I'm trying to test out a tokenizer/parser combo for a compiler in racket, and I have a function parse-string, contract-typed to something like (-> string? ast:IntExp) (I know, I should probably rename my structs, but I was experimenting with typed racket for a little while there.
Anyway, I have a test bank written up with stuff like
(check-equal? (parse-string "4") (ast:IntExp 4)), and all of the tests fail, even though upon manual inspection, they look like they ought to pass. All of my structs are defined with define-struct/contract, and all of them are marked #:transparent.
What's going wrong here?
Okay, sorry for not including enough source to be helpful:
Here's the struct definition for IntExp:
(define-struct/contract (IntExp Exp) ([val integer?]) #:transparent)
Here's the test: (check-equal? (parse-string "4") (ast:IntExp 4))
Here's the complaint rackunit gives back:
--------------------
FAILURE
actual: #(struct:IntExp ... 4)
expected: #(struct:IntExp ... 4)
name: check-equal?
location: (#<path:/Users/clem/dev/tiger/parser-lexer-tests.rkt> 8 0 139 48)
expression: (check-equal? (parse-string "4") (ast:IntExp 4))
And, just in case, here's the dependencies I'm requireing:
(require "lexer.rkt"
"parser.rkt"
parser-tools/lex
(prefix-in ast: "ast.rkt")
rackunit)
The actual parser code is kind of large, and I have a hunch that it's not the source of the problem, because all of my tests are failing in this way (the results, upon inspection, seem correct). My bet is that I'm doing something very silly in rackunit.
Racket was using reference-equality because the structs in question inherited from an opaque struct-type. As per the docs, either make the opaque parent structs transparent, or add an
equal?-recur method which compares the underlying structure.
Related
In the SWI Prolog manual, I found the following remark:
For example, assume an application that can reason about multiple worlds. It is attractive to store the data of a particular world in a module, so we extract information from a world simply by invoking goals in this world.
This is actually a very good description of what I'm trying to achieve. However I ran into a problem. While I do want to model many different worlds, there are also things that I want to share across all of them. So my idea is to have an allworlds module for things that are true in every world, and one module for every world that I want to reason about, and the latter imports from the former. So I'd do something like this in the REPL:
allworlds:asserta(grandparent(X, Z) :- (parent(X, Y), parent(Y, Z))).
allworlds:dynamic(parent/2).
add_import_module(greece, allworlds, start).
greece:asserta(parent(kronos, zeus)).
greece:asserta(parent(zeus, ares)).
Now I'd like to query greece:grandparent(kronos, X) and get X = ares, but all I get is false. When allworlds:grandparent calls parent, it doesn't call greece:parent like I want it to, but allworlds:parent. My research seems to indicate that I need to make the grandparent predicate module-transparent. But calling allworlds:module_transparent(grandparent/2). didn't fix the issue, and it's also deprecated. This is where I'm stuck. How can I get this working? Is meta_predicate/1 part of the solution? Unfortunately I can't make heads or tails of its documentation.
Prolog modules don't provide a good solution for the "many worlds" design pattern. Notably, making the predicates meta-predicates (or module transparent or multifile) would be a problematic hack. But this pattern is trivial with Logtalk, which is a language extends Prolog and can use most Prolog systems as a backend compiler. A minimal (but not unique) solution for your problem is:
:- object(allworlds).
:- public(grandparent/2).
grandparent(X, Z) :-
::parent(X, Y),
::parent(Y, Z).
:- public(parent/2).
:- end_object.
:- object(greece,
extends(allworlds)).
parent(kronos, zeus).
parent(zeus, ares).
:- end_object.
Here, we use inheritance (the individual worlds inherit the common knowledge) and messages to self (the ::/1 control construct) when common predicates need to access world specific predicate definitions (self is the object/world that received the message - grandparent/2 in the example).
Assuming the code is saved in a worlds.lgt file and that you're using SWI-Prolog as the backend:
$ swilgt
...
?- {worlds}.
% [ /Users/pmoura/worlds.lgt loaded ]
% (0 warnings)
true.
?- greece::grandparent(kronos, X).
X = ares.
P.S. If running on windows, use the "Logtalk - SWI-Prolog" shortcut from the Start Menu after installing Logtalk.
I ultimately solved this by passing the module around explicitly and invoking predicates in it with the : operator. It reminds me a bit of doing OOP in C, where you do things like obj->vtable->method(obj, params) (note how obj is mentioned twice, just like the M in my code below).
Similar to the Logtalk solution, I need to explicitly call into the imported module when I want to consider its clauses. As an example, I've added the fact that a father is also a parent to the allworlds module.
allworlds:assertz(grandparent(M, X, Z) :- (M:parent(M, X, Y), M:parent(M, Y, Z))).
allworlds:assertz(parent(M, X, Y) :- M:father(M, X, Y)).
add_import_module(greece, allworlds, start).
greece:assertz(parent(_, kronos, zeus)).
% need to call into allworlds explicitly
greece:assertz(parent(M, X, Y) :- allworlds:parent(M, X, Y)).
greece:assertz(father(_, zeus, ares)).
After making these assertions, I can call greece:grandparent(greece, kronos, X). and get the expected result X = ares.
Im installing the code for the book Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach i got here http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/lisp/doc/install.html its the lisp version im installing btw
I'm on Ubuntu Trusty using Emacs SBCL slime, I placed the code in ~/.emacs.d
so per the instructions at above link i run (load "/home/w/.emacs.d/aima/code/aima.lisp")
which loads fine i get "T" as output
i run (aima-load 'all) that works I get "T" as output
but when i run (aima-compile) I get the error
Can't declare constant variable locally special: +NO-BINDINGS+
[Condition of type SIMPLE-ERROR]
I'm not sure I understand the error I read the Hyperspec on Declare and Special but that didn't help. I'm not opposed to a hack to make this work so if someone can help me reword the code or figure out if its a emacs setting or sbcl setting i could change to get the aforementioned variable declared that would be great. The error message is referring to this file /home/w/.emacs.d/aima/code/logic/algorithms/tell-ask.lisp
this section
(defmethod ask-each ((kb literal-kb) query fn)
"For each proof of query, call fn on the substitution that
the proof ends up with."
(declare (special +no-bindings+))
(for each s in (literal-kb-sentences kb) do
(when (equal s query) (funcall fn +no-bindings+))))
I verified all the permisions of all the files in my aima folder are set to read write for my username with my username as owner as a step to correct....but as far as understanding the error I could use help figuring out the next step one would take to debug this...The code is downloadable here http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/lisp/code.tar.gz and its an easy install for a veteran emacs/lisp user....any help is appreciated.
Using SBCL:
I tried loading the AIMA code as well, with the same problem in SBCL. Just comment out line in ./logic/algorithms/tell-ask.lisp:
(declare (special +no-bindings+))
like so
;;(declare (special +no-bindings+))
, or delete the whole line altogether. Nevertheless, this is what I did:
(defmethod ask-each ((kb literal-kb) query fn)
"For each proof of query, call fn on the substitution that
the proof ends up with."
;;(declare (special +no-bindings+))
(for each s in (literal-kb-sentences kb) do
(when (equal s query) (funcall fn +no-bindings+))))
You will still have an issue running (aims-compile) with SBCL. It will complain about some constants being redefined. Just look at the possible restarts and select every time:
0: [CONTINUE] GO ahead and change the value.
Do this as many times (about 6 times that is) as it needs to, and it will load eventually. This is probably happening because of AIMA's code non-standard build/compile system. This can be annoying, but an alternative is to trace the code and see why/where some files are being reloaded.
USING Clozure (CCL):
CCL has a different problem with ./utilities/utilities.lisp. CCL has both true and false functions predefined, therefore you have to make sure that both lines:
#-(or MCL Lispworks)
that directly precede both (defun true ...) and (defun false ...) are changed to:
#-(or MCL Lispworks CCL)
also, in the same source, modify error inside for-each macro to look like so:
(error "~a is an illegal variable in (for each ~a in ~a ...)"
var var list)
With these modifications, CCL seems load AIMA code just fine.
In general:
It's a bad idea to redefine constants or to somehow bypass debugger restarts. Best solution is to have (defconstant ...)s evaluated once only, perhaps by placing them in a separate source file and making sure that the build system picks it up only once.
Another solution found here, which entails wrapping calls to defconstantin a macro like so (borrowed from here):
(defmacro define-constant (name value &optional doc)
(if (boundp name)
(format t
"~&already defined ~A~%old value ~s~%attempted value ~s~%"
name (symbol-value name) value))
`(defconstant ,name (if (boundp ',name) (symbol-value ',name) ,value)
,#(when doc (list doc))))
And then replacing all occurrences of defconstant like so:
(defconstant +no-bindings+ '((nil))
"Indicates unification success, with no variables.")
with:
(define-constant +no-bindings+ '((nil))
"Indicates unification success, with no variables.")
If you opt for define-constant "solution", make sure that define-constant is evaluated first.
How you can have a different behaviour if a variable is defined or not in racket language?
There are several ways to do this. But I suspect that none of these is what you want, so I'll only provide pointers to the functions (and explain the problems with each one):
namespace-variable-value is a function that retrieves the value of a toplevel variable from some namespace. This is useful only with REPL interaction and REPL code though, since code that is defined in a module is not going to use these things anyway. In other words, you can use this function (and the corresponding namespace-set-variable-value!) to get values (if any) and set them, but the only use of these values is in code that is not itself in a module. To put this differently, using this facility is as good as keeping a hash table that maps symbols to values, only it's slightly more convenient at the REPL since you just type names...
More likely, these kind of things are done in macros. The first way to do this is to use the special #%top macro. This macro gets inserted automatically for all names in a module that are not known to be bound. The usual thing that this macro does is throw an error, but you can redefine it in your code (or make up your own language that redefines it) that does something else with these unknown names.
A slightly more sophisticated way to do this is to use the identifier-binding function -- again, in a macro, not at runtime -- and use it to get information about some name that is given to the macro and decide what to expand to based on that name.
The last two options are the more useful ones, but they're not the newbie-level kind of macros, which is why I suspect that you're asking the wrong question. To clarify, you can use them to write a kind of a defined? special form that checks whether some name is defined, but that question is one that would be answered by a macro, based on the rest of the code, so it's not really useful to ask it. If you want something like that that can enable the kind of code in other dynamic languages where you use such a predicate, then the best way to go about this is to redefine #%top to do some kind of a lookup (hashtable or global namespace) instead of throwing a compilation error -- but again, the difference between that and using a hash table explicitly is mostly cosmetic (and again, this is not a newbie thing).
First, read Eli's answer. Then, based on Eli's answer, you can implement the defined? macro this way:
#lang racket
; The macro
(define-syntax (defined? stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ id)
(with-syntax ([v (identifier-binding #'id)])
#''v)]))
; Tests
(define x 3)
(if (defined? x) 'defined 'not-defined) ; -> defined
(let ([y 4])
(if (defined? y) 'defined 'not-defined)) ; -> defined
(if (defined? z) 'defined 'not-defined) ; -> not-defined
It works for this basic case, but it has a problem: if z is undefined, the branch of the if that considers that it is defined and uses its value will raise a compile-time error, because the normal if checks its condition value at run-time (dynamically):
; This doesn't work because z in `(list z)' is undefined:
(if (defined? z) (list z) 'not-defined)
So what you probably want is a if-defined macro, that tells at compile-time (instead of at run-time) what branch of the if to take:
#lang racket
; The macro
(define-syntax (if-defined stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(_ id iftrue iffalse)
(let ([where (identifier-binding #'id)])
(if where #'iftrue #'iffalse))]))
; Tests
(if-defined z (list z) 'not-defined) ; -> not-defined
(if-defined t (void) (define t 5))
t ; -> 5
(define x 3)
(if-defined x (void) (define x 6))
x ; -> 3
I started learning Clojure recently. Generally it looks interesting, but I can't get used to some syntactic inconveniences (comparing to previous Ruby/C# experience).
Prefix notation for nested expressions. In Ruby I get used to write complex expressions with chaining/piping them left-to-right: some_object.map { some_expression }.select { another_expression }. It's really convenient as you move from input value to result step-by-step, you can focus on a single transformation and you don't need to move cursor as you type. Contrary to that when I writing nested expressions in Clojure, I write the code from inner expression to outer and I have to move cursor constantly. It slows down and distracts. I know about -> and ->> macros but I noticed that it's not an idiomatic. Did you have the same problem when you started coding in Clojure/Haskell etc? How did you solve it?
I felt the same about Lisps initially so I feel your pain :-)
However the good news is that you'll find that with a bit of time and regular usage you will probably start to like prefix notation. In fact with the exception of mathematical expressions I now prefer it to infix style.
Reasons to like prefix notation:
Consistency with functions - most languages use a mix of infix (mathematical operators) and prefix (functional call) notation . In Lisps it is all consistent which has a certain elegance if you consider mathematical operators to be functions
Macros - become much more sane if the function call is always in the first position.
Varargs - it's nice to be able to have a variable number of parameters for pretty much all of your operators. (+ 1 2 3 4 5) is nicer IMHO than 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
A trick then is to use -> and ->> librerally when it makes logical sense to structure your code this way. This is typically useful when dealing with subsequent operations on objects or collections, e.g.
(->>
"Hello World"
distinct
sort
(take 3))
==> (\space \H \W)
The final trick I found very useful when working in prefix style is to make good use of indentation when building more complex expressions. If you indent properly, then you'll find that prefix notation is actually quite clear to read:
(defn add-foobars [x y]
(+
(bar x y)
(foo y)
(foo x)))
To my knowledge -> and ->> are idiomatic in Clojure. I use them all the time, and in my opinion they usually lead to much more readable code.
Here are some examples of these macros being used in popular projects from around the Clojure "ecosystem":
Ring cookie parsing
Leiningen internals
ClojureScript compiler
Proof by example :)
If you have a long expression chain, use let. Long runaway expressions or deeply nested expressions are not especially readable in any language. This is bad:
(do-something (map :id (filter #(> (:age %) 19) (fetch-data :people))))
This is marginally better:
(do-something (map :id
(filter #(> (:age %) 19)
(fetch-data :people))))
But this is also bad:
fetch_data(:people).select{|x| x.age > 19}.map{|x| x.id}.do_something
If we're reading this, what do we need to know? We're calling do_something on some attributes of some subset of people. This code is hard to read because there's so much distance between first and last, that we forget what we're looking at by the time we travel between them.
In the case of Ruby, do_something (or whatever is producing our final result) is lost way at the end of the line, so it's hard to tell what we're doing to our people. In the case of Clojure, it's immediately obvious that do-something is what we're doing, but it's hard to tell what we're doing it to without reading through the whole thing to the inside.
Any code more complex than this simple example is going to become pretty painful. If all of your code looks like this, your neck is going to get tired scanning back and forth across all of these lines of spaghetti.
I'd prefer something like this:
(let [people (fetch-data :people)
adults (filter #(> (:age %) 19) people)
ids (map :id adults)]
(do-something ids))
Now it's obvious: I start with people, I goof around, and then I do-something to them.
And you might get away with this:
fetch_data(:people).select{|x|
x.age > 19
}.map{|x|
x.id
}.do_something
But I'd probably rather do this, at the very least:
adults = fetch_data(:people).select{|x| x.age > 19}
do_something( adults.map{|x| x.id} )
It's also not unheard of to use let even when your intermediary expressions don't have good names. (This style is occasionally used in Clojure's own source code, e.g. the source code for defmacro)
(let [x (complex-expr-1 x)
x (complex-expr-2 x)
x (complex-expr-3 x)
...
x (complex-expr-n x)]
(do-something x))
This can be a big help in debugging, because you can inspect things at any point by doing:
(let [x (complex-expr-1 x)
x (complex-expr-2 x)
_ (prn x)
x (complex-expr-3 x)
...
x (complex-expr-n x)]
(do-something x))
I did indeed see the same hurdle when I first started with a lisp and it was really annoying until I saw the ways it makes code simpler and more clear, once I understood the upside the annoyance faded
initial + scale + offset
became
(+ initial scale offset)
and then try (+) prefix notation allows functions to specify their own identity values
user> (*)
1
user> (+)
0
There are lots more examples and my point is NOT to defend prefix notation. I just hope to convey that the learning curve flattens (emotionally) as the positive sides become apparent.
of course when you start writing macros then prefix notation becomes a must-have instead of a convenience.
to address the second part of your question, the thread first and thread last macros are idiomatic anytime they make the code more clear :) they are more often used in functions calls than pure arithmetic though nobody will fault you for using them when they make the equation more palatable.
ps: (.. object object2 object3) -> object().object2().object3();
(doto my-object
(setX 4)
(sety 5)`
I was just reading a bit about the HQ9+ programming language:
https://esolangs.org/wiki/HQ9+,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ9+, and
https://cliffle.com/esoterica/hq9plus,
and it tells me something about a so-called “accumulator” which can be incremented, but not accessed. Also, using + doesn't manipulate the result, so that the input
H+H
gives the result:
Hello World
Hello World
Can anyone explain me how this works, what it does, and whether it makes any sense? Thanks.
Having recently completed an implementation in Clojure (which follows) I can safely say that the accumulator is absolutely central to a successful implementation of HQ9+. Without it one would be left with an implementation of HQ9 which, while doubtless worthy in and of itself, is clearly different, and thus HQ9+ without an accumulator, and the instruction to increment it, would thus NOT be an implementation of HQ9+.
(Editor's note: Bob has taken his meds today but they haven't quite kicked in yet; thus, further explanation is perhaps needed. What I believe Bob is trying to say is that HQ9+ is useless as a programming language, per se; however, implementing it can actually be useful in the context of learning how to implement something successfully in a new language. OK, I'll just go and curl up quietly in the back of Bob's brain now and let him get back to doing...whatever it is he does when I'm not minding the store...).
Anyways...implementation in Clojure follows:
(defn hq9+ [& args]
"HQ9+ interpreter"
(loop [program (apply concat args)
accumulator 0]
(if (not (empty? program))
(case (first program)
\H (println "Hello, World!")
\Q (println (first (concat args)))
\9 (apply println (map #(str % " bottles of beer on the wall, "
% " bottles of beer, if one of those bottles should happen to fall, "
(if (> % 0) (- % 1) 99) " bottles of beer on the wall") (reverse (range 100))))
\+ (inc accumulator)
(println "invalid instruction: " (first program)))) ; default case
(if (> (count program) 1)
(recur (rest program) accumulator))))
Note that this implementation only accepts commands passed into the function as parameters; it doesn't read a file for its program. This may be remedied in future releases. Also note that this is a "strict" implementation of the language - the original page (at the Wayback Machine) clearly shows that only UPPER CASE 'H's and 'Q's should be accepted, although it implies that lower-case letters may also be accepted. Since part of the point of implementing any programming language is to strictly adhere to the specification as written this version of HQ9+ is written to only accept upper-case letters. Should the need arise I am fully prepared to found a religion, tentatively named the CONVOCATION OF THE HOLY CAPS LOCK, which will declare the use of upper-case to be COMMANDED BY FRED (our god - Fred - it seems like such a friendly name for a god, doesn't it?), and will deem the use of lower-case letters to be anathema...I MEAN, TO BE ANATHEMA!
Share and enjoy.
Having written an implementation, I think I can say without a doubt that it makes no sense at all. I advise you to not worry about it; it's a very silly language after all.
It's a joke.
There's also an object-oriented extension of HQ9+, called HQ9++. It has a new command ++ which instantiates an object, and, for reasons of backwards-compatibility, also increments the accumulator register twice. And again, since there is no way to store, retrieve, access, manipulate, print or otherwise affect an object, it's completely useless.
It increments something not accessible, not spec-defined, and apparently not really even used. I'd say you can implement it however you want or possibly not at all.
The right answer is one that has been hinted at by the other answers but not quite stated explicitly: the effect of incrementing the accumulator is undefined by the language specification and left as a choice of the implementation.
Actually, I am mistaken.
The accumulator is the register to which the result of the last calculation is stored. In an Intel x86, any register may be specified as the accumulator, except in the case of MUL.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulator_(computing)
I was quite surprised the first time I visited the third site in your question to find out a schoolmate of mine wrote the OCaml implementation at the bottom of the page.
(updated site link)
I think that there is, or there must be, a reason for this accumulator and the most important operation on it - increment: future compatibility.
Very often we see that a language is invented, often inspirated by some other language, with of course some salt (new concepts, or at least some improvement). Later, when the language spreads, problems arise and modifications, additions or whatever are introduced. That is the same as saying "we were wrong, this thing was necessary but we didn't tought of it at the time".
Well, this accumulator idea in HQ9+ is exactly the opposite. In the future, when the language will be spread, nobody will be able to say "we need an accumulator, but HQ9+ lacks it", because the standard of the language, even in its first draft, states that an accumulator is present and it is even modifiable (otherwise, it would be a non-sense).