[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing? |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:57:28 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>> Kevin Rodgers <kevin.d.rodgers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> Your notion of the correct use of macros seems to be a religious idea
>>>> rather than one fully thought through. You justify it with circular
>>>> reasoning. Whilst using a macro to generate an evalable form may be
>>>> the most usual thing, there is no reason not to use it to produce
>>>> other list structure.
>>> Except that such macros can only be executed in a particular context
>>> i.e. they depend on something that cannot be expressed via their
>>> argument list.
>> Yes, many lisp structures can only be "executed" in particular contexts,
>> `,@' for example, yet nobody slags them off for that.
> This is different. Why can't you see it?
I do see it. I'm glad we both do - there are things which _are_
different.
> ,@ cannot be put outside of a ` context, never ever.
Yes. It is a thing which can only be "executed" in a particular context.
We live with this.
> When you define a macro (defmacro m ...) then (m ...) can be put in any
> form context, always.
No. When _you_ define a macro that might well be the case, but with me
there are no guarantees. I might want a macro to generate an arm of a
cond form, for example. Unlikely, but possible.
> Oops! Not when you write a macro that returns not a form. You've made
> an exception, and therefore a lot of complexity for the reader of your
> code, and a lot of time lost for the debugger of your code.
Right. We now get down to weighing up the difficulties a non-form macro
may cause to its readers compared with the simplicity in the manner of
expression which it would allow.
> Now instead of being able to use a macro at any place a form is
> acceptable, we have to go read the source of the macro, and understand
> whether it returns a form or data, and if it's the later, we have to
> understand how to wrap it in some boilerplate, which was by the way
> why macros where invented for in the first place, to avoid
> boilerplate!!! How silly!
No, not silly - it all depends. In the example which sparked off this
intelligent discussion, avoiding non-conformity required inserting an
artificial `progn'. It's a matter of judgement which is the more
difficult to read and understand.
>>> At best that is poor style, and at worst it is poor engineering.
>> That is so supercilious - you haven't even given an example of this
>> phenomenom, discussing why it is poor style or poor engineering. There's
>> just this vague insinuation that you know better.
> Yes, it seems that we have to spell it in all details.
Yes, indeed. Or at least, in some considerable detail.
>> I will give an example, namely `c-lang-defconst' from cc-defs.el. Are
>> you going to assert that it is poor style, or even poor engineering,
>> simply because it generates an internal data structure rather than an
>> excutable form?
> You are plain wrong. c-lang-defconst, as any other macro, generates
> only executable lisp code:
Yes, I was wrong. Sorry about that. I'm beginning to see what you're
getting at.
> (c-lang-defconst test t nil c "abc")
> --> test
> (macroexpand '(c-lang-defconst test t nil c "abc"))
> --> (progn (c-define-lang-constant (quote test) (quote (((c-mode) . "abc")
> (t))) (quote (\83))))
I still don't see the _reason_ for macros always to return forms. I
think you're saying that anything else is so unusual that it would create
problems for somebody reading or debugging it. Do you have an example of
somewhere where a macro expanding to a non-form has lead to difficulty?
I can't imagine anybody having difficulty understanding code like this:
(cond
(try-incoming-call event) ; expands to a full cond arm
(try-incoming-data-call event)
(try-battery-low-notification event)
(try-keyboard-press event)
....
)
, where all these event handler macros are defined centrally just once
(and the comment is actually present in the source).
I'll quite happily use a goto in C code if it makes the code easier to
read and understand, though I've only done this 3 or 4 times in my entire
career. Similarly, I'd use a non-form macro if this were better.
Usually it wouldn't be.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, (continued)
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/24
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Jeff Clough, 2009/11/25
- Message not available
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/26
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/26
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Lennart Borgman, 2009/11/26
- Message not available
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/26
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Lennart Borgman, 2009/11/26
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/11/27
- Message not available
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Helmut Eller, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Tim X, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/27
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/28
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/28
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Thierry Volpiatto, 2009/11/28
- Message not available
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/28
- Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/11/24