Hi Wout,
Oops, I thought I had stripped all of the app-specific code out of that function, but I hadn't. Here's another try:
(defun blep (ss x y) (when foo? (let ((pair (bar))) (unless (null pair) (destructuring-bind (a b) pair (unless (or (null a) (null b)) (let ((val (baz a b))) (unless (null val) (when (blah val) (unless (blee) t))))))))))
(The point is that this is the skeleton of an actual function from our program. It's been macroexpanded in a few places and had the names changed.)
To answer your questions: (1) your PS version is prior to Vladimir's work on implicit RETURN, which is why your generated code is so different from what I posted; (2) yes, there is a PS version of DESTRUCTURING-BIND. It's not the full CL version, though. If you discover you want something it doesn't do yet, post to this list. A lot of what's missing will be fairly easy to add. (And while you're at it, check out PS's LOOP as well. It too doesn't do everything that CL's does, but it does a surprising amount.)
Daniel
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Wout Perquin wout.perquin@skynet.be wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 17:10 -0800, Red Daly wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Daniel Gackle danielgackle@gmail.com
wrote:
I've now had a chance to systematically look at how our code fares
under
PS's implicit return. Thanks to Scott for being the guinea pig for the
rest
of us. I like it! I do have a few questions/issues. I'll send them in separate emails, I guess.
PS now tries to insert a default "return null;" statement in functions
that
would formerly have returned nothing, i.e. whose return values would
have
been undefined. I am not convinced that this buys us much. We've always treated NULL and UNDEFINED as conveying the same information when
returning
from a function. I recognize not everyone would share this
interpretation.
The trouble with explicit "return null" is that you end up with things
like
the following example taken from our code (stripped-down for brevity):
(defun blep (ss x y) (when foo? (awhen (bar) (destructuring-bind (c r) it (when (!null c r) (awhen (baz) (when (blah it) (unless (blee) t))))))))
=>
I try to follow this conversation, but above (defun blep [...]) on my system returns : "function blep(ss, x, y) { if (foowhat) { awhen(bar(), destructuringBind(c(r), it, bangnull(c, r) ? awhen(baz(), blah(it) ? (!blee() ? true : null) : null) : null)); }; };" ; I used (ps:ps ...) I assume that is because I either run the wrong Parenscript version or there are macros involved that I don't have. ps, it got my attention because of destructering-bind, is that a macro in the latest Parenscript release ? Thanks, Wout
function blep(ss, x, y) { if (foowhat) { var it = bar(); if (it != null && it !== false) { var c = it[0]; var r = it[1]; if (c != null && r != null) { var it27537 = baz(); if (it27537 != null && it27537 !== false) { if (blah(it27537)) { if (!blee()) { return true; } else { return null; }; } else { return null; }; } else { return null; }; } else { return null; }; } else { return null; }; } else { return null; }; };
For this specific example it's more a matter of generating reasonable code. There is a better way to represent this function, even when implicitly returning null:
function blep(ss, x, y) { var expr = null; if (foowhat) { var it = bar(); if (it != null && it !== false) { var c = it[0]; var r = it[1]; if (c != null && r != null) { var it27537 = baz(); if (it27537 != null && it27537 !== false) { if (blah(it27537)) { if (!blee()) { expr = true; } } } } } } return expr; };
Now if I am not mistaken, Parenscript cannot make (or fake) an expression from any old Parenscript form. In my mind this is a shortcoming of Parenscript, not something we should embrace because Javascript distinguishes between statements and expressions. If I am wrong, then I'd be glad to hear about it!
If we had a 100% working parenscript-form => javascript expression implementation, then implementing implicit returning would be simpler and this code generation. I have not seen the implicit return code, but this behavior may require more extensive semantic analysis than Parenscript currently supports.
I wish PS would avoid generating all those "return null"s when the only thing we need is the "return true".
Note also that PS is not *always* returning null; there are cases where
the
old undefined behavior still exists:
(ps (defun foo () (dolist (a b) (blah a)))) => "function foo() { for (var a = null, _js_idx27540 = 0; _js_idx27540 < b.length; _js_idx27540 += 1) { a = b[_js_idx27540]; blah(a); }; };"
Personally, I think this is fine and would rather see all functions
behave
this way. That is, if I put a NIL in a tail position in my code, I
should
get "return null" and otherwise no explicit return in JS. We can't
factor
the null vs. undefined distinction out of PS altogether; it's too
engrained
in JS. Anyway this issue is, to my mind, distinct from the implicit
return
feature as such.
For most cases it will not make any difference. If it is important to the application, you can always explicitly return ps:undefined or nil.
Red
What am I missing?
Daniel
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel