[pro] User defined format functions
Hello, there are situations in which I find myself frequently using the same format "pattern", which I'd like to abstract away. A concrete example is from my Declt package[1] which prints a lot in Texinfo format. Since Texinfo has a couple of special characters (e.g. @), I have an ESCAPE function which takes a string and returns another one with all special characters escaped. In the Declt code, I hence have very frequent calls which look like this: (format stream "... ~A ..." #|...|# (escape str) #|...|#) This is frustrating because I would like to abstract away the relation "~A <-> #'escape". Of course there are solutions (I could provide my own wrapper around FORMAT in some way) but none of them seem satisfactory. I'm aware of the ~// construct, which I find extremely cumbersome. Does anybody actually use it? It seems to me that the package handling part, specifically, makes it totally unusable. Just imagine that I would need to do something like that if I were to use it: (format stream "... ~/com.dvlsoft.declt:escape/ ..." #|...|# str #|...|#) and you get the idea! :-) No, in fact, the problem is that FORMAT control sequences are not extensible. This reminds me of something that we have in the Gnus mail/newsreader. It's called "user format functions". Gnus Group and Summary buffer lines, for example, are define by a format string with a set of predefined %<char> constructs. One of them, %u<char> lets you define and use your own function, called gnus-user-format-function-<char>. So what I would like to do is more or less define a function FORMAT-FUNCTION-E, just like a standard formatter, and then be able to write something like that: (format stream "... ~\e\ ..." #|...|# str #|...|#) Of course, there are package issues. Maybe we would need a centralized mapping between function names (what goes in ~\\) and actual symbols denoting the actual function? Possibly with the possibility to override the mapping by providing a package prefix in the ~\\ construct? In fact, the more I think about it, the more it sounds like having a format-table facility, much like what a readtable is, with a similar API. You could do (in-format-table :my-table-name) at the beginning of a file and have a totally customized set of format control sequences, possibly inheriting the standard ones. WDYT? Does something like that already exists[2]? Footnotes: [1] http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/software/lisp/misc.php#declt [2] I've heard of something called fmt for scheme, but don't know much about it. -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
Didier Verna wrote:
I'm aware of the ~// construct, which I find extremely cumbersome. Does anybody actually use it? Yes, we use it heavily, mainly for date/time processing, which can be very complicated when you're dealing with time zones and such. Example:
It seems to me that the package handling part, specifically, makes it totally unusable. You mean the fact that the name must be in the cl-user
(list :departure-time (format nil "~/zul%ISO8601/" departure-time-zul) :arrival-time (format nil "~/zul%ISO8601/" arrival-time-zul) :airimp-departure-time (format nil "~/loc%HHMM/" (local-tofd-only (local-time departure-time-zul))) :airimp-arrival-time package, so that if there are two modules trying to use the same name, they conflict. That's true, but I think "totally unusable" is going a bit far. I actually can't remember why package prefixes aren't allowed. It was a long time ago. -- Dan
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Weinreb <dlw@itasoftware.com> wrote:
I actually can't remember why package prefixes aren't allowed. It was a long time ago.
They are allowed, aren't they? http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/22_ced.htm
Of course they are. That's what allows this hack (first suggested by Erik Naggum, I believe): (defpackage :iso (:use) (:export :|8601|)) (defun iso:8601 (out arg colon-p at-sign-p &rest params) (write-string (format-iso-8601-time arg :time-zone (first params) :omit-time (and at-sign-p (not colon-p)) :omit-date colon-p :omit-time-zone (and colon-p (not at-sign-p))) out)) And then: CL-USER> (format t "~/iso:8601/" (get-universal-time)) 2011-01-25T11:51:15-8:00 NIL -Peter On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Edi Weitz <edi@weitz.de> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Weinreb <dlw@itasoftware.com> wrote:
I actually can't remember why package prefixes aren't allowed. It was a long time ago.
They are allowed, aren't they?
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/22_ced.htm
_______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
-- Peter Seibel http://www.codequarterly.com/
Peter Seibel <peter@gigamonkeys.com> wrote:
And then:
CL-USER> (format t "~/iso:8601/" (get-universal-time)) 2011-01-25T11:51:15-8:00 NIL
Nice :-) -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
Edi Weitz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Weinreb <dlw@itasoftware.com> wrote:
I actually can't remember why package prefixes aren't allowed. It was a long time ago.
They are allowed, aren't they?
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/22_ced.htm
They are. The cl-user package is only used when the function name in the format string doesn't have a package prefix. -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
Oh, sorry; right, it's just for convenience to put them in cl-user, to keep the format strings short. Edi Weitz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Weinreb <dlw@itasoftware.com> wrote:
I actually can't remember why package prefixes aren't allowed. It was a long time ago.
They are allowed, aren't they?
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/22_ced.htm
Daniel Weinreb wrote:
Yes, we use it heavily, mainly for date/time processing, which can be very complicated when you're dealing with time zones and such. Example:
(list :departure-time (format nil "~/zul%ISO8601/" departure-time-zul)
OK, but does it really buy you anything, compared to just calling a specific function directly? Your examples all seem to contain only one format directive.
:arrival-time (format nil "~/zul%ISO8601/" arrival-time-zul)
BTW, that should be (+ arrival-time-zul 1) for Air France :-)
It seems to me that the package handling part, specifically, makes it totally unusable.
You mean the fact that the name must be in the cl-user package, so that if there are two modules trying to use the same name, they conflict. That's true, but I think "totally unusable" is going a bit far.
I reckon it is in general. It's just that if you're writing a library (as opposed to a top-level application), then you don't want to pollute the cl-user package (in fact, you just can't if you want to be on the safe side), so even when your code is (in-package :long.package.name), you still need to use the package prefix in the format string, and /that/, I find totally unusable. -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
Didier Verna wrote:
Daniel Weinreb wrote:
Yes, we use it heavily, mainly for date/time processing, which can be very complicated when you're dealing with time zones and such. Example:
(list :departure-time (format nil "~/zul%ISO8601/" departure-time-zul)
OK, but does it really buy you anything, compared to just calling a specific function directly? Your examples all seem to contain only one format directive.
Yes, I just realized that these aren't the best examples. They are intended to be used inside more complex format strings, and then the developers get used to using the format directives rather than learning the names of the corresponding functions, just to have one less thing to learn. This is a specifier for a scheduled flight: (format nil "F,~A,~A,~@[~A~],~/loc%YYYY-MM-DD/" (sched:flight-key-carrier key) (sched:flight-key-number key) (sched:non-blank-operational-suffix (sched:flight-key-op-suffix key)) (sched:flight-key-date-local key)))
I reckon it is in general. It's just that if you're writing a library (as opposed to a top-level application), then you don't want to pollute the cl-user package (in fact, you just can't if you want to be on the safe side), so even when your code is (in-package :long.package.name), you still need to use the package prefix in the format string, and /that/, I find totally unusable.
Well, we find it very useful. I think there is no need to prolong this part of the conversation; I think everyone here is a pro and can understand the plusses and minuses. -- Dan
On 01/25/2011 02:12 PM, Didier Verna wrote:
Daniel Weinreb wrote:
Yes, we use it heavily, mainly for date/time processing, which can be very complicated when you're dealing with time zones and such. Example:
(list :departure-time (format nil "~/zul%ISO8601/" departure-time-zul) OK, but does it really buy you anything, compared to just calling a specific function directly? Your examples all seem to contain only one format directive.
Even a single directive is helpful if it's short enough. I try to mitigate some of the more cumbersome aspects of using ~// by defining a single generic function, format-value, that has a ~// compatible argument list. There is an in-lined wrapper function, f, that resides in a package that has a single letter nickname (of course that invites other problems). Anyway, I end up using ~/p:f/ in a lot of format control strings. Matt
Didier Verna <didier@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
(format stream "... ~\e\ ..." #|...|# str #|...|#)
\ is already meaningful in strings, to escape \ or ". So you'd have to use ~\\e\\.
Of course, there are package issues. Maybe we would need a centralized mapping between function names (what goes in ~\\) and actual symbols denoting the actual function? Possibly with the possibility to override the mapping by providing a package prefix in the ~\\ construct?
I don't like it.
WDYT? Does something like that already exists[2]?
The standard already allows control-strings to be functions. So you could write a cl:formatter-like macro with any extension you like. There's no need for any extension, just use CL. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:
\ is already meaningful in strings, to escape \ or ". So you'd have to use ~\\e\\.
Yeah bad example. It just popped up in my mind as the opposite of ~\\. Make that ~!! or whatever.
The standard already allows control-strings to be functions. So you could write a cl:formatter-like macro with any extension you like. There's no need for any extension, just use CL.
I never said I needed a real extension. I can provide a library with an alternate (extended ;-) format function. My point was rather to share the idea of format-tables, which you don't seem to like, whatever the way they would be implemented. -- Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated. Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
participants (6)
-
Daniel Weinreb -
Didier Verna -
Edi Weitz -
Matthew D. Swank -
Pascal J. Bourguignon -
Peter Seibel