Fedora 33
Raku
I am trying to use Raku's NativeCall to talk to libX11.so to print out both my screen and my display:
use NativeCall;
class Display is repr('CStruct') { has Pointer $.DisplayPtr };
# libX11.so --> X11
sub XOpenDisplay(Str $name = ':0') returns Display is native('X11') { * }
sub XDefaultScreen(Display $) returns int32 is native('X11') { * }
my Display $display = XOpenDisplay()
or die "Can not open display";
my int $screen = XDefaultScreen($display);
print "display = <" ~ $display ~ ">\n";
print "screen = <" ~ $screen ~ ">\n";
$ libX11.pl6
display = <Display<90201160>>
screen = <0>
Problem. I am missing something about the class syntax as it is showing me a pointer address instead of my display, which I presume to be ":0". Also I thing the class declaration should show a string somewhere.
You're confusing somewhat a Display, which is an object that you use to interact with X, and a display name, which is a string that you can use to identify and connect to a Display.
Also, you're best off using repr('CPointer'), not repr('CStruct') for an XDisplay *, since the Xlib documentation says that it should be treated as an opaque pointer and everything accessed through functions, and translating the whole struct to Raku would be laborious (and not very useful).
Since it is like an object in that way, you have the option of encapsulating all of the Xlib functions inside of the Display class, and wrapping them in methods, as shown in the pointers section of the NativeCall docs. My translation of the code you have so far to this style would be:
use NativeCall;
class Display is repr('CPointer') {
sub XOpenDisplay(Str) returns Display is native('X11') { * }
method new(Str $name = ':0') {
XOpenDisplay($name);
}
# You can wrap a libX11 function in a method explicitly, like this...
sub XDisplayString(Display) returns Str is native('X11') { * }
method DisplayString {
XDisplayString(self);
}
# Or implicitly, by putting 'is native' on a method declaration
# and using 'is symbol' to match the names
# (self will be passed as the first argument to the libX11 function)
method DefaultScreen() returns int32 is native('X11')
is symbol('XDefaultScreen') { * }
method Str {
"Display({ self.DisplayString })";
}
}
my Display $display .= new
or die "Can not open display";
my int $screen = $display.DefaultScreen;
print "display = <" ~ $display ~ ">\n";
print "screen = <" ~ $screen ~ ">\n";
I provided a method Str for Display, so that it can be printed directly, but again, don't confuse the object with the string that you use to get hold of one. You would go on from here by adding more methods to Display, as well as defining Screen, Window, etc. in the same way. You don't have to do it this way -- you're free to define the subs publicly and use calls to XOpenDisplay and everything else, as if you were writing C, but the OO style tends to be a bit cleaner. The choice is yours.
In the comments #hobbs has pointed me in the right direction, by suggesting a new function, XDisplayString, that can actually be used to turn a pointer into a string describing the display, without actually needing to go into the full structure of the pointer. So this is how it would go:
use NativeCall;
class Display is repr('CPointer') {};
# libX11.so --> X11
sub XOpenDisplay(str $name = ':0') returns Display is native('X11') { * }
sub XDefaultScreen(Str $) returns int32 is native('X11') { * }
sub XDisplayString(Display $display) returns Str is native('X11') { * }
my $display = XOpenDisplay() or die "Can not open display";
my Str $displayStr = XDisplayString($display);
my int $screen = XDefaultScreen( $displayStr );
print "display = <" ~ $displayStr ~ ">\n";
print "screen = <" ~ $screen ~ ">\n";
That would return:
display = <:0>
screen = <64>
At least in my machine. The key here is that you're actually ising the right way of describing the screen, at least as far as XDisplayString is concerned, so you turn the original Pointer into a Str, and then you sna use it in whatever X* need a string description of the display.
Related
Note: This post is similar, but not quite the same as a more open-ended questions asked on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/rakulang/comments/vvpikh/looking_for_guidance_on_getting_nativecall/
I'm trying to use the md4c c library to process a markdown file with its md_parse function. I'm having no success, and the program just quietly dies. I don't think I'm calling it with the right arguments.
Documentation for the function is here: https://github.com/mity/md4c/wiki/Embedding-Parser%3A-Calling-MD4C
I'd like to at least figure out the minimum amount of code needed to do this without error. This is my latest attempt, though I've tried many:
use v6.d;
use NativeCall;
sub md_parse(str, int32, Pointer is rw ) is native('md4c') returns int32 { * }
md_parse('hello', 5, Pointer.new());
say 'hi'; # this never gets printed
md4c is a SAX-like streaming parser that calls your functions when it encounters markdown elements. If you call it with an uninitialised Pointer, or with an uninitialised CStruct then the code will SEGV when the md4c library tries to call a null function pointer.
The README says:
The main provided function is md_parse(). It takes a text in the
Markdown syntax and a pointer to a structure which provides pointers
to several callback functions.
As md_parse() processes the input, it calls the callbacks (when
entering or leaving any Markdown block or span; and when outputting
any textual content of the document), allowing application to convert
it into another format or render it onto the screen.
The function signature of md_parse is:
int md_parse(const MD_CHAR* text, MD_SIZE size, const MD_PARSER* parser, void* userdata);
In order for md_parse() to work, you will need to:
define a native CStruct that matches the MD_PARSER type definition
create an instance of this CStruct
initialise all the function pointers with Raku functions that have the right function signature
call md_parse() with the initialised CStruct instance as the third parameter
The 4th parameter to md_parse() is void* userdata which is a pointer that you provide which gets passed back to you as the last parameter of each of the callback functions. My guess is that it's optional and if you pass a null value then you'll get called back with a null userdata parameter in each callback.
Followup
This turned into an interesting rabbit hole to fall down.
The code that makes it possible to pass a Raku sub as a callback parameter to a native function is quite complex and relies on MoarVM ops to build and cache the FFI callback trampoline. This is a piece of code that marshals the C calling convention parameters into a call that MoarVM can dispatch to a Raku sub.
It will be a sizeable task to implement equivalent functionality to provide some kind of nativecast that will generate the required callback trampoline and return a Pointer that can be assigned into a CStruct.
But we can cheat
We can use a simple C function to return the pointer to a generated callback trampoline as if it was for a normal callback sub. We can then store this pointer in our CStruct and our problem is solved. The generated trampoline is specific to the function signature of the Raku sub we want to call, so we need to generate a different NativeCall binding for each function signature we need.
The C function:
void* get_pointer(void* p)
{
return p;
}
Binding a NativeCall sub for the function signature we need:
sub get_enter_leave_fn(&func (uint32, Pointer, Pointer))
is native('./getpointer') is symbol('get_pointer') returns Pointer { * }
Initialising a CStruct attribute:
$!enter_block := get_enter_leave_fn(&enter_block);
Putting it all together:
use NativeCall;
enum BlockType < DOC QUOTE UL OL LI HR H CODE HTML P TABLE THEAD TBODY TR TH TD >;
enum SpanType < EM STRONG A IMG SPAN_CODE DEL SPAN_LATEXMATH LATEXMATH_DISPLAY WIKILINK SPAN_U >;
enum TextType < NORMAL NULLCHAR BR SOFTBR ENTITY TEXT_CODE TEXT_HTML TEXT_LATEXMATH >;
sub enter_block(uint32 $type, Pointer $detail, Pointer $userdata --> int32) {
say "enter block { BlockType($type) }";
}
sub leave_block(uint32 $type, Pointer $detail, Pointer $userdata --> int32) {
say "leave block { BlockType($type) }";
}
sub enter_span(uint32 $type, Pointer $detail, Pointer $userdata --> int32) {
say "enter span { SpanType($type) }";
}
sub leave_span(uint32 $type, Pointer $detail, Pointer $userdata --> int32) {
say "leave span { SpanType($type) }";
}
sub text(uint32 $type, str $text, uint32 $size, Pointer $userdata --> int32) {
say "text '{$text.substr(0..^$size)}'";
}
sub debug_log(str $msg, Pointer $userdata --> int32) {
note $msg;
}
#
# Cast functions that are specific to the required function signature.
#
# Makes use of a utility C function that returns its `void*` parameter, compiled
# into a shared library called libgetpointer.dylib (on MacOS)
#
# gcc -shared -o libgetpointer.dylib get_pointer.c
#
# void* get_pointer(void* p)
# {
# return p;
# }
#
# Each cast function uses NativeCall to build an FFI callback trampoline that gets
# cached in an MVMThreadContext. The generated callback code is specific to the
# function signature of the Raku function that will be called.
#
sub get_enter_leave_fn(&func (uint32, Pointer, Pointer))
is native('./getpointer') is symbol('get_pointer') returns Pointer { * }
sub get_text_fn(&func (uint32, str, uint32, Pointer))
is native('./getpointer') is symbol('get_pointer') returns Pointer { * }
sub get_debug_fn(&func (str, Pointer))
is native('./getpointer') is symbol('get_pointer') returns Pointer { * }
class MD_PARSER is repr('CStruct') {
has uint32 $!abi_version; # unsigned int abi_version
has uint32 $!flags; # unsigned int flags
has Pointer $!enter_block; # F:int ( )* enter_block
has Pointer $!leave_block; # F:int ( )* leave_block
has Pointer $!enter_span; # F:int ( )* enter_span
has Pointer $!leave_span; # F:int ( )* leave_span
has Pointer $!text; # F:int ( )* text
has Pointer $!debug_log; # F:void ( )* debug_log
has Pointer $!syntax; # F:void ( )* syntax
submethod TWEAK() {
$!abi_version = 0;
$!flags = 0;
$!enter_block := get_enter_leave_fn(&enter_block);
$!leave_block := get_enter_leave_fn(&leave_block);
$!enter_span := get_enter_leave_fn(&enter_span);
$!leave_span := get_enter_leave_fn(&leave_span);
$!text := get_text_fn(&text);
$!debug_log := get_debug_fn(&debug_log);
}
}
sub md_parse(str, uint32, MD_PARSER, Pointer is rw) is native('md4c') returns int { * }
my $parser = MD_PARSER.new;
my $md = '
# Heading
## Sub Heading
hello *world*
';
md_parse($md, $md.chars, $parser, Pointer.new);
The output:
./md4c.raku
enter block DOC
enter block H
text 'Heading'
leave block H
enter block H
text 'Sub Heading'
leave block H
enter block P
text 'hello '
enter span EM
text 'world'
leave span EM
leave block P
leave block DOC
In summary, it's possible. I'm not sure if I'm proud of this or horrified by it. I think a long-term solution will require refactoring the callback trampoline generator into a separate nqp op that can be exposed to Raku as a nativewrap style operation.
Or similar to java's main() method? In other words a method that executes first, with the possibility of reading one or more parameters from the terminal.
Yes, and it's called MAIN and it has autoparsing for terminal parameters. Futhermore, it can even be a multi sub (supporting different signatures), have defaults, mark as required and do type validation, e.g.:
#|(optional description for USAGE message)
sub MAIN( Int :$length = 24,
:file($data) where { .IO.f // die "file not found in $*CWD" } = 'file.dat',
Bool :v(:$verbose) #`( -verbose, --verbose, -v or --v ) )
{
say $length if $length.defined;
say $data if $data.defined;
say 'Verbosity ', ($verbose ?? 'on' !! 'off');
exit 1;
}
I looked at the following code on Rosetta code http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Singleton#Perl_6
which implements Singleton in Perl6
class Singleton {
has Int $.x is rw;
# We create a lexical variable in the class block that holds our single instance.
my Singleton $instance = Singleton.bless; # You can add initialization arguments here.
method new {!!!} # Singleton.new dies.
method instance { $instance; }
}
my $a=Singleton.bless(x => 1);
my $b=Singleton.bless(x=> 2);
say $a.x;
say $b.x;
#result
# 1
# 2
but it seems using this implementation i can create tow instances of the same class using bless see example above ,
is there an option to prevent the implemention to only one instance of the same class ?
Perl prides itself on providing many ways to do things leaving you to pick the one that suits your tastes and the application at hand. I say that to highlight that this is one simple but solid, hopefully self-explanatory way - I'm not putting it forward as "the best" because that depends on your circumstances.
#!/usr/bin/env perl6
class Scoreboard {
has Str $.home-team ;
has Str $.away-team ;
has Int $.home-score = 0 ;
has Int $.away-score = 0 ;
my Scoreboard $instance;
method new(*%named) {
return $instance //= self.bless(|%named) ;
}
multi method goal($team where * eq $!home-team, Int :$points = 6) {
$!home-score += $points
}
multi method goal($team where * eq $!away-team, Int :$points = 6) {
$!away-score += $points
}
method Str {
"At this vital stage of the game " ~
do given $!home-score <=> $!away-score {
when More {
"$!home-team are leading $!away-team, $!home-score points to $!away-score"
}
when Less {
"$!home-team are behind $!away-team, $!home-score points to $!away-score"
}
default {
"the scores are level! $!home-score apeice!"
}
}
}
}
my $home-team = "The Rabid Rabbits";
my $away-team = "The Turquoise Turtles"; # Go them turtles!
my $scoreboard = Scoreboard.new( :$home-team , :$away-team );
$scoreboard.goal($home-team, :4points) ;
say "$scoreboard";
$scoreboard.goal($away-team) ;
say "$scoreboard";
my $evil_second_scoreboard = Scoreboard.new;
$evil_second_scoreboard.goal($home-team, :2points) ;
say "$evil_second_scoreboard";
This produces;
At this vital stage of the game The Rabid Rabbits are leading The Turquoise Turtles, 4 points to 0
At this vital stage of the game The Rabid Rabbits are behind The Turquoise Turtles, 4 points to 6
At this vital stage of the game the scores are level! 6 apeice!
This overrides the default new (normally supplied by class Mu) and keep a reference to ourself (ie this object) in private class data. For private class data, we use a lexically scoped scalar declared with my. The // is the operator form of .defined. So, on the first run, we call bless which allocates the object and initialize the attributes, and then assign it to $instance. In subsequent calls to new, $instance is defined and is immediately returned.
If you want to prevent someone calling bless directly, you can add;
method bless(|) {
nextsame unless $instance;
fail "bless called on singleton Scoreboard"
}
which will ensure that only the first call will work.
I'm looking for a way to find the type of a variable in Tcl. For example if I have the variable $a and I want to know whether it is an integer.
I have been using the following so far:
if {[string is boolean $a]} {
#do something
}
and this seems to work great for the following types:
alnum, alpha, ascii, boolean, control, digit, double, false, graph, integer, lower, print, punct, space, true, upper, wordchar, xdigit
However it is not capable to tell me if my variable might be an array, a list or a dictionary. Does anyone know of a way to tell if a variable is either of those three?
Tcl's variables don't have types (except for whether or not they're really an associative array of variables — i.e., using the $foo(bar) syntax — for which you use array exists) but Tcl's values do. Well, somewhat. Tcl can mutate values between different types as it sees fit and does not expose this information[*]; all you can really do is check whether a value conforms to a particular type.
Such conformance checks are done with string is (where you need the -strict option, for ugly historical reasons):
if {[string is integer -strict $foo]} {
puts "$foo is an integer!"
}
if {[string is list $foo]} { # Only [string is] where -strict has no effect
puts "$foo is a list! (length: [llength $foo])"
if {[llength $foo]&1 == 0} {
# All dictionaries conform to lists with even length
puts "$foo is a dictionary! (entries: [dict size $foo])"
}
}
Note that all values conform to the type of strings; Tcl's values are always serializable.
[EDIT from comments]: For JSON serialization, it's possible to use dirty hacks to produce a “correct” serialization (strictly, putting everything in a string would be correct from Tcl's perspective but that's not precisely helpful to other languages) with Tcl 8.6. The code to do this, originally posted on Rosetta Code is:
package require Tcl 8.6
proc tcl2json value {
# Guess the type of the value; deep *UNSUPPORTED* magic!
regexp {^value is a (.*?) with a refcount} \
[::tcl::unsupported::representation $value] -> type
switch $type {
string {
# Skip to the mapping code at the bottom
}
dict {
set result "{"
set pfx ""
dict for {k v} $value {
append result $pfx [tcl2json $k] ": " [tcl2json $v]
set pfx ", "
}
return [append result "}"]
}
list {
set result "\["
set pfx ""
foreach v $value {
append result $pfx [tcl2json $v]
set pfx ", "
}
return [append result "\]"]
}
int - double {
return [expr {$value}]
}
booleanString {
return [expr {$value ? "true" : "false"}]
}
default {
# Some other type; do some guessing...
if {$value eq "null"} {
# Tcl has *no* null value at all; empty strings are semantically
# different and absent variables aren't values. So cheat!
return $value
} elseif {[string is integer -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value}]
} elseif {[string is double -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value}]
} elseif {[string is boolean -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value ? "true" : "false"}]
}
}
}
# For simplicity, all "bad" characters are mapped to \u... substitutions
set mapped [subst -novariables [regsub -all {[][\u0000-\u001f\\""]} \
$value {[format "\\\\u%04x" [scan {& } %c]]}]]
return "\"$mapped\""
}
Warning: The above code is not supported. It depends on dirty hacks. It's liable to break without warning. (But it does work. Porting to Tcl 8.5 would require a tiny C extension to read out the type annotations.)
[*] Strictly, it does provide an unsupported interface for discovering the current type annotation of a value in 8.6 — as part of ::tcl::unsupported::representation — but that information is in a deliberately human-readable form and subject to change without announcement. It's for debugging, not code. Also, Tcl uses rather a lot of different types internally (e.g., cached command and variable names) that you won't want to probe for under normal circumstances; things are rather complex under the hood…
The other answers all provide very useful information, but it's worth noting something that a lot of people don't seem to grok at first.
In Tcl, values don't have a type... they question is whether they can be used as a given type. You can think about it this way
string is integer $a
You're not asking
Is the value in $a an integer
What you are asking is
Can I use the value in $a as an integer
Its useful to consider the difference between the two questions when you're thinking along the lines of "is this an integer". Every integer is also a valid list (of one element)... so it can be used as either and both string is commands will return true (as will several others for an integer).
If you want to deal with JSON then I highly suggest you read the JSON page on the Tcl wiki: http://wiki.tcl.tk/json.
On that page I posted a simple function that compiles Tcl values to JSON string given a formatting descriptor. I also find the discussion on that page very informative.
For arrays you want array exists
for dicts you want dict exists
for a list I don't think there is a built in way prior to 8.5?, there is this from http://wiki.tcl.tk/440
proc isalist {string} {
return [expr {0 == [catch {llength $string}]}]
}
To determine if a variable is an array:
proc is_array {var} {
upvar 1 $var value
if {[catch {array names $value} errmsg]} { return 1 }
return 0
}
# How to use it
array set ar {}
set x {1 2 3}
puts "ar is array? [is_array ar]"; # ar is array? 1
puts "x is array? [is_array x]"; # x is array? 0
For the specific case of telling if a value is usable as a dictionary, tcllib's dicttool package has a dict is_dict <value> command that returns a true value if <value> can act as one.
I'm studying dynamic/static scope with deep/shallow binding and running code manually to see how these different scopes/bindings actually work. I read the theory and googled some example exercises and the ones I found are very simple (like this one which was very helpful with dynamic scoping) But I'm having trouble understanding how static scope works.
Here I post an exercise I did to check if I got the right solution:
considering the following program written in pseudocode:
int u = 42;
int v = 69;
int w = 17;
proc add( z:int )
u := v + u + z
proc bar( fun:proc )
int u := w;
fun(v)
proc foo( x:int, w:int )
int v := x;
bar(add)
main
foo(u,13)
print(u)
end;
What is printed to screen
a) using static scope? answer=180
b) using dynamic scope and deep binding? answer=69 (sum for u = 126 but it's foo's local v, right?)
c) using dynamic scope and shallow binding? answer=69 (sum for u = 101 but it's foo's local v, right?)
PS: I'm trying to practice doing some exercises like this if you know where I can find these types of problems (preferable with solutions) please give the link, thanks!
Your answer for lexical (static) scope is correct. Your answers for dynamic scope are wrong, but if I'm reading your explanations right, it's because you got confused between u and v, rather than because of any real misunderstanding about how deep and shallow binding work. (I'm assuming that your u/v confusion was just accidental, and not due to a strange confusion about values vs. references in the call to foo.)
a) using static scope? answer=180
Correct.
b) using dynamic scope and deep binding? answer=69 (sum for u = 126 but it's foo's local v, right?)
Your parenthetical explanation is right, but your answer is wrong: u is indeed set to 126, and foo indeed localizes v, but since main prints u, not v, the answer is 126.
c) using dynamic scope and shallow binding? answer=69 (sum for u = 101 but it's foo's local v, right?)
The sum for u is actually 97 (42+13+42), but since bar localizes u, the answer is 42. (Your parenthetical explanation is wrong for this one — you seem to have used the global variable w, which is 17, in interpreting the statement int u := w in the definition of bar; but that statement actually refers to foo's local variable w, its second parameter, which is 13. But that doesn't actually affect the answer. Your answer is wrong for this one only because main prints u, not v.)
For lexical scope, it's pretty easy to check your answers by translating the pseudo-code into a language with lexical scope. Likewise dynamic scope with shallow binding. (In fact, if you use Perl, you can test both ways almost at once, since it supports both; just use my for lexical scope, then do a find-and-replace to change it to local for dynamic scope. But even if you use, say, JavaScript for lexical scope and Bash for dynamic scope, it should be quick to test both.)
Dynamic scope with deep binding is much trickier, since few widely-deployed languages support it. If you use Perl, you can implement it manually by using a hash (an associative array) that maps from variable-names to scalar-refs, and passing this hash from function to function. Everywhere that the pseudocode declares a local variable, you save the existing scalar-reference in a Perl lexical variable, then put the new mapping in the hash; and at the end of the function, you restore the original scalar-reference. To support the binding, you create a wrapper function that creates a copy of the hash, and passes that to its wrapped function. Here is a dynamically-scoped, deeply-binding implementation of your program in Perl, using that approach:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use warnings;
use strict;
# Create a new scalar, initialize it to the specified value,
# and return a reference to it:
sub new_scalar($)
{ return \(shift); }
# Bind the specified procedure to the specified environment:
sub bind_proc(\%$)
{
my $V = { %{+shift} };
my $f = shift;
return sub { $f->($V, #_); };
}
my $V = {};
$V->{u} = new_scalar 42; # int u := 42
$V->{v} = new_scalar 69; # int v := 69
$V->{w} = new_scalar 17; # int w := 17
sub add(\%$)
{
my $V = shift;
my $z = $V->{z}; # save existing z
$V->{z} = new_scalar shift; # create & initialize new z
${$V->{u}} = ${$V->{v}} + ${$V->{u}} + ${$V->{z}};
$V->{z} = $z; # restore old z
}
sub bar(\%$)
{
my $V = shift;
my $fun = shift;
my $u = $V->{u}; # save existing u
$V->{u} = new_scalar ${$V->{w}}; # create & initialize new u
$fun->(${$V->{v}});
$V->{u} = $u; # restore old u
}
sub foo(\%$$)
{
my $V = shift;
my $x = $V->{x}; # save existing x
$V->{x} = new_scalar shift; # create & initialize new x
my $w = $V->{w}; # save existing w
$V->{w} = new_scalar shift; # create & initialize new w
my $v = $V->{v}; # save existing v
$V->{v} = new_scalar ${$V->{x}}; # create & initialize new v
bar %$V, bind_proc %$V, \&add;
$V->{v} = $v; # restore old v
$V->{w} = $w; # restore old w
$V->{x} = $x; # restore old x
}
foo %$V, ${$V->{u}}, 13;
print "${$V->{u}}\n";
__END__
and indeed it prints 126. It's obviously messy and error-prone, but it also really helps you understand what's going on, so for educational purposes I think it's worth it!
Simple and deep binding are Lisp interpreter viewpoints of the pseudocode. Scoping is just pointer arithmetic. Dynamic scope and static scope are the same if there are no free variables.
Static scope relies on a pointer to memory. Empty environments hold no symbol to value associations; denoted by word "End." Each time the interpreter reads an assignment, it makes space for association between a symbol and value.
The environment pointer is updated to point to the last association constructed.
env = End
env = [u,42] -> End
env = [v,69] -> [u,42] -> End
env = [w,17] -> [v,69] -> [u,42] -> End
Let me record this environment memory location as AAA. In my Lisp interpreter, when meeting a procedure, we take the environment pointer and put it our pocket.
env = [add,[closure,(lambda(z)(setq u (+ v u z)),*AAA*]]->[w,17]->[v,69]->[u,42]->End.
That's pretty much all there is until the procedure add is called. Interestingly, if add is never called, you just cost yourself a pointer.
Suppose the program calls add(8). OK, let's roll. The environment AAA is made current. Environment is ->[w,17]->[v,69]->[u,42]->End.
Procedure parameters of add are added to the front of the environment. The environment becomes [z,8]->[w,17]->[v,69]->[u,42]->End.
Now the procedure body of add is executed. Free variable v will have value 69. Free variable u will have value 42. z will have the value 8.
u := v + u + z
u will be assigned the value of 69 + 42 + 8 becomeing 119.
The environment will reflect this: [z,8]->[w,17]->[v,69]->[u,119]->End.
Assume procedure add has completed its task. Now the environment gets restored to its previous value.
env = [add,[closure,(lambda(z)(setq u (+ v u z)),*AAA*]]->[w,17]->[v,69]->[u,119]->End.
Notice how the procedure add has had a side effect of changing the value of free variable u. Awesome!
Regarding dynamic scoping: it just ensures closure leaves out dynamic symbols, thereby avoiding being captured and becoming dynamic.
Then put assignment to dynamic at top of code. If dynamic is same as parameter name, it gets masked by parameter value passed in.
Suppose I had a dynamic variable called z. When I called add(8), z would have been set to 8 regardless of what I wanted. That's probably why dynamic variables have longer names.
Rumour has it that dynamic variables are useful for things like backtracking, using let Lisp constructs.
Static binding, also known as lexical scope, refers to the scoping mechanism found in most modern languages.
In "lexical scope", the final value for u is neither 180 or 119, which are wrong answers.
The correct answer is u=101.
Please see standard Perl code below to understand why.
use strict;
use warnings;
my $u = 42;
my $v = 69;
my $w = 17;
sub add {
my $z = shift;
$u = $v + $u + $z;
}
sub bar {
my $fun = shift;
$u = $w;
$fun->($v);
}
sub foo {
my ($x, $w) = #_;
$v = $x;
bar( \&add );
}
foo($u,13);
print "u: $u\n";
Regarding shallow binding versus deep binding, both mechanisms date from the former LISP era.
Both mechanisms are meant to achieve dynamic binding (versus lexical scope binding) and therefore they produce identical results !
The differences between shallow binding and deep binding do not reside in semantics, which are identical, but in the implementation of dynamic binding.
With deep binding, variable bindings are set within a stack as "varname => varvalue" pairs.
The value of a given variable is retrieved from traversing the stack from top to bottom until a binding for the given variable is found.
Updating the variable consists in finding the binding in the stack and updating the associated value.
On entering a subroutine, a new binding for each actual parameter is pushed onto the stack, potentially hiding an older binding which is therefore no longer accessible wrt the retrieving mechanism described above (that stops at the 1st retrieved binding).
On leaving the subroutine, bindings for these parameters are simply popped from the binding stack, thus re-enabling access to the former bindings.
Please see the the code below for a Perl implementation of deep-binding dynamic scope.
use strict;
use warnings;
use utf8;
##
# Dynamic-scope deep-binding implementation
my #stack = ();
sub bindv {
my ($varname, $varval);
unshift #stack, [ $varname => $varval ]
while ($varname, $varval) = splice #_, 0, 2;
return $varval;
}
sub unbindv {
my $n = shift || 1;
shift #stack while $n-- > 0;
}
sub getv {
my $varname = shift;
for (my $i=0; $i < #stack; $i++) {
return $stack[$i][1]
if $varname eq $stack[$i][0];
}
return undef;
}
sub setv {
my ($varname, $varval) = #_;
for (my $i=0; $i < #stack; $i++) {
return $stack[$i][1] = $varval
if $varname eq $stack[$i][0];
}
return bindv($varname, $varval);
}
##
# EXERCICE
bindv( u => 42,
v => 69,
w => 17,
);
sub add {
bindv(z => shift);
setv(u => getv('v')
+ getv('u')
+ getv('z')
);
unbindv();
}
sub bar {
bindv(fun => shift);
setv(u => getv('w'));
getv('fun')->(getv('v'));
unbindv();
}
sub foo {
bindv(x => shift,
w => shift,
);
setv(v => getv('x'));
bar( \&add );
unbindv(2);
}
foo( getv('u'), 13);
print "u: ", getv('u'), "\n";
The result is u=97
Nevertheless, this constant traversal of the binding stack is costly : 0(n) complexity !
Shallow binding brings a wonderful O(1) enhanced performance over the previous implementation !
Shallow binding is improving the former mechanism by assigning each variable its own "cell", storing the value of the variable within the cell.
The value of a given variable is simply retrieved from the variable's
cell (using a hash table on variable names, we achieve a
0(1) complexity for accessing variable's values!)
Updating the variable's value is simply storing the value into the
variable's cell.
Creating a new binding (entering subs) works by pushing the old value
of the variable (a previous binding) onto the stack, and storing the
new local value in the value cell.
Eliminating a binding (leaving subs) works by popping the old value
off the stack into the variable's value cell.
Please see the the code below for a trivial Perl implementation of shallow-binding dynamic scope.
use strict;
use warnings;
our $u = 42;
our $v = 69;
our $w = 17;
our $z;
our $fun;
our $x;
sub add {
local $z = shift;
$u = $v + $u + $z;
}
sub bar {
local $fun = shift;
$u = $w;
$fun->($v);
}
sub foo {
local $x = shift;
local $w = shift;
$v = $x;
bar( \&add );
}
foo($u,13);
print "u: $u\n";
As you shall see, the result is still u=97
As a conclusion, remember two things :
shallow binding produces the same results as deep binding, but runs faster, since there is never a need to search for a binding.
The problem is not shallow binding versus deep binding versus
static binding BUT lexical scope versus dynamic scope (implemented either with deep or shallow binding).