From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing?
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:57:28 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <hep0do$avh$1@colin2.muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 873a406poe.fsf@galatea.local
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).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-27 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-23 14:56 Is it possible for a macro to expand to nothing? Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-23 16:03 ` Drew Adams
[not found] ` <mailman.11344.1258992201.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-23 16:31 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-23 17:29 ` Drew Adams
2009-11-23 18:33 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-23 18:51 ` Drew Adams
[not found] ` <mailman.11354.1259004470.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-23 20:08 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-23 20:24 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-23 22:09 ` Drew Adams
[not found] ` <mailman.11367.1259014174.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-23 23:55 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-24 0:55 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-24 9:42 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-24 10:45 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-24 11:14 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-24 16:39 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-24 19:17 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-25 14:13 ` Jeff Clough
[not found] ` <mailman.11467.1259158369.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-26 6:53 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-26 11:11 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-26 11:52 ` Lennart Borgman
[not found] ` <mailman.11564.1259236392.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-26 12:16 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-26 12:43 ` Lennart Borgman
2009-11-27 8:32 ` Kevin Rodgers
[not found] ` <mailman.11626.1259310779.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-27 13:15 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-27 13:52 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-27 16:57 ` Alan Mackenzie [this message]
2009-11-27 17:09 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-27 17:19 ` Helmut Eller
2009-11-27 17:45 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-27 23:17 ` Tim X
2009-11-28 0:06 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-28 8:29 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-28 10:25 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-28 12:57 ` Thierry Volpiatto
[not found] ` <mailman.11699.1259413441.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-29 0:54 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-24 11:56 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
[not found] ` <mailman.11352.1258997403.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-23 18:42 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-23 20:12 ` Drew Adams
[not found] ` <mailman.11356.1259007263.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-23 20:21 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-23 22:09 ` Drew Adams
[not found] ` <mailman.11368.1259014177.2239.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-11-24 0:03 ` Pascal J. Bourguignon
2009-11-23 20:09 ` Alan Mackenzie
2009-11-23 16:49 ` Jeff Clough
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='hep0do$avh$1@colin2.muc.de' \
--to=acm@muc.de \
--cc=help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.