user=> (def v-1 "this is v1")
user=> (def v-2 "this is v2")
user=> (defmacro m [v] (symbol (str "v-" v)))
user=> (m 1)
"this is v1"
user=> (m 2)
"this is v2"
user=> (let [i 2] (m i))
CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: v-i in this context, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:73:12)
Can I write a macro let both
(m 2)
and
(let [i 2] (m i))
get "this is v2" ?
This is possible without a macro:
(defn m [v] (var-get (resolve (symbol (str "v-" v)))))
(m 1) ;; => "This is v1"
(let [i 2] (m i)) ;; => "This is v2"
You can use a macro too if you want:
(defmacro m [v] `#(resolve (symbol (str "v-" ~v))))
A plain function seems much more likely to be what you want.
First, though, to address the original question, if you wanted to insist on using a macro, macros are regular functions that happen to be called at compile time, so you can look up a Var using its symbolic name and obtain its value using deref just like you could at (your application's, as opposed to your macro's) runtime:
(defmacro var-value [vsym] #(resolve vsym))
(def foo 1)
(var-value foo)
;= 1
(macroexpand-1 '(var-value foo))
;= 1
Note that the above 1 is the actual macroexpansion here. This is different to
(defmacro var-value [vsym] `#(resolve ~vsym))
in that the latter expands to a call to resolve, and so the lookup given that implementation is postponed to your app's runtime.
(macroexpand-1 '(var-value foo))
;= (clojure.core/deref (clojure.core/resolve foo))
So this code will just be inlined wherever you call the macro.
Of course the macro could also expand to a symbol – e.g.
(defmacro prefixed-var [suffix]
`(symbol (str "v-" ssuffix)))
will produce expansions like v-1 (for (prefixed-var 1)) etc.
Going back to the subject of the suitability of macros here, however, if you use a macro, all the information that you need to produce your expansion must be available at compile time, and so in general you cannot use the values of let / loop locals or function arguments in your expansion for the fundamental reason that they don't have any fixed value at compile time.1
Thus the cleanest approach would probably be to wrap a resolve call in defn and call the resulting function – although of course to know for sure, we'd need to know what problem you were trying to solve by introducing a macro that performs a Var lookup.
1 Except if statically assigned constant values, as in the example given in the question text; I'm assuming you're thinking of using runtime values of locals in general, not just those that whose initialization expressions are constant literals.
Related
Here's a working minimal example showing how Clojure can handle non-namespaced symbols:
(defmacro simple-macro [s]
(name `~s))
(str "And the answer is "
(simple-macro v1))
Now I'd like to do something more complicated. Inspired by this example:
(defn typical-closure []
(let [names (atom [])]
(fn [arg] (swap! names conj arg) #names)))
(def Q (typical-closure))
(Q 1)
(Q 2)
;; [1 2]
I now want to define a similar closure to take the names of undefined variables.
(defn take-names-fun []
(let [names (atom [])]
#((swap! names conj (simple-macro %)) (deref names))))
(def P (take-names-fun))
(P v1)
But this doesn't work as hoped; I get the error:
Unable to resolve symbol: v1 in this context
Is there a way to fix this so that we can add the name "v1" to the list of names defined above?
I tried using a macro instead (inspired by a syntax trick on page 21 of "Mastering Clojure Macros")... but this answer on ask.clojure.org says it doesn't make sense to define a closure over an atom in a macro.
(defmacro take-names-macro []
(let [names (atom [])]
`(fn [~'x] (swap! ~names conj (simple-macro ~'x)) (deref ~names))))
(def R (take-names-macro))
And indeed, I get another error here:
Can't embed object in code, maybe print-dup not defined:
However, there is no such restriction for using atoms inside defn. Maybe at the end of the day I need to put my symbols in a namespace...?
Not quite sure what it is that you're ultimately trying to accomplish.
But, since P is a function, it will always evaluate its arguments. So, if you pass it an undefined symbol, you'll get the error you got. Instead, you have to create a macro so that you can quote the undefined symbol (to stop the evaluation of the argument) and then pass that to P. Here is an example that does that.
user> (defn take-names-fun []
(let [names (atom [])]
(fn [arg] (swap! names conj (name arg)))))
#'user/take-names-fun
user> (def P (take-names-fun))
#'user/P
user> (defmacro PM [s] `(P (quote ~s)))
#'user/PM
user> (PM v1)
["v1"]
user> (PM v2)
["v1" "v2"]
user>
You might find the article on Evaluation in Clojure helpful.
#dorab's answer is nice.
But you could also tell yourself: "When entering undefined variables into a function, I have to quote them to avoid evaluation of them!"
So, after:
(defn typical-closure []
(let [names (atom [])]
(fn [arg] (swap! names conj arg) #names)))
(def Q (typical-closure))
Do:
user=> (Q 'v1)
[v1]
user=> (Q 'v2)
[v1 v2]
user=> (Q 3)
[v1 v2 3]
user=> (Q 'v4)
[v1 v2 3 v4]
user=>
In this way you don't need the macro and you can alternate between evaluated and not-evaluated arguments (undefined symbols).
So with the way fn's are written in clojure there is unfortunately no way to get the name of the var being passed as a param from within the fn body.. Someone with more experience with the clojure src may be able to explain better why that is, my initial guess would be that it has something to do with keeping thread local scopes isolated and lazy.
But there's absolutely nothing stopping you from writing a macro that wraps other macros using your closure idea!
Here's an example of how something like that may be written:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11857444
Here's my failed attempt:
(defmacro until
[condition body setup increment]
`(let [c ~#condition]
(loop [i setup]
(when (not c)
(do
~#body
(recur ~#increment))))))
(def i 1)
(until (> i 5)
(println "Number " i)
0
(inc i))
I get: CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't let qualified name: clojure-noob.core/c
I am expecting this output:
Number 1
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4
Number 5
What's wrong?
There are a few issues with the macro:
You need to generate symbols for bindings inside macros. A convenient way to do this is suffix the names with #. Otherwise the bindings in your macros could overshadow bindings elsewhere in your code.
Some of the macro inputs were unnecessarily spliced when unquoted i.e. ~# instead of ~
Here's a version of the macro that will compile/expand:
(defmacro until [condition body setup increment]
`(let [c# ~condition]
(loop [i# ~setup]
(when-not c#
~body
(recur ~increment)))))
But this will loop forever in your example because condition is only evaluated once and i's value would never change anyway. We could fix that:
(defmacro until [condition body increment]
`(loop []
(when-not ~condition
~body
~increment
(recur))))
And we need to make i mutable if we want to change its value:
(def i (atom 1))
(until (> #i 5)
(println "Number " #i)
(swap! i inc))
;; Number 1
;; Number 2
;; Number 3
;; Number 4
;; Number 5
But now until is starting to look a lot like the complement of while, and its extra complexity doesn't seem beneficial.
(defmacro until [test & body]
`(loop []
(when-not ~test
~#body
(recur))))
This version of until is identical to while except the test is inverted, and the sample code above with the atom still behaves correctly. We can further simplify until by using while directly, and it'll ultimately expand to the same code:
(defmacro until [test & body]
`(while (not ~test) ~#body))
Change the let line too:
...
`(let [c# ~#condition]
...
Then rename all references of c to c#. The postfix # generates a unique, non-namespaced-qualified identifier to ensure that the symbol created by the macro doesn't clash with any existing symbols in the context that the macro expands into. Whenever you bind a symbol in a quoted form, you should be using # to prevent collisions, unless you have a good reason to not use it.
Why is this necessary in this case? I can't remember exactly the reason, but if I recall correctly, any symbols bound in a syntax quoted form (`()) are namespace qualified, and you can't use a let to create namespace qualified symbols.
You can recreate the error by typing:
(let [a/a 1]
a/a)
First, I have no experience with CS and Clojure is my first language, so pardon if the following problem has a solution, that is immediately apparent for a programmer.
The summary of the question is as follows: one needs to create atoms at will with unknown yet symbols at unknown times. My approach revolves around a) storing temporarily the names of the atoms as strings in an atom itself; b) changing those strings to symbols with a function; c) using a function to add and create new atoms. The problem pertains to step "c": calling the function does not create new atoms, but using its body does create them.
All steps taken in the REPL are below (comments follow code blocks):
user=> (def atom-pool
#_=> (atom ["a1" "a2"]))
#'user/atom-pool
'atom-pool is the atom that stores intermediate to-be atoms as strings.
user=> (defn atom-symbols []
#_=> (mapv symbol (deref atom-pool)))
#'user/atom-symbols
user=> (defmacro populate-atoms []
#_=> (let [qs (vec (remove #(resolve %) (atom-symbols)))]
#_=> `(do ~#(for [s qs]
#_=> `(def ~s (atom #{}))))))
#'user/populate-atoms
'populate-atoms is the macro, that defines those atoms. Note, the purpose of (remove #(resolve %) (atom-symbols)) is to create only yet non-existing atoms. 'atom-symbols reads 'atom-pool and turns its content to symbols.
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(nil nil nil)
Here it is confirmed that there are no 'a1', 'a2', 'a-new' atoms as of yet.
user=> (defn new-atom [a]
#_=> (do
#_=> (swap! atom-pool conj a)
#_=> (populate-atoms)))
#'user/new-atom
'new-atom is the function, that first adds new to-be atom as string to `atom-pool. Then 'populate-atoms creates all the atoms from 'atom-symbols function.
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 nil)
Here we see that 'a1 'a2 were created as clojure.lang.Var$Unbound just by defining a function, why?
user=> (new-atom "a-new")
#'user/a2
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 nil)
Calling (new-atom "a-new") did not create the 'a-new atom!
user=> (do
#_=> (swap! atom-pool conj "a-new")
#_=> (populate-atoms))
#'user/a-new
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 #'user/a-new)
user=>
Here we see that resorting explicitly to 'new-atom's body did create the 'a-new atom. 'a-new is a type of clojure.lang.Atom, but 'a1 and 'a2 were skipped due to already being present in the namespace as clojure.lang.Var$Unbound.
Appreciate any help how to make it work!
EDIT: Note, this is an example. In my project the 'atom-pool is actually a collection of maps (atom with maps). Those maps have keys {:name val}. If a new map is added, then I create a corresponding atom for this map by parsing its :name key.
"The summary of the question is as follows: one needs to create atoms at will with unknown yet symbols at unknown times. "
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. I would generally suggest you try another way of achieving whatever the actual functionality is without generating vars at runtime, but if you must, you should use intern and leave out the macro stuff.
You cannot solve this with macros since macros are expanded at compile time, meaning that in
(defn new-atom [a]
(do
(swap! atom-pool conj a)
(populate-atoms)))
populate-atoms is expanded only once; when the (defn new-atom ...) form is compiled, but you're attempting to change its expansion when new-atom is called (which necessarily happens later).
#JoostDiepenmaat is right about why populate-atoms is not behaving as expected. You simply cannot do this using macros, and it is generally best to avoid generating vars at runtime. A better solution would be to define your atom-pool as a map of keywords to atoms:
(def atom-pool
(atom {:a1 (atom #{}) :a2 (atom #{})}))
Then you don't need atom-symbols or populate-atoms because you're not dealing with vars at compile-time, but typical data structures at run-time. Your new-atom function could look like this:
(defn new-atom [kw]
(swap! atom-pool assoc kw (atom #{})))
EDIT: If you don't want your new-atom function to override existing atoms which might contain actual data instead of just #{}, you can check first to see if the atom exists in the atom-pool:
(defn new-atom [kw]
(when-not (kw #atom-pool)
(swap! atom-pool assoc kw (atom #{}))))
I've already submitted one answer to this question, and I think that that answer is better, but here is a radically different approach based on eval:
(def atom-pool (atom ["a1" "a2"]))
(defn new-atom! [name]
(load-string (format "(def %s (atom #{}))" name)))
(defn populate-atoms! []
(doseq [x atom-pool]
(new-atom x)))
format builds up a string where %s is substituted with the name you're passing in. load-string reads the resulting string (def "name" (atom #{})) in as a data structure and evals it (this is equivalent to (eval (read-string "(def ...)
Of course, then we're stuck with the problem of only defining atoms that don't already exist. We could change the our new-atom! function to make it so that we only create an atom if it doesn't already exist:
(defn new-atom! [name]
(when-not (resolve (symbol name))
(load-string (format "(def %s (atom #{}))" name name))))
The Clojure community seems to be against using eval in most cases, as it is usually not needed (macros or functions will do what you want in 99% of cases*), and eval can be potentially unsafe, especially if user input is involved -- see Brian Carper's answer to this question.
*After attempting to solve this particular problem using macros, I came to the conclusion that it either cannot be done without relying on eval, or my macro-writing skills just aren't good enough to get the job done with a macro!
At any rate, I still think my other answer is a better solution here -- generally when you're getting way down into the nuts & bolts of writing macros or using eval, there is probably a simpler approach that doesn't involve metaprogramming.
(use '[clojure.contrib.trace])
(dotrace [str] (reduce str [\a \b]))
In a nutshell:
That's because trace-fn-call, which is the thing dotrace uses to wrap the functions to be traced, uses str to produce the nice TRACE foo => val output.
Extended explanation:
The dotrace macro does its magic by installing a thread binding for each Var holding a function to be traced; in this case, there is one such Var, clojure.core/str. The replacement looks roughly like so:
(let [f ##'str]
(fn [& args]
(trace-fn-call 'str f args)))
The trace-fn-call, to quote its docstring, "Traces a single call to a function f with args.". In doing so, it calls the traced function, takes note of the return value, prints out a nice informative message of the form TRACE foo => val and returns the value obtained from the traced function so that regular execution may continue.
As mentioned above, this TRACE foo => val message is produced used str; however, in the case at hand, this is actually the function being traced, so a call to it leads to another call to trace-fn-call, which makes its own attempt to produce the tracing output string using str, which leads to another call to trace-fn-call... ultimately leading to the stack blowing up.
A workaround:
The following modified versions of dotrace and trace-fn-call should work fine even in the presence of weird bindings for core Vars (note that futures may not be scheduled promptly; if that's a problem, see below):
(defn my-trace-fn-call
"Traces a single call to a function f with args. 'name' is the
symbol name of the function."
[name f args]
(let [id (gensym "t")]
#(future (tracer id (str (trace-indent) (pr-str (cons name args)))))
(let [value (binding [*trace-depth* (inc *trace-depth*)]
(apply f args))]
#(future (tracer id (str (trace-indent) "=> " (pr-str value))))
value)))
(defmacro my-dotrace
"Given a sequence of function identifiers, evaluate the body
expressions in an environment in which the identifiers are bound to
the traced functions. Does not work on inlined functions,
such as clojure.core/+"
[fnames & exprs]
`(binding [~#(interleave fnames
(for [fname fnames]
`(let [f# #(var ~fname)]
(fn [& args#]
(my-trace-fn-call '~fname f# args#)))))]
~#exprs))
(Rebinding trace-fn-call around a regular dotrace apparently doesn't work; my guess is that's because of clojure.* Var calls still being hard-wired by the compiler, but that's a separate matter. The above will work, anyway.)
An alternative would be to use the above my-dotrace macro together with a my-trace-fn-call function not using futures, but modified to call custom replacements for the clojure.contrib.trace functions using the following in place of str:
(defn my-str [& args] (apply (.getRoot #'clojure.core/str) args))
The replacements are straightforward and tedious and I omit them from the answer.
Given a list of names for variables, I want to set those variables to an expression.
I tried this:
(doall (for [x ["a" "b" "c"]] (def (symbol x) 666)))
...but this yields the error
java.lang.Exception: First argument to def must be a Symbol
Can anyone show me the right way to accomplish this, please?
Clojure's "intern" function is for this purpose:
(doseq [x ["a" "b" "c"]]
(intern *ns* (symbol x) 666))
(doall (for [x ["a" "b" "c"]] (eval `(def ~(symbol x) 666))))
In response to your comment:
There are no macros involved here. eval is a function that takes a list and returns the result of executing that list as code. ` and ~ are shortcuts to create a partially-quoted list.
` means the contents of the following lists shall be quoted unless preceded by a ~
~ the following list is a function call that shall be executed, not quoted.
So ``(def ~(symbol x) 666)is the list containing the symboldef, followed by the result of executingsymbol xfollowed by the number of the beast. I could as well have written(eval (list 'def (symbol x) 666))` to achieve the same effect.
Updated to take Stuart Sierra's comment (mentioning clojure.core/intern) into account.
Using eval here is fine, but it may be interesting to know that it is not necessary, regardless of whether the Vars are known to exist already. In fact, if they are known to exist, then I think the alter-var-root solution below is cleaner; if they might not exist, then I wouldn't insist on my alternative proposition being much cleaner, but it seems to make for the shortest code (if we disregard the overhead of three lines for a function definition), so I'll just post it for your consideration.
If the Var is known to exist:
(alter-var-root (resolve (symbol "foo")) (constantly new-value))
So you could do
(dorun
(map #(-> %1 symbol resolve (alter-var-root %2))
["x" "y" "z"]
[value-for-x value-for-y value-for z]))
(If the same value was to be used for all Vars, you could use (repeat value) for the final argument to map or just put it in the anonymous function.)
If the Vars might need to be created, then you can actually write a function to do this (once again, I wouldn't necessarily claim this to be cleaner than eval, but anyway -- just for the interest of it):
(defn create-var
;; I used clojure.lang.Var/intern in the original answer,
;; but as Stuart Sierra has pointed out in a comment,
;; a Clojure built-in is available to accomplish the same
;; thing
([sym] (intern *ns* sym))
([sym val] (intern *ns* sym val)))
Note that if a Var turns out to have already been interned with the given name in the given namespace, then this changes nothing in the single argument case or just resets the Var to the given new value in the two argument case. With this, you can solve the original problem like so:
(dorun (map #(create-var (symbol %) 666) ["x" "y" "z"]))
Some additional examples:
user> (create-var 'bar (fn [_] :bar))
#'user/bar
user> (bar :foo)
:bar
user> (create-var 'baz)
#'user/baz
user> baz
; Evaluation aborted. ; java.lang.IllegalStateException:
; Var user/baz is unbound.
; It does exist, though!
;; if you really wanted to do things like this, you'd
;; actually use the clojure.contrib.with-ns/with-ns macro
user> (binding [*ns* (the-ns 'quux)]
(create-var 'foobar 5))
#'quux/foobar
user> quux/foobar
5
Evaluation rules for normal function calls are to evaluate all the items of the list, and call the first item in the list as a function with the rest of the items in the list as parameters.
But you can't make any assumptions about the evaluation rules for special forms or macros. A special form or the code produced by a macro call could evaluate all the arguments, or never evaluate them, or evaluate them multiple times, or evaluate some arguments and not others. def is a special form, and it doesn't evaluate its first argument. If it did, it couldn't work. Evaluating the foo in (def foo 123) would result in a "no such var 'foo'" error most of the time (if foo was already defined, you probably wouldn't be defining it yourself).
I'm not sure what you're using this for, but it doesn't seem very idiomatic. Using def anywhere but at the toplevel of your program usually means you're doing something wrong.
(Note: doall + for = doseq.)