I am trying to build a quick toc from an html content. (to make it short)
The code is dead simple:
(defn toc [content]
(doseq [i (take 5 (iterate inc 1))]
(let [h (str "h" i)]
(println ($ content h)))))
where content is the html content, and $ is a macro required from clojure-soup
While
($ content "h1")
works, and returns a list of all the tags.
Simple:
($ content (str "h" 1))
just won't make it whatever I do.
How do I force
(str "h" 1)
to be properly eval-ed before the macro is called ?
Bonus points for explaining why :)
This is not possible if, as you imply, $ is a macro: it's simply not how macros work. The macro needs to expand into something, at compile time, and it can only do so once. You have run-time data, like the various values of h, but there is no way to use that at compile-time. To me it sounds like $ should have been a function.
Amalloy answer the questions why part. For making it work part you will need to use eval .
In place of ($ content h) use
(eval `($ content ~h))
Another explanation for why this is so is based on the fact that what operations does the macro do at compile time and what it does at runtime (i.e what code it emits). Below is such an example to clear things out.
(def user "ankur")
(defmacro do-at-compile [v] (if (string? v) `true `false))
(defmacro do-at-runtime [v] `(if (string? ~v) true false))
(do-at-compile "hello") ;; => true
(do-at-compile user) ;; => false, because macro does perform the check at compile time
(do-at-runtime "hello") ;; => true
(do-at-runtime user) ;; => true
The $ macro is doing the calculations on the passed second parameter at compile time and hence it is not working in your particular case.
Related
Here's my failed attempt:
(defmacro until
[condition body setup increment]
`(let [c ~#condition]
(loop [i setup]
(when (not c)
(do
~#body
(recur ~#increment))))))
(def i 1)
(until (> i 5)
(println "Number " i)
0
(inc i))
I get: CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't let qualified name: clojure-noob.core/c
I am expecting this output:
Number 1
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4
Number 5
What's wrong?
There are a few issues with the macro:
You need to generate symbols for bindings inside macros. A convenient way to do this is suffix the names with #. Otherwise the bindings in your macros could overshadow bindings elsewhere in your code.
Some of the macro inputs were unnecessarily spliced when unquoted i.e. ~# instead of ~
Here's a version of the macro that will compile/expand:
(defmacro until [condition body setup increment]
`(let [c# ~condition]
(loop [i# ~setup]
(when-not c#
~body
(recur ~increment)))))
But this will loop forever in your example because condition is only evaluated once and i's value would never change anyway. We could fix that:
(defmacro until [condition body increment]
`(loop []
(when-not ~condition
~body
~increment
(recur))))
And we need to make i mutable if we want to change its value:
(def i (atom 1))
(until (> #i 5)
(println "Number " #i)
(swap! i inc))
;; Number 1
;; Number 2
;; Number 3
;; Number 4
;; Number 5
But now until is starting to look a lot like the complement of while, and its extra complexity doesn't seem beneficial.
(defmacro until [test & body]
`(loop []
(when-not ~test
~#body
(recur))))
This version of until is identical to while except the test is inverted, and the sample code above with the atom still behaves correctly. We can further simplify until by using while directly, and it'll ultimately expand to the same code:
(defmacro until [test & body]
`(while (not ~test) ~#body))
Change the let line too:
...
`(let [c# ~#condition]
...
Then rename all references of c to c#. The postfix # generates a unique, non-namespaced-qualified identifier to ensure that the symbol created by the macro doesn't clash with any existing symbols in the context that the macro expands into. Whenever you bind a symbol in a quoted form, you should be using # to prevent collisions, unless you have a good reason to not use it.
Why is this necessary in this case? I can't remember exactly the reason, but if I recall correctly, any symbols bound in a syntax quoted form (`()) are namespace qualified, and you can't use a let to create namespace qualified symbols.
You can recreate the error by typing:
(let [a/a 1]
a/a)
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.
My question is: how can I get the args list and expressions of a received function ?
I'm trying to do something like this:
(defn first-fn [[args exprs]]
(println "Args:" args)
(println "Exprs:" exprs))
(first-fn (fn [a b c] (println "something")))
So, first-fn would print:
Args: [a b c]
Exprs: (println "something")
My goal is to create a macro that can use the args list of the received function.
Thank you.
Edit:
Use case:
I'm using compojure https://github.com/weavejester/compojure
You can define routes like this:
(GET "/:id" [id] (body_here id))
But I would like to change the syntax to be:
(defn handler-fn [id] (body_here id))
...
(GET "/:id" handler-fn)
So the handler (body) can be extracted from the routes, and might be reused as well.
I tried to reuse compile-route https://github.com/weavejester/compojure/blob/master/src/compojure/core.clj#L172
(defmacro MY_GET [path fn-src]
(let [fn-fn (second fn-src)
arg-vec (nth fn-src 2)
forms (drop 3 fn-src)]
(compojure.core/compile-route :get path arg-vec forms)))
But when I call:
(MY_GET "/:id" handler-fn)
It says: Don't know how to create ISeq from: clojure.lang.Symbol
You cannot do this with functions, you directly need a macro to do this and even then it is not straight-forward. First, let's explain the difference: macros are basically evaluated at compile-time and the result of this evaluation is then evaluated at run-time. The interesting part is that the evaluation at compile-time gets the literal, unevaluated arguments to the macro as data and not, like normal functions would, the evaluated arguments at run-time. So, your approach cannot work, because at the time first-fn receives it's arguments (at run-time), they are already evaluated -- in your example, first-fn receives nil as arguments. Cf. the documentation at clojure-doc for a much better explanation.
Now, solving your request with a macro requires the macro to parse the arguments (remember: at compile time, code is data) that it receives -- i.e. in your example, it needs to parse the sequence (fn [a b c] (println "something")) that builds up the function call you hand over to it. Probably you would want to cover other cases besides the fn one (e.g. the # short-hand), that's what it makes the problem not straight-forward in the general case.
This parsing could in the end be handled by a normal function parsing, e.g. a sequence. So, try solving a different puzzle first: build a function parse-code-sequence that takes a sequence (that looks like the functions you would hand over) and returns the args and expr -- note the quote (') in front of fn.
user> (parse-code-sequence '(fn [a b c] (println "something")))
{args: [a b c], expr: (println "something")}
Some hints to this: in the example here, which is showing the most used case, the sequence just consists of three elements and you don't need the first one. But the general case is a little bit more complex, cf. the official documentation on fn.
A final remark: when you implement the macro, you need to think about what it resolves to -- just adding the print-statements is easy, but do you also want to evaluate the arguments normally (so your macro becomes something like a debugging aid) or do you want to do something else?
Update to reflect your use-case
Your MY-GET macro is not doing what you think it's doing.
Take a look at the arguments that the macro gets: why do you think it can magically retrieve the function definition of handler-fn, when all that you give as argument to MY_GET is the symbol/var handler-fn? You would need to retrieve the source, but this usually will not be possible (cf. this SO question on retrieving the source of a function definition).
You are also missing a backquote before the call to compile-route: you want the call to compile-route to happen at run-time, not at compile time. Currently, the result of the macro evaluation is the result of the call to compile-route (at compile-time). Take a look at macroexpand which would show you the result of the macro-expansion. Basically, you want the macro to return the call to compile-route.
I don't see any easy way that you could accomplish what you look for. The argument vector of a route definition is defining what needs to be handed over. Even if you extract that to a function definition, compojure still needs to know what to hand over to that function.
Here is an example of what you could do.
(ns xyz
(:require
[tupelo.core :as t]
))
(t/refer-tupelo)
(spyx *clojure-version*)
(defmacro dissect [ fn-src ]
(let [fn-fn (first fn-src)
arg-vec (second fn-src)
forms (drop 2 fn-src) ]
(spyx fn-fn)
(spyx arg-vec)
(spyx forms)
; Here is the return value; ie the transformed code
`(defn my-fn
~arg-vec
(apply + ~arg-vec))))
; show the result
(newline)
(println
(macroexpand-1
'(dissect
(fn [a b c]
(println "the answer is")
42))))
; call it for real
(newline)
(dissect
(fn [a b c]
(println "the answer is")
42))
; use the generated function
(newline)
(spyx (my-fn 1 2 3))
with result:
*clojure-version* => {:major 1, :minor 8, :incremental 0, :qualifier nil}
fn-fn => fn
arg-vec => [a b c]
forms => ((println "the answer is") 42)
(clojure.core/defn tst.clj.core/my-fn [a b c] (clojure.core/apply clojure.core/+ [a b c]))
fn-fn => fn
arg-vec => [a b c]
forms => ((println "the answer is") 42)
(my-fn 1 2 3) => 6
Your project.clj needs the following to make spyx work:
:dependencies [
[tupelo "0.9.11"]
I want to define a macro that randomly chooses one of the given expressions and evaluates it. For example,
(equal-chance
(println "1")
(println "2"))
should print "1" half the time and "2" the other half.
I tried using,
(defmacro equal-chance
[& exprs]
`(rand-nth '~exprs))
but this returns one of the quoted forms, rather than evaluating it (i.e. it would return (println "1") rather than actually printing "1"). I cannot use eval because it does not preserve the bindings. For example,
(let [x 10] (eval '(println x)))
complains that it is unable to resolve symbol x.
Is there a way to evaluate a quoted form in the local scope? Or maybe there is a better way to go about this?
You can't evaluate a run-time value in a lexical environment that only exists at compile time. The solution is to use fn instead of quote and a function call instead of eval:
(defmacro equal-chance [& exprs]
`((rand-nth [~#(map (fn [e] `(fn [] ~e)) exprs)])))
The way this works is by expanding (equal-chance e1 e2 ...) into ((rand-nth [(fn [] e1) (fn [] e2) ...])).
Just don't quote the call to rand-nth or the expressions. This will do what you want:
(defmacro equal-chance
[& exprs]
(rand-nth exprs))
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.)