I'm trying to write my second macro but I'm completely stuck here.
I would like to avoid writing everytime (vec (for [...])) so I'm trying to write a forv macro like filterv, mapv, etc.
I work mostly with vectors in my programs since I need to have access to the index because I use external buffers/descriptors to fasten matrix process.
I have written many ***v like functions (also adaptative functions like fmap )but I'm sticked with for.
So I wrote
(defmacro forv
[seq-exprs body-expr]
(vec (for (vec seq-exprs) body-expr)))
I tried with seq-exprs alone, it does not work. To be honest I tried also ~ and so on but I do not know how it works, I succeed in my first macro because it was far easier.
Clojure tell me that for requires a vector for binding.
Can someone help me and also explain what I am missing ? Thanks !
You could use the one built into the Tupelo Library. Source code is here: https://github.com/cloojure/tupelo/blob/master/src/tupelo/core.cljc#L181
(defmacro forv
"Like clojure.core/for but returns results in a vector. Equivalent to (into [] (for ...)). Not
lazy."
[& body]
`(vec (for ~#body)))
;;
;; you want something like that in the end: (forv [x (range 2)] x) => (vec (for [x (range 2)] x))
;;
(defmacro forv
[seq-exprs body-expr]
`(vec (for [~#seq-exprs] ~body-expr)))
;;
;; check quote and unquote
;; in particular, check the tricky bit is https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/unquote-splicing
;;
Edit: I based my answer to mimic the original code in the question, but Alan's answer is better than mine.
Related
I find myself writing a lot of clojure in this manner:
(defn my-fun [input]
(let [result1 (some-complicated-procedure input)
result2 (some-other-procedure result1)]
(do-something-with-results result1 result2)))
This let statement seems very... imperative. Which I don't like. In principal, I could be writing the same function like this:
(defn my-fun [input]
(do-something-with-results (some-complicated-procedure input)
(some-other-procedure (some-complicated-procedure input)))))
The problem with this is that it involves recomputation of some-complicated-procedure, which may be arbitrarily expensive. Also you can imagine that some-complicated-procedure is actually a series of nested function calls, and then I either have to write a whole new function, or risk that changes in the first invocation don't get applied to the second:
E.g. this works, but I have to have an extra shallow, top-level function that makes it hard to do a mental stack trace:
(defn some-complicated-procedure [input] (lots (of (nested (operations input)))))
(defn my-fun [input]
(do-something-with-results (some-complicated-procedure input)
(some-other-procedure (some-complicated-procedure input)))))
E.g. this is dangerous because refactoring is hard:
(defn my-fun [input]
(do-something-with-results (lots (of (nested (operations (mistake input))))) ; oops made a change here that wasn't applied to the other nested calls
(some-other-procedure (lots (of (nested (operations input))))))))
Given these tradeoffs, I feel like I don't have any alternatives to writing long, imperative let statements, but when I do, I cant shake the feeling that I'm not writing idiomatic clojure. Is there a way I can address the computation and code cleanliness problems raised above and write idiomatic clojure? Are imperitive-ish let statements idiomatic?
The kind of let statements you describe might remind you of imperative code, but there is nothing imperative about them. Haskell has similar statements for binding names to values within bodies, too.
If your situation really needs a bigger hammer, there are some bigger hammers that you can either use or take for inspiration. The following two libraries offer some kind of binding form (akin to let) with a localized memoization of results, so as to perform only the necessary steps and reuse their results if needed again: Plumatic Plumbing, specifically the Graph part; and Zach Tellman's Manifold, whose let-flow form furthermore orchestrates asynchronous steps to wait for the necessary inputs to become available, and to run in parallel when possible. Even if you decide to maintain your present course, their docs make good reading, and the code of Manifold itself is educational.
I recently had this same question when I looked at this code I wrote
(let [user-symbols (map :symbol states)
duplicates (for [[id freq] (frequencies user-symbols) :when (> freq 1)] id)]
(do-something-with duplicates))
You'll note that map and for are lazy and will not be executed until do-something-with is executed. It's also possible that not all (or even not any) of the states will be mapped or the frequencies calculated. It depends on what do-something-with actually requests of the sequence returned by for. This is very much functional and idiomatic functional programming.
i guess the simplest approach to keep it functional would be to have a pass-through state to accumulate the intermediate results. something like this:
(defn with-state [res-key f state]
(assoc state res-key (f state)))
user> (with-state :res (comp inc :init) {:init 10})
;;=> {:init 10, :res 11}
so you can move on to something like this:
(->> {:init 100}
(with-state :inc'd (comp inc :init))
(with-state :inc-doubled (comp (partial * 2) :inc'd))
(with-state :inc-doubled-squared (comp #(* % %) :inc-doubled))
(with-state :summarized (fn [st] (apply + (vals st)))))
;;=> {:init 100,
;; :inc'd 101,
;; :inc-doubled 202,
;; :inc-doubled-squared 40804,
;; :summarized 41207}
The let form is a perfectly functional construct and can be seen as syntactic sugar for calls to anonymous functions. We can easily write a recursive macro to implement our own version of let:
(defmacro my-let [bindings body]
(if (empty? bindings)
body
`((fn [~(first bindings)]
(my-let ~(rest (rest bindings)) ~body))
~(second bindings))))
Here is an example of calling it:
(my-let [a 3
b (+ a 1)]
(* a b))
;; => 12
And here is a macroexpand-all called on the above expression, that reveal how we implement my-let using anonymous functions:
(clojure.walk/macroexpand-all '(my-let [a 3
b (+ a 1)]
(* a b)))
;; => ((fn* ([a] ((fn* ([b] (* a b))) (+ a 1)))) 3)
Note that the expansion doesn't rely on let and that the bound symbols become parameter names in the anonymous functions.
As others write, let is actually perfectly functional, but at times it can feel imperative. It's better to become fully comfortable with it.
You might, however, want to kick the tires of my little library tl;dr that lets you write code like for example
(compute
(+ a b c)
where
a (f b)
c (+ 100 b))
Is there a reasonable way to have multiple def statements happen with destructing the same way that let does it? For Example:
(let [[rtgs pcts] (->> (sort-by second row)
(apply map vector))]
.....)
What I want is something like:
(defs [rtgs pcts] (->> (sort-by second row)
(apply map vector)))
This comes up a lot in the REPL, notebooks and when debugging. Seriously feels like a missing feature so I'd like guidance on one of:
This exists already and I'm missing it
This is a bad idea because... (variable capture?, un-idiomatic?, Rich said so?)
It's just un-needed and I must be suffering from withdrawals from an evil language. (same as: don't mess up our language with your macros)
A super short experiment give me something like:
(defmacro def2 [[name1 name2] form]
`(let [[ret1# ret2#] ~form]
(do (def ~name1 ret1#)
(def ~name2 ret2#))))
And this works as in:
(def2 [three five] ((juxt dec inc) 4))
three ;; => 3
five ;; => 5
Of course and "industrial strength" version of that macro might be:
checking that number of names matches the number of inputs. (return from form)
recursive call to handle more names (can I do that in a macro like this?)
While I agree with Josh that you probably shouldn't have this running in production, I don't see any harm in having it as a convenience at the repl (in fact I think I'll copy this into my debug-repl kitchen-sink library).
I enjoy writing macros (although they're usually not needed) so I whipped up an implementation. It accepts any binding form, like in let.
(I wrote this specs-first, but if you're on clojure < 1.9.0-alpha17, you can just remove the spec stuff and it'll work the same.)
(ns macro-fun
(:require
[clojure.spec.alpha :as s]
[clojure.core.specs.alpha :as core-specs]))
(s/fdef syms-in-binding
:args (s/cat :b ::core-specs/binding-form)
:ret (s/coll-of simple-symbol? :kind vector?))
(defn syms-in-binding
"Returns a vector of all symbols in a binding form."
[b]
(letfn [(step [acc coll]
(reduce (fn [acc x]
(cond (coll? x) (step acc x)
(symbol? x) (conj acc x)
:else acc))
acc, coll))]
(if (symbol? b) [b] (step [] b))))
(s/fdef defs
:args (s/cat :binding ::core-specs/binding-form, :body any?))
(defmacro defs
"Like def, but can take a binding form instead of a symbol to
destructure the results of the body.
Doesn't support docstrings or other metadata."
[binding body]
`(let [~binding ~body]
~#(for [sym (syms-in-binding binding)]
`(def ~sym ~sym))))
;; Usage
(defs {:keys [foo bar]} {:foo 42 :bar 36})
foo ;=> 42
bar ;=> 36
(defs [a b [c d]] [1 2 [3 4]])
[a b c d] ;=> [1 2 3 4]
(defs baz 42)
baz ;=> 42
About your REPL-driven development comment:
I don't have any experience with Ipython, but I'll give a brief explanation of my REPL workflow and you can maybe comment about any comparisons/contrasts with Ipython.
I never use my repl like a terminal, inputting a command and waiting for a reply. My editor supports (emacs, but any clojure editor should do) putting the cursor at the end of any s-expression and sending that to the repl, "printing" the result after the cursor.
I usually have a comment block in the file where I start working, just typing whatever and evaluating it. Then, when I'm reasonably happy with a result, I pull it out of the "repl-area" and into the "real-code".
(ns stuff.core)
;; Real code is here.
;; I make sure that this part always basically works,
;; ie. doesn't blow up when I evaluate the whole file
(defn foo-fn [x]
,,,)
(comment
;; Random experiments.
;; I usually delete this when I'm done with a coding session,
;; but I copy some forms into tests.
;; Sometimes I leave it for posterity though,
;; if I think it explains something well.
(def some-data [,,,])
;; Trying out foo-fn, maybe copy this into a test when I'm done.
(foo-fn some-data)
;; Half-finished other stuff.
(defn bar-fn [x] ,,,)
(keys 42) ; I wonder what happens if...
)
You can see an example of this in the clojure core source code.
The number of defs that any piece of clojure will have will vary per project, but I'd say that in general, defs are not often the result of some computation, let alone the result of a computation that needs to be destructured. More often defs are the starting point for some later computation that will depend on this value.
Usually functions are better for computing a value; and if the computation is expensive, then you can memoize the function. If you feel you really need this functionality, then by all means, use your macro -- that's one of the sellings points of clojure, namely, extensibility! But in general, if you feel you need this construct, consider the possibility that you're relying too much on global state.
Just to give some real examples, I just referenced my main project at work, which is probably 2K-3K lines of clojure, in about 20 namespaces. We have about 20 defs, most of which are marked private and among them, none are actually computing anything. We have things like:
(def path-prefix "/some-path")
(def zk-conn (atom nil))
(def success? #{200})
(def compile* (clojure.core.memoize/ttl compiler {} ...)))
(def ^:private nashorn-factory (NashornScriptEngineFactory.))
(def ^:private read-json (comp json/read-str ... ))
Defining functions (using comp and memoize), enumerations, state via atom -- but no real computation.
So I'd say, based on your bullet points above, this falls somewhere between 2 and 3: it's definitely not a common use case that's needed (you're the first person I've ever heard who wants this, so it's uncommon to me anyway); and the reason it's uncommon is because of what I said above, i.e., it may be a code smell that indicates reliance on too much global state, and hence, would not be very idiomatic.
One litmus test I have for much of my code is: if I pull this function out of this namespace and paste it into another, does it still work? Removing dependencies on external vars allows for easier testing and more modular code. Sometimes we need it though, so see what your requirements are and proceed accordingly. Best of luck!
I'm trying to find a way to thread a value through a list of functions.
Firstly, I had a usual ring-based code:
(defn make-handler [routes]
(-> routes
(wrap-json-body)
(wrap-cors)
;; and so on
))
But this was not optimal as I wanted to write a test to check the routes are actually wrapped with wrap-cors. I decided to extract the wrappers into a def. So the code became as follows:
(def middleware
(list ('wrap-json-body)
('wrap-cors)
;; and so on
))
(defn make-handler [routes]
(-> routes middleware))
This apparently doesn't work and is not supposed to as the -> macro doesn't take a list as the second argument. So I tried to use the apply function to resolve that:
(defn make-handler [routes]
(apply -> routes middleware))
Which eventually bailed out with:
CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't take value of a
macro: #'clojure.core/->
So the question arises: How does one pass a list of values to the -> macro (or, say, any other macro) as one would do with apply for a function?
This is an XY Problem.
The main point of -> is to make code easier to read. But if one writes a new macro solely in order to use -> (in code nobody will ever see because it exists only at macro-expansion), it seems to me that this is doing a lot of work for no benefit. Moreover, I believe it obscures, rather than clarifies, the code.
So, in the spirit of never using a macro where functions will do, I suggest the following two equivalent solutions:
Solution 1
(reduce #(%2 %) routes middleware)
Solution 2
((apply comp middleware) routes)
A Better Way
The second solution is easily simplified by changing the definition of middleware from being a list of the functions to being the composition of the functions:
(def middleware
(comp wrap-json-body
wrap-cors
;; and so on
))
(middleware routes)
When I began learning Clojure, I ran across this pattern often enough that many of my early projects have an freduce defined in core:
(defn freduce
"Given an initial input and a collection of functions (f1,..,fn),
This is logically equivalent to ((comp fn ... f1) input)."
[in fs]
(reduce #(%2 %) in fs))
This is totally unnecessary, and some might prefer the direct use of reduce as being more clear. However, if you don't like staring at #(%2 %) in your application code, adding another utility word to your language is fine.
you can make a macro for that:
;; notice that it is better to use a back quote, to qoute function names for macro, as it fully qualifies them.
(def middleware
`((wrap-json-body)
(wrap-cors))
;; and so on
)
(defmacro with-middleware [routes]
`(-> ~routes ~#middleware))
for example this:
(with-middleware [1 2 3])
would expand to this:
(-> [1 2 3] (wrap-json-body) (wrap-cors))
I'm inspired by clojure's 1.5 cond-> macro.
Similarily, I want to create a macro of the same idea, applied to the function map. However, I have no idea where to start.
For example, I can't find the source for cond->. (probably because it's not released yet)
Any suggestions?
There is the source of cond-> https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/clj/clojure/core.clj#L6742
there are a variety of threading macros from the pallet project folks including apply-map-> which looks close to, though not exactly what you are looking for.
(letfn [(apply-map-
[arg f arg-coll]
`(let [arg# ~arg]
(apply ~f arg#
~#(butlast arg-coll)
(apply concat ~(last arg-coll)))))]
(defmacro apply-map->
"Apply in a threaded expression.
e.g.
(-> :a
(apply-map-> hash-map 1 {:b 2}))
=> {:a 1 :b 2}"
[arg f & arg-coll]
(apply-map- arg f arg-coll))
Perhaps there will be enough examples there for you to pick out what you need.
If I understand -- you want to write a macro that takes a list of partial function calls, and for each one, adds map (or apply map) to the beginning, and the previous result to the end?
While this doesn't directly answer how to write that macro, I wanted to point out that you have a couple of alternatives.
Factor out map
This is always true for pure functions:
(=
(map g (map f coll))
(map (comp g f) coll))
The refactored version only walks the collection once, and no intermediate collections need to be made.
Here's what it looks like with threading:
(=
(->> coll
(map f)
(map g))
(map #(->> % f g) coll))
Here's a concrete example in JS.
Transducers
Transducers are another pattern for doing this kind of thing in Clojure that work on more than just map. They're sort of an abstraction over reducer functions. Clojure's map / filter / reduce (etc.) will create a transducer if called without a collection. You can chain them with comp and use them in various contexts (lazy, eager, observable, whatever). Rich Hickey's talk on them is a good intro.
At a conceptual level a macro in LISP (and dialects) take a piece of code (as list) and returns another piece of code (again as list).
Based on above principle a simple macro could be:
(defmacro zz [a] (list print a))
;macroexpand says : (#<core$print clojure.core$print#749436> "Hello")
But in clojure this can also be written as:
(defmacro zz [a] `(print ~a))
;macroexpand says : (clojure.core/print "Hello")
I am not exactly sure about the difference here and which should be the preferred way. The first one look simple as we are supposed to return list and avoid using weird characters like back tick.
No one has pointed this out yet...the difference between your 2 macros is this: your second form (using backtick)
(defmacro zz [a] `(print ~a))
is equivalent to:
(defmacro zz [a] (list 'print a))
Which is different from your first example:
(defmacro zz [a] (list print a))
Note the missing single quote -- that is why your macroexpand is different. I agree with the other people posting: using backquote is more conventional if your macro has a fairly simple 'shape'. If you have to do code walking or dynamic construction (i.e. a complex macro), then using lists and building it up is often what's done.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Constructing lists explicitly is "simplest", in a way, because there are few core concepts you need to know: just accept a list and change it around till you have a new list. Backtick is a convenient shortcut for "templating" chunks of code; it is possible to write any macro without it, but for any large macro it quickly becomes very unpleasant. For example, consider two ways of writing let as a macro over fn:
(defmacro let [bindings & body]
(let [names (take-nth 2 bindings)
vals (take-nth 2 (rest bindings))]
`((fn [~#names]
(do ~#body))
~#vals)))
(defmacro let [bindings & body]
(let [names (take-nth 2 bindings)
vals (take-nth 2 (rest bindings))]
(cons (list `fn (vec names) (cons `do body))
vals)))
In the first case, using backtick makes it fairly clear that you're writing a function of the names containing the body, and then calling it with the values - the macro code is "shaped" the same as the expansion code, so you can imagine what it will look like.
In the second case, with just cons and list all over the place, it is a real headache to work out what the expansion will look like. This isn't always the case, of course: sometimes it can be clearer to write something without a backtick.
Another very important point was made by Kyle Burton: print is not the same as 'print! Your macro expansion should contain the symbol print, not its value (which is a function). Embedding objects (such as functions) in code is very fragile and only works by accident. So make sure your macros expand to code you could actually have written yourself, and let the evaluation system do the hard work - you could type in the symbol print, but you couldn't type in a pointer to the current value of the function print.
There's a style difference between them. Your example is very simple but in more complex macros the difference will be bigger.
For example the unless macro as defined in "The Joy of Clojure" book:
(defmacro unless [condition & body]
`(if (not ~condition)
(do ~#body)))
From the book:
Syntax-quote allows the following if-form to act as a sort of template for the expression
that any use of the macro become when it is expanded.
When creating a macro always choose the most readable and idiomatic style.
To contrast, the above code can equivalently be written like so:
(defmacro unless [condition & body]
(list 'if (list 'not condition)
(list* 'do body)))
In my experience they are equivalent. Though there may be some edge cases I'm not aware of.
#islon 's example can equivalently be written as:
To contrast, the above code can equivalently be written like so:
(defmacro unless [condition & body]
(list 'if (list 'not condition)
(list* 'do body)))