3 ms·
C99 + GCC extensions + POSIX: #define for_duration(seconds, body) \ { \ pth
by funptr 16y ago
C99 + GCC extensions + POSIX:
#define for_duration(seconds, body) \
{ \
pthread_t tid_task, tid_watcher; \
\
void* task(void* arg) { \
body ; \
pthread_cancel(tid_watcher); \
return NULL; \
} \
\
void* watcher(void* arg) { \
sleep((seconds)); \
pthread_cancel(tid_task); \
return NULL; \
} \
\
pthread_create(&tid_task, NULL, &task, NULL); \
pthread_create(&tid_watcher, NULL, &watcher, NULL); \
pthread_join(tid_task, NULL); \
}
Use as:
for_duration(10, {
while (true) {
printf("Infinite loop! where is your Godel now?\n");
}
});
Or with single brace-less statements:
for_duration(10, while (true) printf("something\n") );
Lexical scope is sane:
int i = 0;
for_duration(10, {
while (true) {
printf("%d\n", i++);
}
});
My comparison isn't quite fair, because your threading library provides 'with-timeout', while pthreads doesn't. If you factored this out, say with a signature like:
void with_timeout(unsigned int seconds, void (*func)(void));
(in analogy to the common lisp function), then the macro part becomes just four lines:
#define for_duration(seconds, body) { \
void func() { body ; } \
with_timeout((seconds), &func); \
}
I acknowledge that the lisp solution is rather more elegant. Also, my C macro is potentially dangerous because it is unhygenic. (It shadows outer declarations of 'task()', 'watcher()', 'tid_task', 'tid_watcher', and 'arg', in the body of 'body'.)
- chc 16y agoI don't believe nested functions like you're using there are valid C. They're a nonstandard extension that some compilers implement because they're so handy. So this basically illustrates that C gets closer Lisp's usability when you add Lispy features to it.
- funptr 16y agoYou're right, it's not even valid C99. My mistake.
- Xurinos 16y agoIs there a C macro that can do this? (defmacro execute-in-reverse (&body body) `(progn ,@(reverse body))) (execute-in-reverse (print "Hi") (print "Middle") (print "Bye")) Prints... "Bye" "Middle" "Hi" Point: You can do whatever you want with the symbols sent to the macro, whatever their contents. Mahmud's wrapper macro is trivial (it could be done with lambdas). Lisp's macro system allows you to create new syntax, including changes in flow control. But my example is trivial, too. I could go on to swap individual parts of my forms around, remap them to other forms depending on various conditions, etc. In addition, people often talk about Lisp macros, but they neglect to mention the power of reader macros, which allow you to go beyond Lisp's basic AST look-and-feel.
- draegtun 16y agoWonderful example of what macros can do. Just for shit & giggles I'd thought I give it a go in Io (http://www.iolanguage.com http://www.iolanguage.com): executeInReverse := method ( m := call argAt(0) stmts := list() // list of statements (ie. messages) loop ( rest := m next // rest of messages after current stmts append(m setNext) // get current message m := rest if (m == nil, break) // exhausted statements when "nil" ) stmts reverseForeach (n, doMessage(n)) ) executeInReverse( writeln("Hi") writeln("Middle") writeln("Bye") ) And I think with a bit more work I can get it to amend its AST rather than rerunning the loop each time it sees executeInReverse.
- funptr 16y ago>Is there a C macro that can do this? No, of course. C macros only see strings; you need to parse a syntax tree to do your reverse example (like lisp macros). No argument from me. >Lisp's macro system allows you to create new syntax, including changes in flow control. Well, C macros seem to be able to manipulate control flow. You can't break up an expression to do that (not smart enough to parse), but you can rearrange expressions that are given whole.
- sedachv 16y agoGCC extensions make me want to hurt people.