4 ms·

And this is called the good kind of macros.. i'm not sure if i want to ever see someone manipulating the AST in his code.. i don't know Lisp and he says that th

by buster 15y ago

And this is called the good kind of macros.. i'm not sure if i want to ever see someone manipulating the AST in his code.. i don't know Lisp and he says that this is what makes Lisp the awesome language it is, but to me it sounds scary and dangerous and inconsistent..

pnathan 15y ago
It's honestly not that big of a deal. It sounds much scarier than it is. Typically a generous helping of common sense and thought will deal with the bad cases.
gizmo 15y ago
Macros are just a different sort of abstraction. It can be used to solve some problems very elegantly and it can be used to create an incomprehensible mess. A programmer who has never heard of exceptions may say: "What, so exceptions can interrupt the normal program flow at any time!?" or "Why would I ever want to handle error conditions at a different part of the program? I handle errors right after every function call." or "Exceptions sound scary and inconsistent". A programmer who has never heard of garbage collection may say: "What, I can't tell ahead of time how much memory my program is going to use?", "I want to know when my program allocates memory and frees it. This shouldn't happen nondeterministically!" or "Automatic memory management sounds scary and unpredictable."
Xurinos 15y ago
I am a Lisp newbie. Here is, effectively, the Lisp equivalent, along with the typical Lisp style guidelines: (defconstant +logging-enabled+ t) (defmacro log-message (message) (when +logging-enabled+ `(err-say ,message))) (log-message (crazily-expensive-computation)) Like other structures, they can be abused or used with great success. Based on my limited experience with a number of quicklisp-downloaded packages, I have found macros helpful and unnoticeable as macros. Irony: Fewer bracing symbols. In the next blog post, I am hoping to see how perl 6's macro feature handles the parsing of passed-in code. Specifically, I would like to see an example for do-in-reverse: (defmacro do-in-reverse (&body commands) `(progn ,@(reverse commands))) (do-in-reverse (princ "First") (princ "Second") (princ "Third"))) Prints "ThirdSecondFirst"
- perlgeek 15y ago
  There isn't yet any API for introspecting ASTs ("parsing of passed-in code" as you call it), nor for programmatically constructing new AST nodes. Such things will hopefully emerge once macro implementation and specification become more concrete. So I can only guess what it would look like; take the following with a rock of salt: macro do-in-reverse($code) { $code.clone(statements => $code.statements.reverse); } do-in-reverse { say 'First'; say 'Second'; say 'Third'; }; But it might turn out not be that simple. The diffulcty comes from the fact that unlike Lisp, in Perl 6 not everything is a list, so you can't treat the AST as a list (... of lists, possibly) either. The .clone would take care to preserve things like outer lexicals and the signature of the block (you don't see it; it's implicit) and other non-listy things.
  - draegtun 15y ago
    So potentially not to different to how you might do it in Io (www.iolanguage.com): doInReverse := method ( m := call argAt(0) stmts := list() // list of statements (ie. messages) loop ( rest := m next // rest of messages after current stmts append(m setNext) // get current message m := rest if (m == nil, break) // exhausted statements when "nil" ) stmts reverseForeach (n, doMessage(n)) ) doInReverse( writeln("First") writeln("Second") writeln("Third") ) Of course this is easy in Io because everything is just a message. NB. The above code doesn't actually amend the AST but it could. Here are some previous examples of amending AST in Io posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1810480 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1810480 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804599 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804599
  - Xurinos 15y ago
    I like your proposal, especially if it could be expanded a bit: macro do_in_reverse($value, @code) ...

by buster 15y ago

pnathan 15y ago

It's honestly not that big of a deal. It sounds much scarier than it is. Typically a generous helping of common sense and thought will deal with the bad cases.

gizmo 15y ago

Macros are just a different sort of abstraction. It can be used to solve some problems very elegantly and it can be used to create an incomprehensible mess. A programmer who has never heard of exceptions may say: "What, so exceptions can interrupt the normal program flow at any time!?" or "Why would I ever want to handle error conditions at a different part of the program? I handle errors right after every function call." or "Exceptions sound scary and inconsistent". A programmer who has never heard of garbage collection may say: "What, I can't tell ahead of time how much memory my program is going to use?", "I want to know when my program allocates memory and frees it. This shouldn't happen nondeterministically!" or "Automatic memory management sounds scary and unpredictable."

Xurinos 15y ago

I am a Lisp newbie. Here is, effectively, the Lisp equivalent, along with the typical Lisp style guidelines: (defconstant +logging-enabled+ t) (defmacro log-message (message) (when +logging-enabled+ `(err-say ,message))) (log-message (crazily-expensive-computation)) Like other structures, they can be abused or used with great success. Based on my limited experience with a number of quicklisp-downloaded packages, I have found macros helpful and unnoticeable as macros. Irony: Fewer bracing symbols. In the next blog post, I am hoping to see how perl 6's macro feature handles the parsing of passed-in code. Specifically, I would like to see an example for do-in-reverse: (defmacro do-in-reverse (&body commands) `(progn ,@(reverse commands))) (do-in-reverse (princ "First") (princ "Second") (princ "Third"))) Prints "ThirdSecondFirst"

perlgeek 15y ago
There isn't yet any API for introspecting ASTs ("parsing of passed-in code" as you call it), nor for programmatically constructing new AST nodes. Such things will hopefully emerge once macro implementation and specification become more concrete. So I can only guess what it would look like; take the following with a rock of salt: macro do-in-reverse($code) { $code.clone(statements => $code.statements.reverse); } do-in-reverse { say 'First'; say 'Second'; say 'Third'; }; But it might turn out not be that simple. The diffulcty comes from the fact that unlike Lisp, in Perl 6 not everything is a list, so you can't treat the AST as a list (... of lists, possibly) either. The .clone would take care to preserve things like outer lexicals and the signature of the block (you don't see it; it's implicit) and other non-listy things.
- draegtun 15y ago
  So potentially not to different to how you might do it in Io (www.iolanguage.com): doInReverse := method ( m := call argAt(0) stmts := list() // list of statements (ie. messages) loop ( rest := m next // rest of messages after current stmts append(m setNext) // get current message m := rest if (m == nil, break) // exhausted statements when "nil" ) stmts reverseForeach (n, doMessage(n)) ) doInReverse( writeln("First") writeln("Second") writeln("Third") ) Of course this is easy in Io because everything is just a message. NB. The above code doesn't actually amend the AST but it could. Here are some previous examples of amending AST in Io posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1810480 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1810480 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804599 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804599
- Xurinos 15y ago
  I like your proposal, especially if it could be expanded a bit: macro do_in_reverse($value, @code) ...