I want to write a DSL including a defx that wraps the native def and invokes a constructor:
(defmacro defx [name & args]
`(def ~name (ctor ~#args)))
When I reference a value defined by a call to defx (e.g. (defx somex 1 2 3) (println somex)) ClojureScript complains with WARNING: Use of undeclared Var somex. It works fine at runtime, so how do I get rid of the warning?
Update: I was requiring the macro with :refer [defx] which is supported in cljs since 1.9.198, but apparently as of 1.9.293 there are still some shortcomings. Requiring with the explicit :refer-macros fixes the warnings.
Related
My goal is to create a macro such that (defdummy MyProtocol MyImplementation) will create a record type as defrecord does. It would also be acceptable to just generate an implementation of MyProtocol like reify does. This record type should implement all methods of the given protocol, but just return nil for each method. e.g:
(defprotocol Annoying
(beep [x] "Make a sound"))
;; This form...
(defdummy Annoying FakeAnnoyer)
;; Should expand to this
(defrecord FakeAnnoyer []
Annoying
(beep [x] nil))
I see that when we evaluate the protocol, we have some methods that can be used to generate the implementations of the protocol methods: :sigs, :arglists, etc. However, because macros receive their arguments unevaluated, I can't access this information from inside the macro. If a macro user passes a protocol MyProtocol to my macro, I just see the symbol 'MyProtocol. It seems to me that this information is statically known at compile time, but I don't know if I can find it out when generating protocol methods.
The only way that I can think of is either to use eval or to expand to some of the inner workings of defrecord. Is there any other way?
You can use the resolve function. For instance, here is a basic implementation of your defdummy macro:
(defmacro defdummy [protocol record]
`(defrecord ~record []
~protocol
~#(for [[_ {:keys [name arglists]}] (:sigs #(resolve protocol))]
`(~name ~#arglists nil))))
Example:
(defprotocol Annoying
(beep [x] "Make a sound"))
(macroexpand-1 '(defdummy Annoying FakeAnnoyer))
;;=> (clojure.core/defrecord FakeAnnoyer [] Annoying (beep [x] nil))
I have clojurescript successfully importing macros from other namespaces. But I wonder whether a single-file construction is/should be possible with clojure 1.7, such that a macro can be defined and used. What I have tried does not work, but maybe I've missed a detail someplace.
(ns cljc.core)
#?(:cljs
(enable-console-print!))
#?(:clj
(defmacro list-macro [x y]
`(list ~x ~y)))
(defn foo [a]
(println (list-macro a a)))
(foo :a)
This form fails with list-macro being undefined when compiling cljs; if I remove the :clj guard around list-macro, then defmacro is undefined within the cljs compilation. Is there a way?
Yes, there is a way for a single file construction.
(ns cljc.core
#?(:cljs (:require-macros [cljc.core :refer [list-macro]])))
#?(:clj
(defmacro list-macro [x y]
;; ...
Assumedly one of the next CLJS compiler versions will do the import automatically.
I have been looking at the source for defmacro which uses "let" in its definition:
(def
^{:doc "Like defn, but the resulting function name is declared as a
macro and will be used as a macro by the compiler when it is
called."
:arglists '([name doc-string? attr-map? [params*] body]
[name doc-string? attr-map? ([params*] body)+ attr-map?])
:added "1.0"}
defmacro (fn [&form &env
name & args]
(let [prefix (loop [p (list name) args args]
However, "let" is defined as a macro itself:
(defmacro let
"binding => binding-form init-expr
Evaluates the exprs in a lexical context in which the symbols in
the binding-forms are bound to their respective init-exprs or parts
therein."
{:added "1.0", :special-form true, :forms '[(let [bindings*] exprs*)]}
[bindings & body]
(assert-args
(vector? bindings) "a vector for its binding"
(even? (count bindings)) "an even number of forms in binding vector")
`(let* ~(destructure bindings) ~#body))
Can someone explain how this works as I can't understand how "defmacro" can be defined in terms of things which need "defmacro" to already be defined. (if that makes sense :)
This is possible because before defining defmacro function in core.clj there is already a definition of let at this location (which gets redefined later). Macros are just normal functions and the var they are bound to has meta data key :macro with value true so that at compile time the compiler can differentiate between a macro (which execute at compile time) with a function, without this meta key there is no way to differentiate between a macro and a function because macro itself is a function that happens to process S-expressions.
recusrive macros work fine and occur in many place in both the clojure language core and in other programs. macros are just functions that return S-Expressions, so they can be recursive just as functions can. In the case of let in your example it's actually caling let* which is a different function (its fine to have * in a functions name), so although recursive macros are fine, this doesn't happen to be an example of them
I recently learned (thanks to technomancy) that, at the REPL ---
This fails:
user=> (:require [clojure.set :as set])
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: clojure.set (NO_SOURCE_FILE:24)
Whereas this succeeds :
user=> (require '[clojure.set :as cs])
nil
at loading the clojure.set class.
Context: The former line was copied from a namespaced source file.
My primary question is : What is the change we have made, by swapping the : and ' characters, which now allows for success of the latter command ?
My 2nd question is , in general - what are the guidelines for doing things at the REPL --- as compared with doing things in normal clojure source files ? Assume here that we can load our repl from the root of a LEININGEN project, so at least the jars will be available on disk in the dependencies sub directory.
I'll go from high-level down to your particular problem:
How Clojure (or LISPs) Generally Work
REPLs, or Read-Eval-Print Loops are the core of how LISPs are designed:
The reader converts a stream of characters into data structures (called Reader Forms).
The evaluator takes collection of reader forms and evaluates them.
The printer emits the results of the evaluator.
So when you enter text into a REPL, it goes through each of these steps to process your input and return the output to your terminal.
Reader Forms
First some, clojure reader forms. This will be extremely brief, I encourage you to read or watch (part 1, part 2) about it.
A symbol in clojure is form that can represent a particular value (like a variable). Symbols themselves can be pass around as data. They are similar to pointers in c, just without the memory management stuff.
A symbol with a colon in front of it is a keyword. Keywords are like symbols with the exception that a keyword's value are always themselves - similar to strings or numbers. They're identical to Ruby's symbols (which are also prefixed with colons).
A quote in front of a form tells the evaluator to leave the data structure as-is:
user=> (list 1 2)
(1 2)
user=> '(1 2)
(1 2)
user=> (= (list 1 2) '(1 2))
true
Although quoting can apply to more than just lists, it's primarily used for lists because clojure's evaluator will normally execute lists as a function-like invocation. Using the ' is shorthand to the quote macro:
user=> (quote (1 2)) ; same as '(1 2)
(1 2)
Quoting basically specifies data structure to return and not actual code to execute. So you can quote symbols which refers to the symbol.
user=> 'foo ; not defined earlier
foo
And quoting is recursive. So all the data inside are quoted too:
user=> '(foo bar)
(foo bar)
To get the behavior of (foo bar) without quoting, you can eval it:
user=> (eval '(foo bar)) ; Remember, foo and bar weren't defined yet.
CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to resolve symbol: foo in this context, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1)
user=> (def foo identity)
#'user/foo
user=> (def bar 1)
#'user/bar
user=> (eval '(foo bar))
1
There's a lot more to quoting, but that's out of this scope.
Requiring
As for require statements, I'm assuming you found the former in the form of:
(ns my.namespace
(:require [clojure.set :as set]))
ns is a macro that will transform the :require expression into the latter form you described:
(require '[clojure.set :as set])
Along with some namespacing work. The basics are described when asking for the docs of ns in the REPL.
user=> (doc ns)
-------------------------
clojure.core/ns
([name docstring? attr-map? references*])
Macro
Sets *ns* to the namespace named by name (unevaluated), creating it
if needed. references can be zero or more of: (:refer-clojure ...)
(:require ...) (:use ...) (:import ...) (:load ...) (:gen-class)
with the syntax of refer-clojure/require/use/import/load/gen-class
respectively, except the arguments are unevaluated and need not be
quoted. (:gen-class ...), when supplied, defaults to :name
corresponding to the ns name, :main true, :impl-ns same as ns, and
:init-impl-ns true. All options of gen-class are
supported. The :gen-class directive is ignored when not
compiling. If :gen-class is not supplied, when compiled only an
nsname__init.class will be generated. If :refer-clojure is not used, a
default (refer 'clojure) is used. Use of ns is preferred to
individual calls to in-ns/require/use/import:
REPL usage
In general, don't use ns in the REPL, and just use the require and use functions. But in files, use the ns macro to do those stuff.
The difference is that require is a function used for importing code, whereas :require is a keyword.
Remember what happens when you use a keyword as a function:
=> (type :require)
clojure.lang.Keyword
=> (:require {:abc 1 :require 14})
14
it looks itself up in the map. So when you pass [clojure.set :as set] to a keyword, it's trying to evaluate that to a vector, and fails because it doesn't know what clojure.set is. The Clojure docs say:
Keywords implement IFn for invoke() of one argument (a map) with an
optional second argument (a default value). For example (:mykey
my-hash-map :none) means the same as (get my-hash-map :mykey :none).
You may have been confused by the ns macro:
(ns foo.bar
(:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
(:require (clojure.contrib sql sql.tests)) ;; here's :require!
(:use (my.lib this that))
(:import (java.util Date Timer Random)
(java.sql Connection Statement)))
ns macro:
When you type:
(ns some-great-ns
:require my-form)
you use the :require reference in which you state what would you like to use from the given namespace. It is equivalent to writing:
(in-ns 'some-great-ns)
(require 'my-form)
Notice that in the ns form (unlike the in-ns function call), you don’t have to quote your symbol with '. You never have to quote symbols within ns.
require function
As stated, can run: (require 'some-great-ns) in some given namespace so you could use it. To use it, you'll have to use full qualified name, unless you also use: refer function: (refer 'some-great-ns) right after you required the namespace.
You can do those both functions in one: (use 'some-great-ns). Now you don't need to write: (some-great-ns/my-form). Simply: my-form.
And of course you can also use the :as, :exclude, :only and :rename keywords in both the macro reference and in the function.
Differences between the macro and the function:
As stated above, usage of symbols in function, no need in the macro
You can require multiple libraries in a (:require) reference as follows:
(ns my-great-namespace.core
(:require [some-other-ns.a.b :as ab]
[some-other-other-ns.c.d :as cd]))
Where in function writing you should write 2 lines:
(in-ns my-great-namespace.core)
(require 'some-other-ns.a.b :as 'ab)
(require 'some-other-other=ns.c.d :as 'cd)
The require reference also allows you to refer names, for example:
(ns my-great-namespace.core
(:require [some-other-ns.a.b :refer [some-func]]))
Where in function you should do:
(in-ns my-great-namespace.core)
(require 'some-other-ns.a.b)
(refer 'some-other-ns.a.b :only ['some-func])
On a particular namespace I am working on I am beginning to run out of function names. Is there a way to get a warning like the one I get if I override a symbol from another namespace if I reuse a symbol which is already bound to a function in the same namespace?
If this is enough of a problem that you'd be willing to replace a (set of) core macro(s), you could try this approach:
(ns huge.core
(:refer-clojure :exclude [defn]))
(defmacro defn [name & defn-tail]
(assert (nil? (resolve name))
(str "Attempting to redefine already defined Var "
"#'" (.name *ns*) "/" name))
`(clojure.core/defn ~name ~#defn-tail))
Then any attempt to redefine an existing Var with defn will fail:
user=> (defn foo [] :foo)
#'user/foo
user=> (defn foo [] :bar)
AssertionError Assert failed: Attempting to redefine already defined Var #'user/foo
(nil? (resolve name)) user/defn (NO_SOURCE_FILE:2)
You could similarly replace defmacro; in that case you would have to call clojure.core/defmacro when defining your own variant.
Plain, unadorned def is a special form and receives magic treatment from the compiler, so you could still overwrite existing Vars with it. If you would like to guard against name clashes on that flank too, you could switch to something like defvar (used to be available in clojure.contrib.def) with a similar custom assert.
This isn't quite an answer to your question but may help avoid the issue depending on how the functions in your namespace are being used. You could make them into local functions using letfn, allowing you to reuse names for functions that are only used within the context of another function.
(defn main-fn [x]
(letfn [(secondary-fn [x] (* x x))
(another-fn [x] (secondary-fn (inc x)))]
(/ (another-fn x) 4)))
Even if you restrict yourself to single-character function names, you are in no danger of running out, as there are (about) 64 thousand Unicode characters, any one of which is a valid function name.
Given that you can in fact have names that are ten thousand characters long, you are on even safer ground.