I am working through Clojure for the Brave and True. In the chapter on macros there is this exercise:
Write a macro that defines an arbitrary number of attribute-retrieving functions using one macro call. Here’s how you would call it:
(defattrs c-int :intelligence
c-str :strength
c-dex :dexterity)
What these functions do is retrieve a value from a map. For example given: (def character {:name "Travis", :intelligence 20, :strength 23, :dexterity 13})
The result of (c-int character) would be 20 of course such a function could easily be defined as (def c-int #(:intelligence %))
This is the solution I came up with to the problem:
(defmacro defattrs
[& attributes]
`(let [attribute-pairs# (partition 2 (quote ~attributes))]
(map (fn [[function-name# attribute-key#]]
(def function-name# #(attribute-key# %)))
attribute-pairs#)))
The problem I am having is that def uses the generated symbol name instead of what it resolves to to define the function (which in hindsight makes sense given the usage of def). My attempts to use expressions with defining functions such as:
(let [x ['c-int :intelligence]]
(def (first x) #((second x) %)))
Have resulted in this error: CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: First argument to def must be a Symbol, compiling:(/tmp/form-init5664727540242288850.clj:2:1)
Any ideas on how I can achieve this?
There are ordinary manipulations that you do with the attributes parameter that don't need to be generated as forms:
splitting the attributes into attribute-pairs; and
defining the function to generate a def form for each pair.
Applying the above to your code, we get ...
(defmacro defattrs [& attributes]
(let [attribute-pairs (partition 2 attributes)]
(map (fn [[function-name attribute-key]]
`(def ~function-name #(~attribute-key %)))
attribute-pairs)))
The scope of the back-quote is restricted to the def we wish to generate.
The values of the function-name and attribute-key parameters of the function are inserted into the def form.
There is one problem remaining.
The result of the map is a sequence of def forms.
The first one will be interpreted as a function to
apply to the rest.
The solution is to cons a do onto the front of the sequence:
(defmacro defattrs [& attributes]
(let [attribute-pairs (partition 2 attributes)]
(cons 'do
(map (fn [[function-name attribute-key]]
`(def ~function-name ~attribute-key))
attribute-pairs))))
I've also abbreviated #(~attribute-key %) to the equivalent ~attribute-key within the back-quoted form.
Let's see what the expansion looks like:
(macroexpand-1 '(defattrs dooby :brrr))
;(do (def dooby :brrr))
Looks good. Let's try it!
(defattrs gosh :brrr)
(gosh {:brrr 777})
;777
It works.
You have found the use-case for the back-quote and tilde. Just try this:
(let [x ['c-int :intelligence]]
(eval `(def ~(first x) #(~(second x) %))))
(def character {:name "Travis", :intelligence 20, :strength 23, :dexterity 13})
(c-int character) => 20
The back-quote is similar to the single-quote in that it makes the next form into a data structure of lists, symbols, etc. The difference is that the data structure is intended to be used as a template, where internal bits can be substituted using the tilde. The cool part is that the tilde doesn't just substitute items, but works for live code that can be any arbitrary Clojure expression.
Related
I am trying to print the documentation for all functions in a given namespace by invoking the following expression in a REPL:
(doseq
[f (dir-fn 'clojure.repl)]
(doc f))
However the invocation of this expression returns nil without printing the documentation to the REPL. I know this might have to do with doc being a macro, but I'm a Clojure novice and am not entirely sure how to understand the problem.
Why does this expression return nil without printing the documentation?
How can this expression be modified so that it prints the documentation for each function in a given namespace?
Thanks!
Update: Combined both provided answers:
(defn ns-docs [ns']
(doseq [[symbol var] (ns-interns ns')]
(newline)
(println symbol)
(print " ")
(println (:doc (meta var)))))
(ns-docs 'clojure.repl)
I would, instead, start here:
The Clojure CheatSheet
ClojureDocs.org
Clojure-Doc.org (similar name, but different)
The API & Reference sections at Clojure.org
Note that doc is in the namespace clojure.repl, which reflects its intended usage (by a human in a repl). Here is some code that will also iterate on a namespace & print doc strings (using a different technique):
(doseq [[fn-symbol fn-var] (ns-interns 'demo.core)]
(newline)
(println fn-symbol)
(println (:doc (meta fn-var))))
where demo.core is the namespace of interest.
Note that ns-interns gives you both a symbol and var like:
fn-symbol => <#clojure.lang.Symbol -main>
fn-var => <#clojure.lang.Var #'demo.core/-main>
The meta function has lots of other info you may want to use someday:
(meta fn-var) =>
<#clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap
{ :arglists ([& args]),
:doc "The Main Man!",
:line 9, :column 1,
:file "demo/core.clj",
:name -main,
:ns #object[clojure.lang.Namespace 0x14c35a06 "demo.core"]}>
While this probably won't help you with answering your question, the problem of evaluating macro's comes up a lot when you are learning Clojure.
Macros are responsible for the evaluation of their arguments. In this case clojure.repl/doc will ignore the current lexical context and assume that the symbol f that you're giving it is the name of a function you want to see the documentation for. It does this because it's intended to be used at the REPL, and is assuming you wouldn't want to type quotes all the time.
As f doesn't exist, it prints nothing. Then doseq returns nil, since it exists to do something for side effects only - hence starting in do. In order to pass an argument to a macro that refuses to respect the lexical context like this, you need to write the code for each element in the list.
You can do this by hand, or by constructing the code as data, and passing it to eval to execute. You can do this in an imperative style, using doseq:
(doseq [f (ns-interns 'clojure.repl)]
(eval `(doc ~(symbol "clojure.repl" (str (first f))))))
or in a slightly more Clojurey way (which will allow you to see the code that it would execute by removing eval from the end and running it at the REPL):
(->> (ns-interns 'clojure.repl)
(map #(list 'clojure.repl/doc (symbol "clojure.repl" (str (first %)))))
(cons `do)
eval)
In both of these we use quote and syntax-quote to construct some code from the list of symbols reflected from the namespace, and pass it to eval to actually execute it. This page on Clojure's weird characters should point you in the right direction for understanding what's going on here.
This an example of why you shouldn't write macro's, unless you've got no other options. Macro's do not compose, and are often difficult to work with. For a more in depth discussion, Fogus's talk and Christophe Grand's talk are both good talks.
Why does this expression return nil without printing the documentation?
Because the doc macro is receiving the symbol f from your loop, instead of a function symbol directly.
How can this expression be modified so that it prints the documentation for each function in a given namespace?
(defn ns-docs [ns']
(let [metas (->> (ns-interns ns') (vals) (map meta) (sort-by :name))]
(for [m metas :when (:doc m)] ;; you could filter here if you want fns only
(select-keys m [:name :doc]))))
(ns-docs 'clojure.repl)
=>
({:name apropos,
:doc "Given a regular expression or stringable thing, return a seq of all
public definitions in all currently-loaded namespaces that match the
str-or-pattern."}
...
)
Then you can print those maps/strings if you want.
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.
Is there a way to generically get metadata for arguments to a function in clojure? The answer posted in this question does not, actually, work in general:
user> (defn foo "informative dox!" [] 1)
#'user/foo
user> (defmacro get-docs [func] `(:doc (meta (var ~func))))
#'user/get-docs
user> (get-docs foo)
"informative dox!"
user> (get-docs (identity foo))
; Evaluation aborted.
user> (defn process-docs [f] (let [docs (get-docs f)] (reverse docs)))
; Evaluation aborted.
The second-to-last line doesn't work because you can't call var on the list (identity foo), and the last line doesn't even compile because the compiler complains about being unable to resolve f.
Most of the solutions for this problem I've found rely on the idea that you have access to the symbol in the function's definition, or something like that, so that you can do something like (resolve 'f) or (var f). But I want something that I can use on the argument to a function, where you don't know that information.
Essentially, I'd like an expression I can put in place of the question marks below to get the metadata of #'map:
(let [x map] (??? x))
its a mouthful though possible:
(let [x map]
(:doc (meta (second (first (filter #(and (var? (second %))
(= x (var-get (second %))))
(ns-map *ns*)))))))
produces the desired result:
"Returns a lazy sequence consisting of the result of applying f to the
set of first items of each coll, followed by applying f to the set
of second items in each coll, until any one of the colls is\n exhausted. Any remaining items in other colls are ignored. Function
f should accept number-of-colls arguments."
under the hood Namespaces are essentially maps of names to vars and the vars contain functions. you can search the contents of these vars for the one that matches the function you are seeking and then look at it's associated var and get the metadata from that var.
I have a bunch of functions that map to and from some codes defined by an external system:
(defn translate-from-ib-size-tick-field-code [val]
(condp = val
0 :bid-size
3 :ask-size
5 :last-size
8 :volume))
(defn translate-to-ib-size-tick-field-code [val]
(condp = val
:bid-size 0
:ask-size 3
:last-size 5
:volume 8))
I'd like to make a macro to remove the duplication:
#_ (translation-table size-tick-field-code
{:bid-size 0
:ask-size 3
:last-size 5
:volume 8})
I started the macro like this:
(defmacro translation-table [name & vals]
`(defn ~(symbol (str "translate-to-ib-" name)) [val#]
(get ~#vals val#)))
The resulting function body seems right, but the function name is wrong:
re-actor.conversions> (macroexpand `(translation-table monkey {:a 1 :b 2}))
(def translate-to-ib-re-actor.conversions/monkey
(.withMeta (clojure.core/fn translate-to-ib-re-actor.conversions/monkey
([val__10589__auto__]
(clojure.core/get {:a 1, :b 2} val__10589__auto__))) (.meta ...
I'd like the "translate-to-ib-" to appear as part of the function name, instead of a prefix to the namespace, as it turned out.
How can I do this with clojure macros? If I am just doing it wrong and shouldn't use macros for this for some reason, please do let me know, but I would also like to know how to create function names like this to just improve my understanding of clojure and macros in general. Thanks!
The macro issue is twofold:
1) You're using a backtick when quoting the form passed to macroexpand, which namespace-qualifies the symbols within:
`(translation-table monkey {:a 1 :b 2})
=> (foo.bar/translation-table foo.bar/monkey {:a 1, :b 2})
where foo.bar is whatever namespace you're in.
2) You're constructing the name of the defn item using the symbol name, which, when it is namespace-qualified, will stringify to "foo.bar/monkey". Here's a version that will work:
(defmacro translation-table [tname & vals]
`(defn ~(symbol (str "translate-to-ib-" (name tname))) [val#]
(get ~#vals val#)))
Notice that we're getting the name of tname without the namespace part, using the name function.
As for whether a macro is the right solution here, probably not :-) For a simple case like this, I might just use maps:
(def translate-from-ib-size-tick-field-code
{0 :bid-size
3 :ask-size
5 :last-size
8 :volume})
;; swap keys & vals
(def translate-to-ib-size-tick-field-code
(zipmap (vals translate-from-ib-size-tick-field-code)
(keys translate-from-ib-size-tick-field-code)))
(translate-from-ib-size-tick-field-code 0)
=> :bid-size
(translate-to-ib-size-tick-field-code :bid-size)
=> 0
If speed is of the essence, check out case.
Some unsolicited advice on a different point: (get ~#vals val#) is extremely suspicious. Your macro alleges to take any number of arguments, but if it gets more than two it will just do something that doesn't make any sense. Eg,
(translation-table metric {:feet :meters}
{:miles :kilometers}
{:pounds :kilograms})
aside from being a terrible translation table, expands to code that always throws an exception:
(defn translate-to-ib-metric [val]
(get {:feet :meters}
{:miles :kilometers}
{:pounds :kilograms}
val)))
get doesn't take that many arguments, of course, and it's not really what you meant anyway. The simplest fix would be to only permit two arguments:
(defmacro translation-table [name vals]
(... (get ~vals val#)))
But note that this means the value map gets reconstructed every time the function is called - problematic if it's expensive to compute, or has side effects. So if I were writing this as a macro (though see Justin's answer - why would you?), I would do it as:
(defmacro translation-table [name vals]
`(let [vals# ~vals]
(defn ~(symbol (str "translate-to-ib-" name)) [val#]
(get vals# val#))))
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.)