I wrote a specialized function construct, which under the hood is really just a Clojure function. So basically I have a function that makes (similar to fn) and a function that calls my specialized functions (similar to CL's funcall).
My constructor assigns metadata (at compile-time) so I could distinguish between "my" functions and other/normal Clojure functions.
What I want to do is to make a macro that lets users write code as if my functions were normal functions. It would do so by walking over the code, and in functions calls, when the callee is a specialized function, it would change the call so it would use my caller (and also inject some extra information). For example:
(defmacro my-fn [args-vector & body] ...)
(defmacro my-funcall [myfn & args] ...)
(defmacro with-my-fns [& body] ...)
(with-my-fns
123
(first [1 2 3])
((my-fn [x y] (+ x y))) 10 20)
; should yield:
(do
123
(first [1 2 3])
(my-funcall (my-fn [x y] (+ x y)) 10 20))
I run into problems in lexical environments. For example:
(with-my-fns
(let [myf (my-fn [x y] (+ x y))]
(myf))
In this case, when the macro I want to write (i.e. with-my-fns) encounters (myf), it sees myf as a symbol, and I don't have access to the metadata. It's also not a Var so I can't resolve it.
I care to know because otherwise I'll have to put checks on almost every single function call at runtime. Note that I don't really care if my metadata on the values are actual Clojure metadata; if it's possible with the type-system and whatnot it's just as good.
P.S. I initially wanted to just ask about lexical environments, but maybe there are more pitfalls I should be aware of where my approach would fail? (or maybe even the above is actually an XY problem? I'd welcome suggestions).
As #OlegTheCat already pointed out in the comment section, the idea to use meta-data does not work.
However I might have a solution you can live with:
(ns cl-myfn.core)
(defprotocol MyCallable
(call [this magic args]))
(extend-protocol MyCallable
;; a clojure function implements IFn
;; we use this knowledge to simply call it
;; and ignore the magic
clojure.lang.IFn
(call [this _magic args]
(apply this args)))
(deftype MyFun [myFun]
MyCallable
;; this is our magic type
;; for now it only adds the magic as first argument
;; you may add all the checks here
(call [this magic args]
(apply (.myFun this) magic args)))
;;turn this into a macro if you want more syntactic sugar
(defn make-myfun [fun]
(MyFun. fun))
(defmacro with-myfuns [magic & funs]
`(do ~#(map (fn [f#]
;; if f# is a sequence it is treated as a function call
(if (seq? f#)
(let [[fun# & args#] f#]
`(call ~fun# ~magic [~#args#]))
;; if f# is nonsequential it is left alone
f#))
funs)))
(let [my-prn (make-myfun prn)]
(with-myfuns :a-kind-of-magic
123
[1 2 3]
(prn :hello)
(my-prn 123)))
;; for your convenience: the macro-expansion
(let [my-prn (make-myfun prn)]
(prn (macroexpand-1 '(with-myfuns :a-kind-of-magic
123
[1 2 3]
(prn :hello)
(my-prn 123)))))
the output:
:hello
:a-kind-of-magic 123
(do 123 [1 2 3] (cl-myfn.core/call prn :a-kind-of-magic [:hello]) (cl-myfn.core/call my-prn :a-kind-of-magic [123]))
Related
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 ...)
))
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
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?
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.
Leonardo Borges has put together a fantastic presentation on Monads in Clojure. In it he describes the reader monad in Clojure using the following code:
;; Reader Monad
(def reader-m
{:return (fn [a]
(fn [_] a))
:bind (fn [m k]
(fn [r]
((k (m r)) r)))})
(defn ask [] identity)
(defn asks [f]
(fn [env]
(f env)))
(defn connect-to-db []
(do-m reader-m
[db-uri (asks :db-uri)]
(prn (format "Connected to db at %s" db-uri))))
(defn connect-to-api []
(do-m reader-m
[api-key (asks :api-key)
env (ask)]
(prn (format "Connected to api with key %s" api-key))))
(defn run-app []
(do-m reader-m
[_ (connect-to-db)
_ (connect-to-api)]
(prn "Done.")))
((run-app) {:db-uri "user:passwd#host/dbname" :api-key "AF167"})
;; "Connected to db at user:passwd#host/dbname"
;; "Connected to api with key AF167"
;; "Done."
The benefit of this is that you're reading values from the environment in a purely functional way.
But this approach looks very similar to the partial function in Clojure. Consider the following code:
user=> (def hundred-times (partial * 100))
#'user/hundred-times
user=> (hundred-times 5)
500
user=> (hundred-times 4 5 6)
12000
My question is: What is the difference between the reader monad and a partial function in Clojure?
The reader monad is a set of rules we can apply to cleanly compose readers. You could use partial to make a reader, but it doesn't really give us a way to put them together.
For example, say you wanted a reader that doubled the value it read. You might use partial to define it:
(def doubler
(partial * 2))
You might also want a reader that added one to whatever value it read:
(def plus-oner
(partial + 1))
Now, suppose you wanted to combine these guys in a single reader that adds their results. You'll probably end up with something like this:
(defn super-reader
[env]
(let [x (doubler env)
y (plus-oner env)]
(+ x y)))
Notice that you have to explicitly forward the environment to those readers. Total bummer, right? Using the rules provided by the reader monad, we can get much cleaner composition:
(def super-reader
(do-m reader-m
[x doubler
y plus-oner]
(+ x y)))
You can use partial to "do" the reader monad. Turn let into a do-reader by doing syntactic transformation on let with partial application of the environment on the right-hand side.
(defmacro do-reader
[bindings & body]
(let [env (gensym 'env_)
partial-env (fn [f] (list `(partial ~f ~env)))
bindings* (mapv #(%1 %2) (cycle [identity partial-env]) bindings)]
`(fn [~env] (let ~bindings* ~#body))))
Then do-reader is to the reader monad as let is to the identity monad (relationship discussed here).
Indeed, since only the "do notation" application of the reader monad was used in Beyamor's answer to your reader monad in Clojure question, the same examples will work as is with m/domonad Reader replaced with do-reader as above.
But, for the sake of variety I'll modify the first example to be just a bit more Clojurish with the environment map and take advantage of the fact that keywords can act as functions.
(def sample-bindings {:count 3, :one 1, :b 2})
(def ask identity)
(def calc-is-count-correct?
(do-reader [binding-count :count
bindings ask]
(= binding-count (count bindings))))
(calc-is-count-correct? sample-bindings)
;=> true
Second example
(defn local [modify reader] (comp reader modify))
(def calc-content-len
(do-reader [content ask]
(count content)))
(def calc-modified-content-len
(local #(str "Prefix " %) calc-content-len))
(calc-content-len "12345")
;=> 5
(calc-modified-content-len "12345")
;=> 12
Note since we built on let, we still have destructing at our disposal. Silly example:
(def example1
(do-reader [a :foo
b :bar]
(+ a b)))
(example1 {:foo 2 :bar 40 :baz 800})
;=> 42
(def example2
(do-reader [[a b] (juxt :foo :bar)]
(+ a b)))
(example2 {:foo 2 :bar 40 :baz 800})
;=> 42
So, in Clojure, you can indeed get the functionality of the do notation of reader monad without introducing monads proper. Analagous to doing a ReaderT transform on the identity monad, we can do a syntactic transformation on let. As you surmised, one way to do so is with partial application of the environment.
Perhaps more Clojurish would be to define a reader-> and reader->> to syntactically insert the environment as the second and last argument respectively. I'll leave those as an exercise for the reader for now.
One take-away from this is that while types and type-classes in Haskell have a lot of benefits and the monad structure is a useful idea, not having the constraints of the type system in Clojure allows us to treat data and programs in the same way and do arbitrary transformations to our programs to implement syntax and control as we see fit.