooks [name-vars & wrappers]
(when (seq wrappers)
(doseq [[name var] name-vars]
(rh/add-hook var (partial (first wrappers) name)))
(recur name-vars (next wrappers))))
(defn get-ns-name-vars [ns-sym]
(-> (the-ns ns-sym) (#(.name %)) ns-interns))
(defn add-hooks-to-ns [ns-sym & wrappers]
(apply add-hooks (get-ns-name-vars ns-sym) wrappers))
(defloglist log-both
sv/distribute-exp ;; <--- things to log
sv/register-damage
sv/give-exp)
(defloglist log-input)
(defloglist log-output)
(defn add-logging-wrappers []
(dorun (->> (all-ns) (map #(.name %)) (mapcat ns-interns) (map second)
(map rh/clear-hooks)))
(add-hooks log-both print-output print-input)
(add-hooks log-input print-input)
(add-hooks log-output print-output))
Here is the sample code I want to get to work:
(letfn [(CONC [f] f)
(CONT [f] (str "\newline" f))]
((voodoo "CONC") "hamster"))
Is there some voodo that will make it call the CONC function with hamster as the parameter? That is, is there some way to convert the string "CONC" into a function that is not bound to a namespace but rather to a local binding?
EDIT:
To be clearer, the way this will be called is:
(map #((voodoo (:tag %)) (:value %))
[
{:tag "CONC" :value "hamster"}
{:tag "CONT" :value "gerbil"}
]
)
I'd probably solve this by creating a map of functions indexed by strings:
(def voodoo
{"CONC" (fn [f] f)
"CONT" (fn [f] (str "\newline" f))})
Then your desired code should work directly (exploiting the fact that a map is a function that looks up it's argument)
(map #((voodoo (:tag %)) (:value %))
[
{:tag "CONC" :value "hamster"}
{:tag "CONT" :value "gerbil"}
]
)
Note that the functions here are fully anonymous - you don't need them to be referenced anywhere in the namespace for this to work. In my view this is a good thing, because unless you also need the functions somewhere else then it's best to avoid polluting your top-level namespace too much.
No. Eval does not have access to the local/lexical environment, ever.
Edit: This is not a very good answer, and not really accurate either. You could write voodoo as a macro, and then it doesn't need runtime access to the lexical environment, just compile-time. However, this means it would only work if you know at compile time that the function you want to call is x, and so it wouldn't be very useful - why not just type x instead of (voodoo "x")?
(defmacro voodoo [fname]
(symbol fname))
(letfn [(x [y] (inc y))]
((voodoo "x") 2))
;; 3
(letfn [(x [y] (inc y))]
(let [f "x"]
((voodoo f) 2)))
;; error
Well, it's sort of possible:
(defmacro voodoo [s]
(let [env (zipmap (map (partial list 'quote) (keys &env))
(keys &env))]
`(if-let [v# (~env (symbol ~s))]
v#
(throw (RuntimeException. "no such local")))))
...and now we can do weird stuff like this:
user> (defn example [s]
(letfn [(foo [x] {:foo x})
(bar [x] {:bar x})]
((voodoo s) :quux)))
#'user/example
user> (example "foo")
{:foo :quux}
user> (example "bar")
{:bar :quux}
user> (example "quux")
; Evaluation aborted.
user> *e
#<RuntimeException java.lang.RuntimeException: no such local>
That "Evaluation aborted" means an exception was thrown.
You could also replace the throw branch of the if in voodoo with (resolve (symbol ~s)) to defer to the globals if no local is found:
(defmacro voodoo [s]
(let [env (zipmap (map (partial list 'quote) (keys &env))
(keys &env))]
`(if-let [v# (~env (symbol ~s))]
v#
(resolve (symbol ~s)))))
...and now this works with definition of example as above (though note that if you are experimenting at the REPL, you will need to recompile example after redefining voodoo):
user> (defn quux [x] {:quux x})
#'user/quux
user> (example "quux")
{:quux :quux}
Now, this is an abuse of Clojure's facilities which one would do well to try to do without. If one cannot, one should probably turn to evalive by Michael Fogus; it's a library which provides an "eval-with-locals" facility in the form of an evil function and a couple of utilities. The functionality seems to be well factored too, e.g. something like the ~(zipmap ...) thing above is encapsulated as a macro and evil there appears to be almost a drop-in replacement for eval (add the env parameter and you're good to go). I haven't read the source properly, but I probably will now, looks like fun. :-)
Im not really clear what you are asking for so i'll try a couple answers:
if you have a string that is the name of the function you wish to call:
(def name "+")
((find-var (symbol (str *ns* "/" name))) 1 2 3)
this would give voodoo a deffinition like this:
(defn voodoo [name args] (apply (find-var (symbol (str *ns* "/" name))) args))
#'clojure.core/voodoo
clojure.core=> (voodoo "+" [1 2 3])
6
clojure.core=>
this assumes your function is in the current namepace ns.
if you want to turn a string into a function you could use this pattern
(let [f (eval (read-string "(fn [] 4)"))] (f))
I want to send var-args of a function to a macro, still as var-args.
Here is my code:
(defmacro test-macro
[& args]
`(println (str "count=" ~(count args) "; args=" ~#args)))
(defn test-fn-calling-macro
[& args]
(test-macro args))
The output of (test-macro "a" "b" "c") is what I want: count=3; args=abc
The output of (test-fn-calling-macro "a" "b" "c") is : count=1; args=("a" "b" "c") because args is sent as a single argument to the macro. How can I expand this args in my function in order to call the macro with the 3 arguments?
I guess I'm just missing a simple core function but I'm not able to find it. Thanks
EDIT 2 - My "real" code, shown in EDIT section below is not a valid situation to use this technique.
As pointed out by #Brian, the macro xml-to-cass can be replaced with a function like this:
(defn xml-to-cass
[zipper table key attr & path]
(doseq [v (apply zf/xml-> zipper path)] (cass/set-attr! table key attr v)))
EDIT - the following section goes beyond my original question but any insight is welcome
The code above is just the most simple I could come with to pinpoint my problem. My real code deals with clj-cassandra and zip-filter. It may also look over-engineering but it's just a toy project and I'm trying to learn the language at the same time.
I want to parse some XML found on mlb.com and insert values found into a cassandra database. Here is my code and the thinking behind it.
Step 1 - Function which works fine but contains code duplication
(ns stats.importer
(:require
[clojure.xml :as xml]
[clojure.zip :as zip]
[clojure.contrib.zip-filter.xml :as zf]
[cassandra.client :as cass]))
(def root-url "http://gd2.mlb.com/components/game/mlb/year_2010/month_05/day_01/")
(def games-table (cass/mk-cf-spec "localhost" 9160 "mlb-stats" "games"))
(defn import-game-xml-1
"Import the content of xml into cassandra"
[game-dir]
(let [url (str root-url game-dir "game.xml")
zipper (zip/xml-zip (xml/parse url))
game-id (.substring game-dir 4 (- (.length game-dir) 1))]
(doseq [v (zf/xml-> zipper (zf/attr :type))] (cass/set-attr! games-table game-id :type v))
(doseq [v (zf/xml-> zipper (zf/attr :local_game_time))] (cass/set-attr! games-table game-id :local_game_time v))
(doseq [v (zf/xml-> zipper :team [(zf/attr= :type "home")] (zf/attr :name_full))] (cass/set-attr! games-table game-id :home_team v))))
The parameter to import-game-xml-1 can be for example "gid_2010_05_01_colmlb_sfnmlb_1/". I remove the "gid_" and the trailing slash to make it the key of the ColumnFamily games in my database.
I found that the 3 doseq were a lot of duplication (and there should be more than 3 in the final version). So code templating using a macro seemed appropriate here (correct me if I'm wrong).
Step 2 - Introducing a macro for code templating (still works)
(defmacro xml-to-cass
[zipper table key attr & path]
`(doseq [v# (zf/xml-> ~zipper ~#path)] (cass/set-attr! ~table ~key ~attr v#)))
(defn import-game-xml-2
"Import the content of xml into cassandra"
[game-dir]
(let [url (str root-url game-dir "game.xml")
zipper (zip/xml-zip (xml/parse url))
game-id (.substring game-dir 4 (- (.length game-dir) 1))]
(xml-to-cass zipper games-table game-id :type (zf/attr :type))
(xml-to-cass zipper games-table game-id :local_game_time (zf/attr :local_game_time))
(xml-to-cass zipper games-table game-id :home_team :team [(zf/attr= :type "home")] (zf/attr :name_full))))
I believe that's an improvement but I still see some duplication in always reusing the same 3 parameters in my calls to xml-to-cass. That's were I introduced an intermediate function to take care of those.
Step 3 - Adding a function to call the macro (the problem is here)
(defn import-game-xml-3
"Import the content of xml into cassandra"
[game-dir]
(let [url (str root-url game-dir "game.xml")
zipper (zip/xml-zip (xml/parse url))
game-id (.substring game-dir 4 (- (.length game-dir) 1))
save-game-attr (fn[key path] (xml-to-cass zipper games-table game-id key path))]
(save-game-attr :type (zf/attr :type)) ; works well because path has only one element
(save-game-attr :local_game_time (zf/attr :local_game_time))
(save-game-attr :home :team [(zf/attr= :type "home"] (zf/attr :name_full))))) ; FIXME this final line doesn't work
Here's a some simple code which may be illuminating.
Macros are about code generation. If you want that to happen at runtime, for some reason, then you have to build and evaluate the code at runtime. This can be a powerful technique.
(defmacro test-macro
[& args]
`(println (str "count=" ~(count args) "; args=" ~#args)))
(defn test-fn-calling-macro
[& args]
(test-macro args))
(defn test-fn-expanding-macro-at-runtime
[& args]
(eval (cons `test-macro args)))
(defmacro test-macro-expanding-macro-at-compile-time
[& args]
(cons `test-macro args))
;; using the splicing notation
(defmacro test-macro-expanding-macro-at-compile-time-2
[& args]
`(test-macro ~#args))
(defn test-fn-expanding-macro-at-runtime-2
[& args]
(eval `(test-macro ~#args)))
(test-macro "a" "b" "c") ;; count=3; args=abc nil
(test-fn-calling-macro "a" "b" "c") ;; count=1; args=("a" "b" "c") nil
(test-fn-expanding-macro-at-runtime "a" "b" "c") ; count=3; args=abc nil
(test-macro-expanding-macro-at-compile-time "a" "b" "c") ; count=3; args=abc nil
(test-macro-expanding-macro-at-compile-time-2 "a" "b" "c") ; count=3; args=abc nil
(test-fn-expanding-macro-at-runtime "a" "b" "c") ; count=3; args=abc nil
If contemplation of the above doesn't prove enlightening, might I suggest a couple of my own blog articles?
In this one I go through macros from scratch, and how clojure's work in particular:
http://www.learningclojure.com/2010/09/clojure-macro-tutorial-part-i-getting.html
And in this one I show why run-time code generation might be useful:
http://www.learningclojure.com/2010/09/clojure-faster-than-machine-code.html
The typical way to use a collection as individual arguments to a function is to use (apply function my-list-o-args)
(defn test-not-a-macro [& args]
(print args))
(defn calls-the-not-a-macro [& args]
(apply test-not-a-macro args))
though you wont be able to use apply because test-macro is a macro. to solve this problem you will need to wrap test macro in a function call so you can apply on it.
(defmacro test-macro [& args]
`(println ~#args))
(defn calls-test-macro [& args]
(eval (concat '(test-macro) (args)))) ;you almost never need eval.
(defn calls-calls-test-macro [& args]
(calls-test-macro args))
This is actually a really good example of one of the ways macros are hard to compose. (some would say they cant be composed cleanly, though i think thats an exageration)
Macros are not magic. They are a mechanism to convert code at compile-time to equivalent code; they are not used at run-time. The pain you are feeling is because you are trying to do something you should not be trying to do.
I don't know the library in question, but if cass/set-attr! is a function, I see no reason why the macro you defined has to be a macro; it could be a function instead. You can do what you want to do if you can rewrite your macro as a function instead.
Your requirements aren't clear. I don't see why a macro is necessary here for test-macro, unless you're trying to print the unevaluated forms supplied to your macro.
These functions provide your expected results, but that's because your sample data was self-evaluating.
(defn test-args
[& args]
(println (format "count=%d; args=%s"
(count args)
(apply str args))))
or
(defn test-args
[& args]
(print (format "count=%d; args=" (count args)))
(doseq [a args]
(pr a))
(newline))
You can imagine other variations to get to the same result.
Try calling that function with something that doesn't evaluate to itself, and note the result:
(test-args (+ 1 2) (+ 3 4))
Were you looking to see the arguments printed as "37" or "(+ 1 2)(+ 3 4)"?
If you were instead trying to learn about macros and their expansion in general, as opposed to solving this particular problem, please tune your question to probe further.