Hey everyone so I'm looking for a way to convert a lisp macro to work in Clojure I looked at some other posts talking about if you could convert but they really didn't show an example and was maybe looking for some help on this.
(defmacro n-of (n form)
(let ((lst-sym (gensym))
(i-sym (gensym)))
`(let ((,lst-sym ()))
(dotimes (,i-sym ,n)
(push ,form ,lst-sym))
(nreverse ,lst-sym))))
For lisp macro i assume Common Lisp macro.
(defmacro n-of [n & form]
`(let [f# #(do ~#form)]
(take ~n (repeatedly f#))))
where the & is like &rest or &body. #() is (lambda...). ~# is ,#-. '~' is ','.
Related
Seems like providing a default value in Associative destructuring is well documented. https://clojure.org/guides/destructuring
Any known way to supply a default value in sequential destructuring?
For instance:
(let [[hey you guys] ["do" "re"]]
(println hey)
(println you)
(println guys))
Output:
do
re
nil
How would you provide a default value for 'guys'?
Have tried
(let [[hey you (or guys "me")] ["do" "re"]]
(let [[hey you #(or % "me")] ["do" "re"]]
and a few variations of
(let [[hey you guys :or "me"] ["do" "re"]]
Thanks!
No I don't believe there is a way to offer default values in non-associative destructuring.
There would be more than one way to accomplish that, depending on what you're after. The closest to the snippets you provide might be:
(let [input ["do" "re"]
defaults ["def1" "def2" "def3" "def4"]
[hey you guys] (concat input (drop (count input) defaults))]
(println hey you guys)) ;; do re def3
If you only have a default value for the 3rd arg, then you can use:
(let [[hey you guys] (conj ["do" "re"] "def3")]
(println hey you guys)) ;; do re def3
or
(let [[hey you guys] ["do" "re"]
guys (or guys "def3")]
(println hey you guys)) ;; do re def3
You can find a good overview of Clojure destructuring here:
http://blog.brunobonacci.com/2014/11/16/clojure-complete-guide-to-destructuring/
You can get what you want with a simple function:
(defn apply-defaults
[vals defaults]
(vec (map-indexed
(fn [idx val-default]
(or (get vals idx) ; replaces both missing and `nil` values
val-default))
defaults)))
with result:
data => [:a nil :c]
defaults => [:def-a :def-b :def-c :def-d]
(apply-defaults data defaults) => [:a :def-b :c :def-d]
Note that you have to modify it if you want to retain any nil values in the input.
If the length is short, you can do this:
(let [[hey you guys] (merge defaults values)]
(println hey)
(println you)
(println guys))
Merge is a function that you must define/choose depending on the behaviour that you want, it will probably be one of these two (as in the previous answers):
Overwrite the values in defaults that are present in values
concat the values from the first one missing
I am programming something that doesn't have side-effects, but my code is not very readable.
Consider the following piece of code:
(let [csv_data (if header_row (cons header_row data_rows) data_rows)]
)
I'm trying to use csv_data in a block of code. What is a clean way of conditioning on the presence of a header_row? I've looked at if-let, but couldn't see how that could help here.
I have run into similar situations with functional for-loops as well where I'm binding the result to a local variable, and the code looks like a pile of expressions.
Do I really have to create a separate helper function in so many cases?
What am I missing here?
Use the cond->> macro
(let [csv_data (cond->> data_rows
header_row (cons header-row)]
)
It works like the regular ->> macro, but before each threading form a test expression has to be placed that determines whether the threading form will be used.
There is also cond->. Read more about threading macros here: Official threading macros guide
First, don't use underscore, prefer dashes.
Second, there is nothing wrong with a little helper function; after all, this seems to be a requirement for handling your particular data format.
Third, if you can change your data so that you can skip those decisions and have a uniform representation for all corner cases, this is even better. A header row contains a different kind of data (column names?), so you might prefer to keep them separate:
(let [csv {:header header :rows rows}]
...)
Or maybe at some point you could have "headers" and "rows" be of the same type: sequences of rows. Then you can concat them directly.
The ensure-x idiom is a very common way to normalize your data:
(defn ensure-list [data]
(and data (list data)))
For example:
user=> (ensure-list "something")
("something")
user=> (ensure-list ())
(())
user=> (ensure-list nil)
nil
And thus:
(let [csv (concat (ensure-list header) rows)]
...)
i would propose an utility macro. Something like this:
(defmacro update-when [check val-to-update f & params]
`(if-let [x# ~check]
(~f x# ~val-to-update ~#params)
~val-to-update))
user> (let [header-row :header
data-rows [:data1 :data2]]
(let [csv-data (update-when header-row data-rows cons)]
csv-data))
;;=> (:header :data1 :data2)
user> (let [header-row nil
data-rows [:data1 :data2]]
(let [csv-data (update-when header-row data-rows cons)]
csv-data))
;;=> [:data1 :data2]
it is quite universal, and lets you fulfill more complex tasks then just simple consing. Like for example you want to reverse some coll if check is trueish, and concat another list...
user> (let [header-row :header
data-rows [:data1 :data2]]
(let [csv-data (update-when header-row data-rows
(fn [h d & params] (apply concat (reverse d) params))
[1 2 3] ['a 'b 'c])]
csv-data))
;;=> (:data2 :data1 1 2 3 a b c)
update
as noticed by #amalloy , this macro should be a function:
(defn update-when [check val-to-update f & params]
(if check
(apply f check val-to-update params)
val-to-update))
After thinking about the "cost" of a one-line helper function in the namespace I've came up with a local function instead:
(let [merge_header_fn (fn [header_row data_rows]
(if header_row
(cons header_row data_rows)
data_rows))
csv_data (merge_header_fn header_row data_rows) ]
...
<use csv_data>
...
)
Unless someone can suggest a more elegant way of handling this, I will keep this as an answer.
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.
How to make clojure to count '() as nil?
For example:
How to make something like
(if '() :true :false)
;to be
:false
;Or easier
(my-fun/macro/namespace/... (if '() :true :false))
:false
And not just if. In every way.
(= nil '()) or (my-something (= nil '()))
true
And every code to be (= '() nil) save.
(something (+ 1 (if (= nil '()) 1 2)))
2
I was thinking about some kind of regural expression. Which will look on code and replace '() by nil, but there are some things like (rest '(1)) and many others which are '() and I am not sure how to handle it.
I was told that macros allow you to build your own languages. I want to try it by changing clojure. So this is much about "How clojure works and how to change it?" than "I really need it to for my work."
Thank you for help.
'() just isn't the same thing as nil - why would you want it do be?
What you might be looking for though is the seq function, which returns nil if given an empty collection:
(seq [1 2 3])
=> (1 2 3)
(seq [])
=> nil
(seq '())
=> nil
seq is therefore often used to test for "emptiness", with idioms like:
(if (seq coll)
(do-something-with coll)
(get-empty-result))
You say you would like to change Clojure using the macros. Presently, as far as I know, this is not something you could do with the "regular" macro system (terminology fix anyone?). What you would really need (I think) is a reader macro. Things I have seen online (here, for example) seem to say that there exists something like reader macros in Clojure 1.4--but I have no familiarity with this because I really like using clooj as my IDE, and it currently is not using Clojure 1.4. Maybe somebody else has better info on this "extensible reader" magic.
Regardless, I don't really like the idea of changing the language in that way, and I think there is a potentially very good alternative: namely, the Clojure function not-empty.
This function takes any collection and either returns that collection as is, or returns nil if that collection is empty. This means that anywhere you will want () to return nil, you should wrap it not-empty. This answer is very similar to mikera's answer above, except that you don't have to convert your collections to sequences (which can be nice).
Both using seq and not-empty are pretty silly in cases where you have a "hand-written" collection. After all, if you are writing it by hand (or rather, typing it manually), then you are going to know for sure whether or not it is empty. The cases in which this is useful is when you have an expression or a symbol that returns a collection, and you do not know whether the returned collection will be empty or not.
Example:
=> (if-let [c (not-empty (take (rand-int 5) [:a :b :c :d]))]
(println c)
(println "Twas empty"))
;//80% of the time, this will print some non-empty sub-list of [:a :b :c :d]
;//The other 20% of the time, this will return...
Twas empty
=> nil
What about empty? ? It's the most expressive.
(if (empty? '())
:true
:false)
You can override macros and functions. For instance:
(defn classic-lisp [arg]
(if (seq? arg) (seq arg) arg))
(defn = [& args]
(apply clojure.core/= (map classic-lisp args)))
(defmacro when [cond & args]
`(when (classic-lisp ~cond) ~#args))
Unfortunately, you can't override if, as it is a special form and not a macro. You will have to wrap your code with another macro.
Let's make an if* macro to be an if with common-lisp behavior:
(defmacro if* [cond & args]
`(if (classic-lisp ~cond) ~#args)
With this, we can replace all ifs with if*s:
(use 'clojure.walk)
(defn replace-ifs [code]
(postwalk-replace '{if if*} (macroexpand-all code)))
(defmacro clojure-the-old-way [& body]
`(do ~#(map replace-ifs body)))
Now:
=> (clojure-the-old-way (if '() :true :false) )
:false
You should be able to load files and replace ifs in them too:
(defn read-clj-file [filename]
;; loads list of clojure expressions from file *filename*
(read-string (str "(" (slurp filename) ")")))
(defn load-clj-file-the-old-way [filename]
(doseq [line (replace-ifs (read-clj-file filename))] (eval line))
Note that I didn't test the code to load files and it might be incompatible with leiningen or namespaces. I believe it should work with overriden = though.
I'm attempting to write a macro which will call java setter methods based on the arguments given to it.
So, for example:
(my-macro login-as-fred {"Username" "fred" "Password" "wilma"})
might expand to something like the following:
(doto (new MyClass)
(.setUsername "fred")
(.setPassword "wilma"))
How would you recommend tackling this?
Specifically, I'm having trouble working out the best way to construct the setter method name and have it interpreted it as a symbol by the macro.
The nice thing about macros is you don't actually have to dig into the classes or anything like that. You just have to write code that generates the proper s-expressions.
First a function to generate an s-expression like (.setName 42)
(defn make-call [name val]
(list (symbol (str ".set" name) val)))
then a macro to generate the expressions and plug (~#) them into a doto expression.
(defmacro map-set [class things]
`(doto ~class ~#(map make-call things))
Because it's a macro it never has to know what class the thing it's being called on is or even that the class on which it will be used exists.
Please don't construct s-expressions with list for macros. This will seriously hurt the hygiene of the macro. It is very easy to make a mistake, which is hard to track down. Please use always syntax-quote! Although, this is not a problem in this case, it's good to get into the habit of using only syntax-quote!
Depending on the source of your map, you might also consider to use keywords as keys to make it look more clojure-like. Here is my take:
(defmacro configure
[object options]
`(doto ~object
~#(map (fn [[property value]]
(let [property (name property)
setter (str ".set"
(.toUpperCase (subs property 0 1))
(subs property 1))]
`(~(symbol setter) ~value)))
options)))
This can then be used as:
user=> (macroexpand-1 '(configure (MyClass.) {:username "fred" :password "wilma"}))
(clojure.core/doto (MyClass.) (.setUsername "fred") (.setPassword "wilma"))
Someone (I believe Arthur Ulfeldt) had an answer posted that was almost correct, but it's been deleted now.
This is a working version:
(defmacro set-all [obj m]
`(doto ~obj ~#(map (fn [[k v]]
(list (symbol (str ".set" k)) v))
m)))
user> (macroexpand-1 '(set-all (java.util.Date.) {"Month" 0 "Date" 1 "Year" 2009}))
(clojure.core/doto (java.util.Date.) (.setMonth 0) (.setDate 1) (.setYear 2009))
user> (set-all (java.util.Date.) {"Month" 0 "Date" 1 "Year" 2009})
#<Date Fri Jan 01 14:15:51 PST 3909>
You have to bite the bullet and use clojure.lang.Reflector/invokeInstanceMethod like this:
(defn do-stuff [obj m]
(doseq [[k v] m]
(let [method-name (str "set" k)]
(clojure.lang.Reflector/invokeInstanceMethod
obj
method-name
(into-array Object [v]))))
obj)
(do-stuff (java.util.Date.) {"Month" 2}) ; use it
No need for a macro (as far as I know, a macro would not allow to circumvent reflection, either; at least for the general case).