- cl-unification-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

[cl-unification-devel] Re: [CL-UNIFICATION] MATCH, MATCHING macro's bug?
by Marco Antoniotti 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

Hi Masayuki, thanks. Yep. You are right. Please stand by for a few days before these changes make it in the codebase. Cheers Marco On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Masayuki Onjo wrote: > Hi, Marco > >> it looks like the patch is good. >> >> Let me do a few tests and I will check it in. > > Thanks! > > I'm enjoying UNIFICATION power. The pattern matching is fun. :-) > There are some more bugs in CONTROL-FLOW macros. > > CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(unify:match-case (x) (0 1) (1 2) (2 3) > (otherwise -1))) > (LET ((#:OBJECT-VAR-3066 X)) > (HANDLER-CASE (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MATCH (0 #:OBJECT-VAR-3066) 1) > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION::UNIFICATION-FAILURE NIL > (HANDLER-CASE > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MATCH (1 #:OBJECT- > VAR-3066) 2) > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION::UNIFICATION-FAILURE NIL > (HANDLER-CASE > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MATCH (2 #:OBJECT- > VAR-3066) 3) > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION::UNIFICATION-FAILURE NIL > (OTHERWISE -1)))))))) > > I think (OTHERWISE -1) must be (PROGN -1) and > > CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(unify:matching () ((0 x) 1) ((1 y) 2) > (otherwise -1))) > (BLOCK CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MATCHING > (COND > ((SETF #:UNIFICATION-ENV-3070 > (IGNORE-ERRORS > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY '0 X > > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MAKE-EMPTY-ENVIRONMENT)))) > (LET* () > 1)) > ((SETF #:UNIFICATION-ENV-3071 > (IGNORE-ERRORS > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY '1 Y > > (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MAKE-EMPTY-ENVIRONMENT)))) > (LET* () > 2)) > (NIL > (ERROR 'CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION::UNIFICATION-NON- > EXHAUSTIVE :FORMAT-CONTROL > "Non exhaustive matching.")) > (OTHERWISE -1))) > > (OTHERWISE -1) should be (T -1), too. I made following patch. > > Index: match-block.lisp > =================================================================== > RCS file: /project/cl-unification/cvsroot/cl-unification/match- > block.lisp,v > retrieving revision 1.6 > diff -r1.6 match-block.lisp > 13c13 > < (substitution (make-empty-environment)) > --- >> (substitution '(make-empty-environment)) > 63c63 > < (default-substitution (make-empty- > environment))) > --- >> (default-substitution '(make-empty- >> environment))) > 139c139 > < ,@(when default-clause (list default-clause))))) > --- >> ,@(when default-clause (list `(T ,(cdr default- >> clause))))))) > 191c191 > < otherwise-clause > --- >> `(progn ,(cdr otherwise-clause)) > > -- > Masayuki Onjo <onjo(a)lispuser.net> -- Marco Antoniotti

1 0

[cl-unification-devel] Re: [CL-UNIFICATION] MATCH, MATCHING macro's bug?
by Marco Antoniotti 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

Hi Masayuki it looks like the patch is good. Let me do a few tests and I will check it in. Apart from that, thanks for using CL-UNIFICATION. Cheers Marco On Apr 16, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Masayuki Onjo wrote: > Hello, Marco. > > I'm Masayuki Onjo, CL-UNIFICATION library user. The CL-UNIFICATION is > very cool stuff. > It's works well on AllegroCL's REPL, but COMPILE-FILE cause > following error. > > -- fib.lisp --- > (defun fib (n) > (unify:match-case (n) > (0 1) > (#T(number n) > (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)))))) > > CL-USER> (compile-file "fib.lisp") > > Object #<EMPTY UNIFY ENVIRONMENT: 1 frame @ #x22b212d2> cannot be > written to a compiled file unless an applicable method is defined on > make-load-form. > [Condition of type PROGRAM-ERROR] > > It seems to be a bug of the MATCH macro expansion. > > [BUG] > (unify ',template ,object ,substitution)) > substitution := (make-empty-environment) > => (unify temlate object #<EMPTY UNIFY ENVIRONMENT: 1 frame @ > #...>) > > [CORRECT] > (unify ',template ,object ,substitution)) > substitution := '(make-empty-environment) > => (unify temlate object (make-empty-environment)) > > I make following patch, it works for me. I'm very happy to hacking > with pattern-match-based macro. Thanks for your great work!! > > cvs diff: Diffing . > Index: match-block.lisp > =================================================================== > RCS file: /project/cl-unification/cvsroot/cl-unification/match- > block.lisp,v > retrieving revision 1.6 > diff -r1.6 match-block.lisp > 13c13 > < (substitution (make-empty-environment)) > --- >> (substitution '(make-empty-environment)) > 63c63 > < (default-substitution (make-empty- > environment))) > --- >> (default-substitution '(make-empty- >> environment))) > > -- > Masayuki Onjo <onjo(a)lispuser.net> -- Marco Antoniotti

1 0

[cl-unification-devel] MATCH macro bugfix
by Vladimir V. Korablin 24 Oct '06

24 Oct '06

Hello cl-unification-devel, The MATCH macro is currently broken with respect to `#T' templates: CL-USER> (unify::match (#T(list ?x &rest ?rest) '(1 2 3 4)) ?x) NIL Attached is a patch that fixes this problem. -- Best regards, Vladimir mailto:vkorablin@lemial.net

3 3

[cl-unification-devel] sbcl: don't know how to dump unify environment
by Joel Boehland 12 Oct '06

12 Oct '06

Hi, I'm giving the cl-unification package a test drive with recent sbcl (0.9.16 & 0.9.17). When trying to compile the factorial example in the docs, I get this: ==> #<EMPTY UNIFY ENVIRONMENT: 1 frame {B66AE51}> don't know how to dump #<EMPTY UNIFY ENVIRONMENT: 1 frame {B66AE51}> (default MAKE-LOAD-FORM method called). Anyone have any ideas about what is causing this? I can help debug. Thanks, Joel Boehland __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

[cl-unification-devel] Problems unifying with a list
by John Leuner 31 Aug '06

31 Aug '06

The attached code fails in SBCL with: Cannot unify a BIT and a SYMBOL: 1 CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MAKE-TEMPLATE. [Condition of type CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION::UNIFICATION-FAILURE] Restarts: 0: [ABORT-REQUEST] Abort handling SLIME request. 1: [TERMINATE-THREAD] Terminate this thread (#<THREAD "repl-thread" {C74F071}>) Backtrace: 0: ((SB-PCL::FAST-METHOD CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY (T T)) #<unavailable argument> #<unavailable argument> 1 CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MAKE-TEMPLATE (#<EMPTY UNIFY E$ 1: ((SB-PCL::FAST-METHOD CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY (LIST LIST)) #<unavailable argument> #<unavailable argument> (1 2 3) (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:MAKE-TEMPLATE (QU$ 2: ((SB-PCL::FAST-METHOD CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY (STANDARD-OBJECT CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION::STANDARD-OBJECT-TEMPLATE)) #<unavailable argument> #<unavailable argu$ 3: (TEST) John

2 1

[cl-unification-devel] Problems compiling code use #T template
by John Leuner 21 Jul '06

21 Jul '06

When I compile the following code in SBCL (using C-c C-k in Slime), (in-package :cl-user) (defun check-recipient () (unify:unify #T(list ?a ?b ?c) '(1 2 3))) I get this error report: ; file: /home/jbominji/jbominji/extra.lisp ; in: DEFUN CHECK-RECIPIENT ; (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY #T(LIST ?A ?B ?C) '(1 2 3)) ; ==> ; #T(LIST ?A ?B ?C) ; ; caught ERROR: ; don't know how to dump #T(LIST ?A ?B ?C) (default MAKE-LOAD-FORM method called). ; ; note: The first argument never returns a value. ; '(1 2 3) ; ; note: deleting unreachable code ; ; compilation unit finished ; caught 1 ERROR condition ; printed 2 notes ; /home/jbominji/jbominji/extra.fasl written ; compilation finished in 0:00:00 STYLE-WARNING: redefining CHECK-RECIPIENT in DEFUN This code works when the compiler does not have to write a fasl file. What should I be doing to allow make-load-form to succeed? Thanks John Leuner

2 7

[cl-unification-devel] Re: cl-unification library fails
by Marco Antoniotti 16 Jun '06

16 Jun '06

Hi John I saw your message today on the CL-UNIFICATION mailing list and I answered there. As I said, it looks to me a problem with Slime + Reader Macros. The #T(...) reader macro expands into a template instance. Maybe that is the problem. Marco On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:12 PM, John Leuner wrote: > Hi Marco > > ... > > I am trying to use the cl-unification library. > > When I compile the following code in SBCL (using C-c C-k in Slime), > > (in-package :cl-user) > > (defun check-recipient () > (unify:unify #T(list ?a ?b ?c) '(1 2 3))) > > I get an error report about writing this object #T(...) to the fasl > file. > > If I compile the method alone (C-c C-c) no errors are reported. > > Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong or what I should do to get > this > to work? I emailed the cl-unification development list but got no > response, I'm hoping someone can point out what's wrong with my usage > or > with the library. > > ; > file: /home/jbominji/jbominji/extra.lisp > ; in: DEFUN > CHECK-RECIPIENT > ; (CL.EXT.DACF.UNIFICATION:UNIFY #T(LIST ?A ?B ?C) '(1 2 > 3)) > ; > ==> > ; > #T(LIST ?A ?B ?C) > ; > ; caught > ERROR: > ; don't know how to dump #T(LIST ?A ?B ?C) (default MAKE-LOAD-FORM > method > called). > ; > ; note: The first argument never returns a > value. > > ; '(1 2 > 3) > ; > ; note: deleting unreachable > code > ; > ; compilation unit > finished > ; caught 1 ERROR > condition > ; printed 2 > notes > > ; /home/jbominji/jbominji/extra.fasl > written > ; compilation finished in > 0:00:00 > STYLE-WARNING: redefining CHECK-RECIPIENT in DEFUN > > > John Leuner > > -- Marco Antoniotti http://bioinformatics.nyu.edu/~marcoxa NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488 715 Broadway 10th FL fax. +1 - 212 - 998 3484 New York, NY, 10003, U.S.A.

1 0

[cl-unification-devel] status
by Kilian Sprotte 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

Hi, I can see from the archives that there was a problem with the factorial example from the docs. I was just wondering, if this currently should be working? I am a musician, who uses Lisp for composition and so I am very happy to see this kind of official AI package for Lisp... Admittedly, the not working factorial example scared me a little and I am maybe not (yet) the Lisper to dig really into the code, so I was just wondering, what other users experience and what the general status of this project is. By the way, if Norman Werner is still on this list, I'd be very interested to hear about the "library with prolog like capabilities" - is that a private project? Sorry for just asking questions and not sending patches - Cheers for today, Kilian Sprotte

2 3

[cl-unification-devel] Auto-nag: cl-unification link verifier failed
by root＠common-lisp.net 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

You are being nagged on because your project's name showed up in the nightly Checkbot run. Checkbot checks for broken links etc. This probably means that you are either pointing to a broken link or that someone is pointing to a broken link on your site. Or something else, it check's a bunch of stuff. Update your webpages or you shall be nagged again next week. To find out what's wrong with your webpages, please consult: http://common-lisp.net/checkbot/checkbot-common-lisp.net.html Any questions? You got this email but your webpage doesn't seem to be listed on the checkbot webpage? You can reach the author of this cronjob at clo-devel(a)common-lisp.net Thanks!

1 0

[cl-unification-devel] Auto-nag: cl-unification link verifier failed
by root＠common-lisp.net 23 Jan '06

23 Jan '06

You are being nagged on because your project's name showed up in the nightly Checkbot run. Checkbot checks for broken links etc. This probably means that you are either pointing to a broken link or that someone is pointing to a broken link on your site. Or something else, it check's a bunch of stuff. Update your webpages or you shall be nagged again next week. To find out what's wrong with your webpages, please consult: http://common-lisp.net/checkbot/checkbot-common-lisp.net.html Any questions? You can reach the author of this cronjob at clo-devel(a)common-lisp.net Thanks!

1 0