Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
e4955559 AW |
1 | @c -*-texinfo-*- |
2 | @c This is part of the GNU Guile Reference Manual. | |
cd4171d0 | 3 | @c Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011 |
e4955559 AW |
4 | @c Free Software Foundation, Inc. |
5 | @c See the file guile.texi for copying conditions. | |
6 | ||
e4955559 AW |
7 | @node Macros |
8 | @section Macros | |
9 | ||
10 | At its best, programming in Lisp is an iterative process of building up a | |
11 | language appropriate to the problem at hand, and then solving the problem in | |
12 | that language. Defining new procedures is part of that, but Lisp also allows | |
13 | the user to extend its syntax, with its famous @dfn{macros}. | |
14 | ||
15 | @cindex macros | |
16 | @cindex transformation | |
17 | Macros are syntactic extensions which cause the expression that they appear in | |
18 | to be transformed in some way @emph{before} being evaluated. In expressions that | |
19 | are intended for macro transformation, the identifier that names the relevant | |
20 | macro must appear as the first element, like this: | |
21 | ||
22 | @lisp | |
23 | (@var{macro-name} @var{macro-args} @dots{}) | |
24 | @end lisp | |
25 | ||
26 | @cindex macro expansion | |
27 | Macro expansion is a separate phase of evaluation, run before code is | |
28 | interpreted or compiled. A macro is a program that runs on programs, translating | |
29 | an embedded language into core Scheme. | |
30 | ||
31 | @menu | |
32 | * Defining Macros:: Binding macros, globally and locally. | |
33 | * Syntax Rules:: Pattern-driven macros. | |
34 | * Syntax Case:: Procedural, hygienic macros. | |
35 | * Defmacros:: Lisp-style macros. | |
36 | * Identifier Macros:: Identifier macros. | |
37 | * Eval When:: Affecting the expand-time environment. | |
38 | * Internal Macros:: Macros as first-class values. | |
39 | @end menu | |
40 | ||
41 | @node Defining Macros | |
42 | @subsection Defining Macros | |
43 | ||
44 | A macro is a binding between a keyword and a syntax transformer. Since it's | |
45 | difficult to discuss @code{define-syntax} without discussing the format of | |
46 | transformers, consider the following example macro definition: | |
47 | ||
48 | @example | |
49 | (define-syntax when | |
50 | (syntax-rules () | |
51 | ((when condition exp ...) | |
52 | (if condition | |
53 | (begin exp ...))))) | |
54 | ||
55 | (when #t | |
56 | (display "hey ho\n") | |
57 | (display "let's go\n")) | |
58 | @print{} hey ho | |
59 | @print{} let's go | |
60 | @end example | |
61 | ||
62 | In this example, the @code{when} binding is bound with @code{define-syntax}. | |
63 | Syntax transformers are discussed in more depth in @ref{Syntax Rules} and | |
64 | @ref{Syntax Case}. | |
65 | ||
66 | @deffn {Syntax} define-syntax keyword transformer | |
67 | Bind @var{keyword} to the syntax transformer obtained by evaluating | |
68 | @var{transformer}. | |
69 | ||
70 | After a macro has been defined, further instances of @var{keyword} in Scheme | |
71 | source code will invoke the syntax transformer defined by @var{transformer}. | |
72 | @end deffn | |
73 | ||
74 | One can also establish local syntactic bindings with @code{let-syntax}. | |
75 | ||
76 | @deffn {Syntax} let-syntax ((keyword transformer) ...) exp... | |
77 | Bind @var{keyword...} to @var{transformer...} while expanding @var{exp...}. | |
78 | ||
79 | A @code{let-syntax} binding only exists at expansion-time. | |
80 | ||
81 | @example | |
82 | (let-syntax ((unless | |
83 | (syntax-rules () | |
84 | ((unless condition exp ...) | |
85 | (if (not condition) | |
86 | (begin exp ...)))))) | |
87 | (unless #t | |
88 | (primitive-exit 1)) | |
89 | "rock rock rock") | |
90 | @result{} "rock rock rock" | |
91 | @end example | |
92 | @end deffn | |
93 | ||
94 | A @code{define-syntax} form is valid anywhere a definition may appear: at the | |
95 | top-level, or locally. Just as a local @code{define} expands out to an instance | |
96 | of @code{letrec}, a local @code{define-syntax} expands out to | |
97 | @code{letrec-syntax}. | |
98 | ||
99 | @deffn {Syntax} letrec-syntax ((keyword transformer) ...) exp... | |
100 | Bind @var{keyword...} to @var{transformer...} while expanding @var{exp...}. | |
101 | ||
102 | In the spirit of @code{letrec} versus @code{let}, an expansion produced by | |
103 | @var{transformer} may reference a @var{keyword} bound by the | |
104 | same @var{letrec-syntax}. | |
105 | ||
106 | @example | |
107 | (letrec-syntax ((my-or | |
108 | (syntax-rules () | |
109 | ((my-or) | |
110 | #t) | |
111 | ((my-or exp) | |
112 | exp) | |
113 | ((my-or exp rest ...) | |
114 | (let ((t exp)) | |
115 | (if exp | |
116 | exp | |
117 | (my-or rest ...))))))) | |
118 | (my-or #f "rockaway beach")) | |
119 | @result{} "rockaway beach" | |
120 | @end example | |
121 | @end deffn | |
122 | ||
123 | @node Syntax Rules | |
124 | @subsection Syntax-rules Macros | |
125 | ||
126 | @code{syntax-rules} macros are simple, pattern-driven syntax transformers, with | |
127 | a beauty worthy of Scheme. | |
128 | ||
129 | @deffn {Syntax} syntax-rules literals (pattern template)... | |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
130 | Create a syntax transformer that will rewrite an expression using the rules |
131 | embodied in the @var{pattern} and @var{template} clauses. | |
132 | @end deffn | |
133 | ||
e4955559 AW |
134 | A @code{syntax-rules} macro consists of three parts: the literals (if any), the |
135 | patterns, and as many templates as there are patterns. | |
136 | ||
137 | When the syntax expander sees the invocation of a @code{syntax-rules} macro, it | |
138 | matches the expression against the patterns, in order, and rewrites the | |
139 | expression using the template from the first matching pattern. If no pattern | |
140 | matches, a syntax error is signalled. | |
e4955559 AW |
141 | |
142 | @subsubsection Patterns | |
143 | ||
144 | We have already seen some examples of patterns in the previous section: | |
145 | @code{(unless condition exp ...)}, @code{(my-or exp)}, and so on. A pattern is | |
146 | structured like the expression that it is to match. It can have nested structure | |
147 | as well, like @code{(let ((var val) ...) exp exp* ...)}. Broadly speaking, | |
148 | patterns are made of lists, improper lists, vectors, identifiers, and datums. | |
149 | Users can match a sequence of patterns using the ellipsis (@code{...}). | |
150 | ||
151 | Identifiers in a pattern are called @dfn{literals} if they are present in the | |
152 | @code{syntax-rules} literals list, and @dfn{pattern variables} otherwise. When | |
153 | building up the macro output, the expander replaces instances of a pattern | |
154 | variable in the template with the matched subexpression. | |
155 | ||
156 | @example | |
157 | (define-syntax kwote | |
158 | (syntax-rules () | |
159 | ((kwote exp) | |
160 | (quote exp)))) | |
161 | (kwote (foo . bar)) | |
162 | @result{} (foo . bar) | |
163 | @end example | |
164 | ||
165 | An improper list of patterns matches as rest arguments do: | |
166 | ||
167 | @example | |
168 | (define-syntax let1 | |
169 | (syntax-rules () | |
170 | ((_ (var val) . exps) | |
171 | (let ((var val)) . exps)))) | |
172 | @end example | |
173 | ||
174 | However this definition of @code{let1} probably isn't what you want, as the tail | |
175 | pattern @var{exps} will match non-lists, like @code{(let1 (foo 'bar) . baz)}. So | |
176 | often instead of using improper lists as patterns, ellipsized patterns are | |
177 | better. Instances of a pattern variable in the template must be followed by an | |
178 | ellipsis. | |
179 | ||
180 | @example | |
181 | (define-syntax let1 | |
182 | (syntax-rules () | |
183 | ((_ (var val) exp ...) | |
184 | (let ((var val)) exp ...)))) | |
185 | @end example | |
186 | ||
187 | This @code{let1} probably still doesn't do what we want, because the body | |
188 | matches sequences of zero expressions, like @code{(let1 (foo 'bar))}. In this | |
189 | case we need to assert we have at least one body expression. A common idiom for | |
190 | this is to name the ellipsized pattern variable with an asterisk: | |
191 | ||
192 | @example | |
193 | (define-syntax let1 | |
194 | (syntax-rules () | |
195 | ((_ (var val) exp exp* ...) | |
196 | (let ((var val)) exp exp* ...)))) | |
197 | @end example | |
198 | ||
199 | A vector of patterns matches a vector whose contents match the patterns, | |
200 | including ellipsizing and tail patterns. | |
201 | ||
202 | @example | |
203 | (define-syntax letv | |
204 | (syntax-rules () | |
205 | ((_ #((var val) ...) exp exp* ...) | |
206 | (let ((var val) ...) exp exp* ...)))) | |
207 | (letv #((foo 'bar)) foo) | |
208 | @result{} foo | |
209 | @end example | |
210 | ||
211 | Literals are used to match specific datums in an expression, like the use of | |
212 | @code{=>} and @code{else} in @code{cond} expressions. | |
213 | ||
214 | @example | |
215 | (define-syntax cond1 | |
216 | (syntax-rules (=> else) | |
217 | ((cond1 test => fun) | |
218 | (let ((exp test)) | |
219 | (if exp (fun exp) #f))) | |
220 | ((cond1 test exp exp* ...) | |
221 | (if test (begin exp exp* ...))) | |
222 | ((cond1 else exp exp* ...) | |
223 | (begin exp exp* ...)))) | |
224 | ||
225 | (define (square x) (* x x)) | |
226 | (cond1 10 => square) | |
227 | @result{} 100 | |
228 | (let ((=> #t)) | |
229 | (cond1 10 => square)) | |
230 | @result{} #<procedure square (x)> | |
231 | @end example | |
232 | ||
233 | A literal matches an input expression if the input expression is an identifier | |
234 | with the same name as the literal, and both are unbound@footnote{Language | |
235 | lawyers probably see the need here for use of @code{literal-identifier=?} rather | |
236 | than @code{free-identifier=?}, and would probably be correct. Patches | |
237 | accepted.}. | |
238 | ||
239 | If a pattern is not a list, vector, or an identifier, it matches as a literal, | |
240 | with @code{equal?}. | |
241 | ||
242 | @example | |
243 | (define-syntax define-matcher-macro | |
244 | (syntax-rules () | |
245 | ((_ name lit) | |
246 | (define-syntax name | |
247 | (syntax-rules () | |
248 | ((_ lit) #t) | |
249 | ((_ else) #f)))))) | |
250 | ||
251 | (define-matcher-macro is-literal-foo? "foo") | |
252 | ||
253 | (is-literal-foo? "foo") | |
254 | @result{} #t | |
255 | (is-literal-foo? "bar") | |
256 | @result{} #f | |
257 | (let ((foo "foo")) | |
258 | (is-literal-foo? foo)) | |
259 | @result{} #f | |
260 | @end example | |
261 | ||
262 | The last example indicates that matching happens at expansion-time, not | |
263 | at run-time. | |
264 | ||
265 | Syntax-rules macros are always used as @code{(@var{macro} . @var{args})}, and | |
266 | the @var{macro} will always be a symbol. Correspondingly, a @code{syntax-rules} | |
267 | pattern must be a list (proper or improper), and the first pattern in that list | |
268 | must be an identifier. Incidentally it can be any identifier -- it doesn't have | |
269 | to actually be the name of the macro. Thus the following three are equivalent: | |
270 | ||
271 | @example | |
272 | (define-syntax when | |
273 | (syntax-rules () | |
274 | ((when c e ...) | |
275 | (if c (begin e ...))))) | |
276 | ||
277 | (define-syntax when | |
278 | (syntax-rules () | |
279 | ((_ c e ...) | |
280 | (if c (begin e ...))))) | |
281 | ||
282 | (define-syntax when | |
283 | (syntax-rules () | |
284 | ((something-else-entirely c e ...) | |
285 | (if c (begin e ...))))) | |
286 | @end example | |
287 | ||
288 | For clarity, use one of the first two variants. Also note that since the pattern | |
289 | variable will always match the macro itself (e.g., @code{cond1}), it is actually | |
290 | left unbound in the template. | |
291 | ||
292 | @subsubsection Hygiene | |
293 | ||
294 | @code{syntax-rules} macros have a magical property: they preserve referential | |
295 | transparency. When you read a macro definition, any free bindings in that macro | |
296 | are resolved relative to the macro definition; and when you read a macro | |
297 | instantiation, all free bindings in that expression are resolved relative to the | |
298 | expression. | |
299 | ||
300 | This property is sometimes known as @dfn{hygiene}, and it does aid in code | |
301 | cleanliness. In your macro definitions, you can feel free to introduce temporary | |
ecb87335 | 302 | variables, without worrying about inadvertently introducing bindings into the |
e4955559 AW |
303 | macro expansion. |
304 | ||
305 | Consider the definition of @code{my-or} from the previous section: | |
306 | ||
307 | @example | |
308 | (define-syntax my-or | |
309 | (syntax-rules () | |
310 | ((my-or) | |
311 | #t) | |
312 | ((my-or exp) | |
313 | exp) | |
314 | ((my-or exp rest ...) | |
315 | (let ((t exp)) | |
316 | (if exp | |
317 | exp | |
318 | (my-or rest ...)))))) | |
319 | @end example | |
320 | ||
321 | A naive expansion of @code{(let ((t #t)) (my-or #f t))} would yield: | |
322 | ||
323 | @example | |
324 | (let ((t #t)) | |
325 | (let ((t #f)) | |
326 | (if t t t))) | |
327 | @result{} #f | |
328 | @end example | |
329 | ||
330 | @noindent | |
331 | Which clearly is not what we want. Somehow the @code{t} in the definition is | |
332 | distinct from the @code{t} at the site of use; and it is indeed this distinction | |
333 | that is maintained by the syntax expander, when expanding hygienic macros. | |
334 | ||
335 | This discussion is mostly relevant in the context of traditional Lisp macros | |
336 | (@pxref{Defmacros}), which do not preserve referential transparency. Hygiene | |
337 | adds to the expressive power of Scheme. | |
338 | ||
cd4171d0 AW |
339 | @subsubsection Shorthands |
340 | ||
341 | One often ends up writing simple one-clause @code{syntax-rules} macros. | |
342 | There is a convenient shorthand for this idiom, in the form of | |
343 | @code{define-syntax-rule}. | |
344 | ||
345 | @deffn {Syntax} define-syntax-rule (keyword . pattern) [docstring] template | |
346 | Define @var{keyword} as a new @code{syntax-rules} macro with one clause. | |
347 | @end deffn | |
348 | ||
349 | Cast into this form, our @code{when} example is significantly shorter: | |
350 | ||
351 | @example | |
352 | (define-syntax-rule (when c e ...) | |
353 | (if c (begin e ...))) | |
354 | @end example | |
355 | ||
e4955559 AW |
356 | @subsubsection Further Information |
357 | ||
358 | For a formal definition of @code{syntax-rules} and its pattern language, see | |
359 | @xref{Macros, , Macros, r5rs, Revised(5) Report on the Algorithmic Language | |
360 | Scheme}. | |
361 | ||
362 | @code{syntax-rules} macros are simple and clean, but do they have limitations. | |
363 | They do not lend themselves to expressive error messages: patterns either match | |
364 | or they don't. Their ability to generate code is limited to template-driven | |
365 | expansion; often one needs to define a number of helper macros to get real work | |
366 | done. Sometimes one wants to introduce a binding into the lexical context of the | |
367 | generated code; this is impossible with @code{syntax-rules}. Relatedly, they | |
368 | cannot programmatically generate identifiers. | |
369 | ||
370 | The solution to all of these problems is to use @code{syntax-case} if you need | |
371 | its features. But if for some reason you're stuck with @code{syntax-rules}, you | |
372 | might enjoy Joe Marshall's | |
373 | @uref{http://sites.google.com/site/evalapply/eccentric.txt,@code{syntax-rules} | |
374 | Primer for the Merely Eccentric}. | |
375 | ||
376 | @node Syntax Case | |
377 | @subsection Support for the @code{syntax-case} System | |
378 | ||
1fc8dcc7 AW |
379 | @code{syntax-case} macros are procedural syntax transformers, with a power |
380 | worthy of Scheme. | |
381 | ||
382 | @deffn {Syntax} syntax-case syntax literals (pattern [guard] exp)... | |
383 | Match the syntax object @var{syntax} against the given patterns, in order. If a | |
384 | @var{pattern} matches, return the result of evaluating the associated @var{exp}. | |
385 | @end deffn | |
386 | ||
387 | Compare the following definitions of @code{when}: | |
388 | ||
389 | @example | |
390 | (define-syntax when | |
391 | (syntax-rules () | |
392 | ((_ test e e* ...) | |
393 | (if test (begin e e* ...))))) | |
394 | ||
395 | (define-syntax when | |
396 | (lambda (x) | |
397 | (syntax-case x () | |
398 | ((_ test e e* ...) | |
399 | #'(if test (begin e e* ...)))))) | |
400 | @end example | |
401 | ||
402 | Clearly, the @code{syntax-case} definition is similar to its @code{syntax-rules} | |
403 | counterpart, and equally clearly there are some differences. The | |
404 | @code{syntax-case} definition is wrapped in a @code{lambda}, a function of one | |
405 | argument; that argument is passed to the @code{syntax-case} invocation; and the | |
406 | ``return value'' of the macro has a @code{#'} prefix. | |
407 | ||
408 | All of these differences stem from the fact that @code{syntax-case} does not | |
409 | define a syntax transformer itself -- instead, @code{syntax-case} expressions | |
410 | provide a way to destructure a @dfn{syntax object}, and to rebuild syntax | |
411 | objects as output. | |
412 | ||
413 | So the @code{lambda} wrapper is simply a leaky implementation detail, that | |
414 | syntax transformers are just functions that transform syntax to syntax. This | |
415 | should not be surprising, given that we have already described macros as | |
416 | ``programs that write programs''. @code{syntax-case} is simply a way to take | |
417 | apart and put together program text, and to be a valid syntax transformer it | |
418 | needs to be wrapped in a procedure. | |
419 | ||
420 | Unlike traditional Lisp macros (@pxref{Defmacros}), @code{syntax-case} macros | |
421 | transform syntax objects, not raw Scheme forms. Recall the naive expansion of | |
422 | @code{my-or} given in the previous section: | |
423 | ||
424 | @example | |
425 | (let ((t #t)) | |
426 | (my-or #f t)) | |
427 | ;; naive expansion: | |
428 | (let ((t #t)) | |
429 | (let ((t #f)) | |
430 | (if t t t))) | |
431 | @end example | |
432 | ||
433 | Raw Scheme forms simply don't have enough information to distinguish the first | |
434 | two @code{t} instances in @code{(if t t t)} from the third @code{t}. So instead | |
435 | of representing identifiers as symbols, the syntax expander represents | |
436 | identifiers as annotated syntax objects, attaching such information to those | |
437 | syntax objects as is needed to maintain referential transparency. | |
438 | ||
439 | @deffn {Syntax} syntax form | |
440 | Create a syntax object wrapping @var{form} within the current lexical context. | |
441 | @end deffn | |
442 | ||
443 | Syntax objects are typically created internally to the process of expansion, but | |
444 | it is possible to create them outside of syntax expansion: | |
445 | ||
446 | @example | |
447 | (syntax (foo bar baz)) | |
448 | @result{} #<some representation of that syntax> | |
449 | @end example | |
450 | ||
451 | @noindent | |
452 | However it is more common, and useful, to create syntax objects when building | |
453 | output from a @code{syntax-case} expression. | |
454 | ||
455 | @example | |
456 | (define-syntax add1 | |
457 | (lambda (x) | |
458 | (syntax-case x () | |
459 | ((_ exp) | |
460 | (syntax (+ exp 1)))))) | |
461 | @end example | |
462 | ||
463 | It is not strictly necessary for a @code{syntax-case} expression to return a | |
464 | syntax object, because @code{syntax-case} expressions can be used in helper | |
465 | functions, or otherwise used outside of syntax expansion itself. However a | |
7545ddd4 | 466 | syntax transformer procedure must return a syntax object, so most uses of |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
467 | @code{syntax-case} do end up returning syntax objects. |
468 | ||
469 | Here in this case, the form that built the return value was @code{(syntax (+ exp | |
470 | 1))}. The interesting thing about this is that within a @code{syntax} | |
7545ddd4 | 471 | expression, any appearance of a pattern variable is substituted into the |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
472 | resulting syntax object, carrying with it all relevant metadata from the source |
473 | expression, such as lexical identity and source location. | |
474 | ||
475 | Indeed, a pattern variable may only be referenced from inside a @code{syntax} | |
476 | form. The syntax expander would raise an error when defining @code{add1} if it | |
477 | found @var{exp} referenced outside a @code{syntax} form. | |
478 | ||
479 | Since @code{syntax} appears frequently in macro-heavy code, it has a special | |
480 | reader macro: @code{#'}. @code{#'foo} is transformed by the reader into | |
ecb87335 | 481 | @code{(syntax foo)}, just as @code{'foo} is transformed into @code{(quote foo)}. |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
482 | |
483 | The pattern language used by @code{syntax-case} is conveniently the same | |
484 | language used by @code{syntax-rules}. Given this, Guile actually defines | |
485 | @code{syntax-rules} in terms of @code{syntax-case}: | |
486 | ||
487 | @example | |
488 | (define-syntax syntax-rules | |
489 | (lambda (x) | |
490 | (syntax-case x () | |
491 | ((_ (k ...) ((keyword . pattern) template) ...) | |
492 | #'(lambda (x) | |
493 | (syntax-case x (k ...) | |
494 | ((dummy . pattern) #'template) | |
495 | ...)))))) | |
496 | @end example | |
497 | ||
498 | And that's that. | |
499 | ||
500 | @subsubsection Why @code{syntax-case}? | |
501 | ||
502 | The examples we have shown thus far could just as well have been expressed with | |
503 | @code{syntax-rules}, and have just shown that @code{syntax-case} is more | |
504 | verbose, which is true. But there is a difference: @code{syntax-case} creates | |
505 | @emph{procedural} macros, giving the full power of Scheme to the macro expander. | |
506 | This has many practical applications. | |
507 | ||
508 | A common desire is to be able to match a form only if it is an identifier. This | |
509 | is impossible with @code{syntax-rules}, given the datum matching forms. But with | |
510 | @code{syntax-case} it is easy: | |
511 | ||
512 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} identifier? syntax-object | |
513 | Returns @code{#t} iff @var{syntax-object} is an identifier. | |
514 | @end deffn | |
515 | ||
516 | @example | |
7545ddd4 | 517 | ;; relying on previous add1 definition |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
518 | (define-syntax add1! |
519 | (lambda (x) | |
520 | (syntax-case x () | |
521 | ((_ var) (identifier? #'var) | |
522 | #'(set! var (add1 var)))))) | |
523 | ||
524 | (define foo 0) | |
525 | (add1! foo) | |
526 | foo @result{} 1 | |
527 | (add1! "not-an-identifier") @result{} error | |
528 | @end example | |
529 | ||
530 | With @code{syntax-rules}, the error for @code{(add1! "not-an-identifier")} would | |
531 | be something like ``invalid @code{set!}''. With @code{syntax-case}, it will say | |
532 | something like ``invalid @code{add1!}'', because we attach the @dfn{guard | |
533 | clause} to the pattern: @code{(identifier? #'var)}. This becomes more important | |
534 | with more complicated macros. It is necessary to use @code{identifier?}, because | |
535 | to the expander, an identifier is more than a bare symbol. | |
536 | ||
537 | Note that even in the guard clause, we reference the @var{var} pattern variable | |
538 | within a @code{syntax} form, via @code{#'var}. | |
539 | ||
540 | Another common desire is to introduce bindings into the lexical context of the | |
541 | output expression. One example would be in the so-called ``anaphoric macros'', | |
542 | like @code{aif}. Anaphoric macros bind some expression to a well-known | |
543 | identifier, often @code{it}, within their bodies. For example, in @code{(aif | |
544 | (foo) (bar it))}, @code{it} would be bound to the result of @code{(foo)}. | |
545 | ||
546 | To begin with, we should mention a solution that doesn't work: | |
547 | ||
548 | @example | |
549 | ;; doesn't work | |
550 | (define-syntax aif | |
551 | (lambda (x) | |
552 | (syntax-case x () | |
553 | ((_ test then else) | |
554 | #'(let ((it test)) | |
555 | (if it then else)))))) | |
556 | @end example | |
557 | ||
558 | The reason that this doesn't work is that, by default, the expander will | |
559 | preserve referential transparency; the @var{then} and @var{else} expressions | |
560 | won't have access to the binding of @code{it}. | |
561 | ||
562 | But they can, if we explicitly introduce a binding via @code{datum->syntax}. | |
563 | ||
564 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} datum->syntax for-syntax datum | |
565 | Create a syntax object that wraps @var{datum}, within the lexical context | |
566 | corresponding to the syntax object @var{for-syntax}. | |
567 | @end deffn | |
568 | ||
569 | For completeness, we should mention that it is possible to strip the metadata | |
570 | from a syntax object, returning a raw Scheme datum: | |
571 | ||
572 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} syntax->datum syntax-object | |
573 | Strip the metadata from @var{syntax-object}, returning its contents as a raw | |
574 | Scheme datum. | |
575 | @end deffn | |
576 | ||
577 | In this case we want to introduce @code{it} in the context of the whole | |
578 | expression, so we can create a syntax object as @code{(datum->syntax x 'it)}, | |
579 | where @code{x} is the whole expression, as passed to the transformer procedure. | |
580 | ||
581 | Here's another solution that doesn't work: | |
582 | ||
583 | @example | |
584 | ;; doesn't work either | |
585 | (define-syntax aif | |
586 | (lambda (x) | |
587 | (syntax-case x () | |
588 | ((_ test then else) | |
589 | (let ((it (datum->syntax x 'it))) | |
590 | #'(let ((it test)) | |
591 | (if it then else))))))) | |
592 | @end example | |
593 | ||
09cb3ae2 NL |
594 | The reason that this one doesn't work is that there are really two |
595 | environments at work here -- the environment of pattern variables, as | |
596 | bound by @code{syntax-case}, and the environment of lexical variables, | |
597 | as bound by normal Scheme. The outer let form establishes a binding in | |
598 | the environment of lexical variables, but the inner let form is inside a | |
599 | syntax form, where only pattern variables will be substituted. Here we | |
600 | need to introduce a piece of the lexical environment into the pattern | |
601 | variable environment, and we can do so using @code{syntax-case} itself: | |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
602 | |
603 | @example | |
604 | ;; works, but is obtuse | |
605 | (define-syntax aif | |
606 | (lambda (x) | |
607 | (syntax-case x () | |
608 | ((_ test then else) | |
609 | ;; invoking syntax-case on the generated | |
610 | ;; syntax object to expose it to `syntax' | |
611 | (syntax-case (datum->syntax x 'it) () | |
612 | (it | |
613 | #'(let ((it test)) | |
614 | (if it then else)))))))) | |
615 | ||
616 | (aif (getuid) (display it) (display "none")) (newline) | |
617 | @print{} 500 | |
618 | @end example | |
619 | ||
620 | However there are easier ways to write this. @code{with-syntax} is often | |
621 | convenient: | |
622 | ||
623 | @deffn {Syntax} with-syntax ((pat val)...) exp... | |
624 | Bind patterns @var{pat} from their corresponding values @var{val}, within the | |
625 | lexical context of @var{exp...}. | |
626 | ||
627 | @example | |
628 | ;; better | |
629 | (define-syntax aif | |
630 | (lambda (x) | |
631 | (syntax-case x () | |
632 | ((_ test then else) | |
633 | (with-syntax ((it (datum->syntax x 'it))) | |
634 | #'(let ((it test)) | |
635 | (if it then else))))))) | |
636 | @end example | |
637 | @end deffn | |
638 | ||
639 | As you might imagine, @code{with-syntax} is defined in terms of | |
640 | @code{syntax-case}. But even that might be off-putting to you if you are an old | |
641 | Lisp macro hacker, used to building macro output with @code{quasiquote}. The | |
642 | issue is that @code{with-syntax} creates a separation between the point of | |
643 | definition of a value and its point of substitution. | |
644 | ||
645 | @pindex quasisyntax | |
646 | @pindex unsyntax | |
647 | @pindex unsyntax-splicing | |
648 | So for cases in which a @code{quasiquote} style makes more sense, | |
649 | @code{syntax-case} also defines @code{quasisyntax}, and the related | |
650 | @code{unsyntax} and @code{unsyntax-splicing}, abbreviated by the reader as | |
651 | @code{#`}, @code{#,}, and @code{#,@@}, respectively. | |
652 | ||
653 | For example, to define a macro that inserts a compile-time timestamp into a | |
654 | source file, one may write: | |
655 | ||
656 | @example | |
657 | (define-syntax display-compile-timestamp | |
658 | (lambda (x) | |
659 | (syntax-case x () | |
660 | ((_) | |
661 | #`(begin | |
662 | (display "The compile timestamp was: ") | |
663 | (display #,(current-time)) | |
664 | (newline)))))) | |
665 | @end example | |
666 | ||
667 | Finally, we should mention the following helper procedures defined by the core | |
668 | of @code{syntax-case}: | |
669 | ||
670 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} bound-identifier=? a b | |
671 | Returns @code{#t} iff the syntax objects @var{a} and @var{b} refer to the same | |
672 | lexically-bound identifier. | |
673 | @end deffn | |
674 | ||
675 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} free-identifier=? a b | |
676 | Returns @code{#t} iff the syntax objects @var{a} and @var{b} refer to the same | |
677 | free identifier. | |
678 | @end deffn | |
679 | ||
680 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} generate-temporaries ls | |
681 | Return a list of temporary identifiers as long as @var{ls} is long. | |
682 | @end deffn | |
683 | ||
684 | Readers interested in further information on @code{syntax-case} macros should | |
685 | see R. Kent Dybvig's excellent @cite{The Scheme Programming Language}, either | |
686 | edition 3 or 4, in the chapter on syntax. Dybvig was the primary author of the | |
687 | @code{syntax-case} system. The book itself is available online at | |
688 | @uref{http://scheme.com/tspl4/}. | |
689 | ||
e4955559 AW |
690 | @node Defmacros |
691 | @subsection Lisp-style Macro Definitions | |
692 | ||
1fc8dcc7 AW |
693 | The traditional way to define macros in Lisp is very similar to procedure |
694 | definitions. The key differences are that the macro definition body should | |
695 | return a list that describes the transformed expression, and that the definition | |
696 | is marked as a macro definition (rather than a procedure definition) by the use | |
697 | of a different definition keyword: in Lisp, @code{defmacro} rather than | |
698 | @code{defun}, and in Scheme, @code{define-macro} rather than @code{define}. | |
e4955559 AW |
699 | |
700 | @fnindex defmacro | |
701 | @fnindex define-macro | |
702 | Guile supports this style of macro definition using both @code{defmacro} | |
703 | and @code{define-macro}. The only difference between them is how the | |
704 | macro name and arguments are grouped together in the definition: | |
705 | ||
706 | @lisp | |
707 | (defmacro @var{name} (@var{args} @dots{}) @var{body} @dots{}) | |
708 | @end lisp | |
709 | ||
710 | @noindent | |
711 | is the same as | |
712 | ||
713 | @lisp | |
714 | (define-macro (@var{name} @var{args} @dots{}) @var{body} @dots{}) | |
715 | @end lisp | |
716 | ||
717 | @noindent | |
718 | The difference is analogous to the corresponding difference between | |
719 | Lisp's @code{defun} and Scheme's @code{define}. | |
720 | ||
1fc8dcc7 AW |
721 | Having read the previous section on @code{syntax-case}, it's probably clear that |
722 | Guile actually implements defmacros in terms of @code{syntax-case}, applying the | |
723 | transformer on the expression between invocations of @code{syntax->datum} and | |
724 | @code{datum->syntax}. This realization leads us to the problem with defmacros, | |
725 | that they do not preserve referential transparency. One can be careful to not | |
726 | introduce bindings into expanded code, via liberal use of @code{gensym}, but | |
727 | there is no getting around the lack of referential transparency for free | |
728 | bindings in the macro itself. | |
e4955559 | 729 | |
1fc8dcc7 | 730 | Even a macro as simple as our @code{when} from before is difficult to get right: |
e4955559 | 731 | |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
732 | @example |
733 | (define-macro (when cond exp . rest) | |
734 | `(if ,cond | |
735 | (begin ,exp . ,rest))) | |
e4955559 | 736 | |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
737 | (when #f (display "Launching missiles!\n")) |
738 | @result{} #f | |
e4955559 | 739 | |
1fc8dcc7 AW |
740 | (let ((if list)) |
741 | (when #f (display "Launching missiles!\n"))) | |
742 | @print{} Launching missiles! | |
743 | @result{} (#f #<unspecified>) | |
744 | @end example | |
745 | ||
746 | Guile's perspective is that defmacros have had a good run, but that modern | |
747 | macros should be written with @code{syntax-rules} or @code{syntax-case}. There | |
748 | are still many uses of defmacros within Guile itself, but we will be phasing | |
749 | them out over time. Of course we won't take away @code{defmacro} or | |
750 | @code{define-macro} themselves, as there is lots of code out there that uses | |
751 | them. | |
e4955559 AW |
752 | |
753 | ||
754 | @node Identifier Macros | |
755 | @subsection Identifier Macros | |
756 | ||
6ffd4131 AW |
757 | When the syntax expander sees a form in which the first element is a macro, the |
758 | whole form gets passed to the macro's syntax transformer. One may visualize this | |
759 | as: | |
760 | ||
761 | @example | |
762 | (define-syntax foo foo-transformer) | |
763 | (foo @var{arg}...) | |
764 | ;; expands via | |
765 | (foo-transformer #'(foo @var{arg}...)) | |
766 | @end example | |
767 | ||
768 | If, on the other hand, a macro is referenced in some other part of a form, the | |
769 | syntax transformer is invoked with only the macro reference, not the whole form. | |
770 | ||
771 | @example | |
772 | (define-syntax foo foo-transformer) | |
773 | foo | |
774 | ;; expands via | |
775 | (foo-transformer #'foo) | |
776 | @end example | |
777 | ||
778 | This allows bare identifier references to be replaced programmatically via a | |
779 | macro. @code{syntax-rules} provides some syntax to effect this transformation | |
780 | more easily. | |
781 | ||
782 | @deffn {Syntax} identifier-syntax exp | |
ecb87335 | 783 | Returns a macro transformer that will replace occurrences of the macro with |
6ffd4131 AW |
784 | @var{exp}. |
785 | @end deffn | |
786 | ||
787 | For example, if you are importing external code written in terms of @code{fx+}, | |
788 | the fixnum addition operator, but Guile doesn't have @code{fx+}, you may use the | |
789 | following to replace @code{fx+} with @code{+}: | |
790 | ||
791 | @example | |
792 | (define-syntax fx+ (identifier-syntax +)) | |
793 | @end example | |
794 | ||
69724dde AW |
795 | There is also special support for recognizing identifiers on the |
796 | left-hand side of a @code{set!} expression, as in the following: | |
797 | ||
798 | @example | |
799 | (define-syntax foo foo-transformer) | |
800 | (set! foo @var{val}) | |
801 | ;; expands via | |
802 | (foo-transformer #'(set! foo @var{val})) | |
803 | ;; iff foo-transformer is a "variable transformer" | |
804 | @end example | |
805 | ||
806 | As the example notes, the transformer procedure must be explicitly | |
807 | marked as being a ``variable transformer'', as most macros aren't | |
7545ddd4 | 808 | written to discriminate on the form in the operator position. |
69724dde AW |
809 | |
810 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} make-variable-transformer transformer | |
811 | Mark the @var{transformer} procedure as being a ``variable | |
812 | transformer''. In practice this means that, when bound to a syntactic | |
813 | keyword, it may detect references to that keyword on the left-hand-side | |
814 | of a @code{set!}. | |
815 | ||
816 | @example | |
817 | (define bar 10) | |
818 | (define-syntax bar-alias | |
819 | (make-variable-transformer | |
820 | (lambda (x) | |
821 | (syntax-case x (set!) | |
822 | ((set! var val) #'(set! bar val)) | |
823 | ((var arg ...) #'(bar arg ...)) | |
824 | (var (identifier? #'var) #'bar))))) | |
825 | ||
826 | bar-alias @result{} 10 | |
827 | (set! bar-alias 20) | |
828 | bar @result{} 20 | |
829 | (set! bar 30) | |
830 | bar-alias @result{} 30 | |
831 | @end example | |
832 | @end deffn | |
833 | ||
ecb87335 | 834 | There is an extension to identifier-syntax which allows it to handle the |
69724dde AW |
835 | @code{set!} case as well: |
836 | ||
837 | @deffn {Syntax} identifier-syntax (var exp1) ((set! var val) exp2) | |
838 | Create a variable transformer. The first clause is used for references | |
839 | to the variable in operator or operand position, and the second for | |
840 | appearances of the variable on the left-hand-side of an assignment. | |
841 | ||
842 | For example, the previous @code{bar-alias} example could be expressed | |
843 | more succinctly like this: | |
844 | ||
845 | @example | |
846 | (define-syntax bar-alias | |
847 | (identifier-syntax | |
848 | (var bar) | |
849 | ((set! var val) (set! bar val)))) | |
850 | @end example | |
851 | ||
852 | @noindent | |
853 | As before, the templates in @code{identifier-syntax} forms do not need | |
854 | wrapping in @code{#'} syntax forms. | |
855 | @end deffn | |
856 | ||
6ffd4131 | 857 | |
e4955559 AW |
858 | @node Eval When |
859 | @subsection Eval-when | |
860 | ||
6ffd4131 AW |
861 | As @code{syntax-case} macros have the whole power of Scheme available to them, |
862 | they present a problem regarding time: when a macro runs, what parts of the | |
863 | program are available for the macro to use? | |
e4955559 | 864 | |
6ffd4131 AW |
865 | The default answer to this question is that when you import a module (via |
866 | @code{define-module} or @code{use-modules}), that module will be loaded up at | |
867 | expansion-time, as well as at run-time. Additionally, top-level syntactic | |
868 | definitions within one compilation unit made by @code{define-syntax} are also | |
869 | evaluated at expansion time, in the order that they appear in the compilation | |
870 | unit (file). | |
871 | ||
872 | But if a syntactic definition needs to call out to a normal procedure at | |
873 | expansion-time, it might well need need special declarations to indicate that | |
874 | the procedure should be made available at expansion-time. | |
875 | ||
876 | For example, the following code will work at a REPL, but not in a file: | |
877 | ||
878 | @example | |
879 | ;; incorrect | |
880 | (use-modules (srfi srfi-19)) | |
881 | (define (date) (date->string (current-date))) | |
882 | (define-syntax %date (identifier-syntax (date))) | |
883 | (define *compilation-date* %date) | |
884 | @end example | |
e4955559 | 885 | |
6ffd4131 AW |
886 | It works at a REPL because the expressions are evaluated one-by-one, in order, |
887 | but if placed in a file, the expressions are expanded one-by-one, but not | |
888 | evaluated until the compiled file is loaded. | |
889 | ||
890 | The fix is to use @code{eval-when}. | |
891 | ||
892 | @example | |
893 | ;; correct: using eval-when | |
894 | (use-modules (srfi srfi-19)) | |
895 | (eval-when (compile load eval) | |
896 | (define (date) (date->string (current-date)))) | |
897 | (define-syntax %date (identifier-syntax (date))) | |
898 | (define *compilation-date* %date) | |
899 | @end example | |
900 | ||
901 | @deffn {Syntax} eval-when conditions exp... | |
902 | Evaluate @var{exp...} under the given @var{conditions}. Valid conditions include | |
903 | @code{eval}, @code{load}, and @code{compile}. If you need to use | |
904 | @code{eval-when}, use it with all three conditions, as in the above example. | |
905 | Other uses of @code{eval-when} may void your warranty or poison your cat. | |
906 | @end deffn | |
907 | ||
908 | @node Internal Macros | |
909 | @subsection Internal Macros | |
e4955559 AW |
910 | |
911 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} make-syntax-transformer name type binding | |
6ffd4131 AW |
912 | Construct a syntax transformer object. This is part of Guile's low-level support |
913 | for syntax-case. | |
e4955559 AW |
914 | @end deffn |
915 | ||
916 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} macro? obj | |
917 | @deffnx {C Function} scm_macro_p (obj) | |
6ffd4131 AW |
918 | Return @code{#t} iff @var{obj} is a syntax transformer. |
919 | ||
920 | Note that it's a bit difficult to actually get a macro as a first-class object; | |
921 | simply naming it (like @code{case}) will produce a syntax error. But it is | |
922 | possible to get these objects using @code{module-ref}: | |
923 | ||
924 | @example | |
925 | (macro? (module-ref (current-module) 'case)) | |
926 | @result{} #t | |
927 | @end example | |
e4955559 AW |
928 | @end deffn |
929 | ||
930 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} macro-type m | |
931 | @deffnx {C Function} scm_macro_type (m) | |
6ffd4131 AW |
932 | Return the @var{type} that was given when @var{m} was constructed, via |
933 | @code{make-syntax-transformer}. | |
e4955559 AW |
934 | @end deffn |
935 | ||
936 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} macro-name m | |
937 | @deffnx {C Function} scm_macro_name (m) | |
938 | Return the name of the macro @var{m}. | |
939 | @end deffn | |
940 | ||
e4955559 AW |
941 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} macro-binding m |
942 | @deffnx {C Function} scm_macro_binding (m) | |
943 | Return the binding of the macro @var{m}. | |
944 | @end deffn | |
945 | ||
6ffd4131 AW |
946 | @deffn {Scheme Procedure} macro-transformer m |
947 | @deffnx {C Function} scm_macro_transformer (m) | |
948 | Return the transformer of the macro @var{m}. This will return a procedure, for | |
949 | which one may ask the docstring. That's the whole reason this section is | |
950 | documented. Actually a part of the result of @code{macro-binding}. | |
951 | @end deffn | |
952 | ||
e4955559 AW |
953 | |
954 | @c Local Variables: | |
955 | @c TeX-master: "guile.texi" | |
956 | @c End: |