[pro] style question about types, coercion, expectations for function parameters
Pro-cl, I'd like to sanity check some of the lisp idioms my shop has (re)invented. Some background: We do a lot of web programming, shuffling data to and fro, occasionally doing interesting calculations, but mostly pushing bits around and displaying information in ways humans can use. We have very few CPU bound operations, and most of those are complicated SQL queries, not lisp operations. Most of the applications we create have few users. As such, we haven't put much time into optimizing our lisp code, and rely on dynamism to support rapid development. We have very few type declarations, liberal use of CLOS, not too concerned with consing, etc. Basically using the simplest code we can get away with. It works well for our purposes, and we complicate code for speed when we can't get away with it. We came to lisp from C#, so have a distaste for that style of static typing. I'd like some more opinions on a pattern that has cropped up. One of the problems we were having was quickly determining what a function expected for it's arguments. As a somewhat contrived example, SLIME helpfully would tell me that #'send-email wanted (to from subject body), but then it was left to me to guess what values I should pass in. In real code this was frequently non-trivial, and we'd be hand-tracing to figure out where the parameter was used to figure out what it should be. Should "to" be a string, a CLOS Client object, or the database ID of a Client? The answer we arrived at was "yes": (defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (etypecase to (string to) ((integer 0) (email (fetch-client to))) (client (email to)) ))) ;; ... more code )) The "to" parameter can be anythings that can be mapped to an email address. It is send-email's job to send email, and it will figure it out based on whatever you provide. If it can't do it, it'll tell you. Usually the etypecase is pulled into it's own function, and we have something like: (defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (coerce-email to))) ;; ... more code )) And also usually wrapped into a setf-generating macro and we have: (defun send-email (to from subject body) (coerce-email! to) ;; ... more code ) This is very easy to follow, and when figuring out what to pass for "to", it's trivial to M-. a few times and see what are the allowed values. In rare cases we want this typecase to be extensible, for example to allow another package to add new mappings. When this happens we end up with a generic method: (defmethod coerce-email (to) ;;same typecase as before ) ;;elsewhere (defmethod coerce-email ((to server)) (administrator-email to)) Method dispatch takes care of the rest. Sometimes the coerce-* function is a cond or typecase, and strays outside the flexibility offered by standard method combination, things like using Access's [1] generic interface. In practice, this is approach is mostly used for converting database CLOS objects to integer IDs and vice versa, depending on whether the function wants an integer ID or an instantiated object. Some alternatives we tried: * using defmethods, but it didn't seem to offer any advantage over a simple typecase, it was just more typing, more code to read later, and less flexibility if the business wanted something weird. * using check-type or assert to constrain the input options, like C#/Java style static-typing, but that just resulted in duplicate code at call sites to convert from whatever you had to whatever send-email wanted. * having multiple similarly named functions where the function name indicated what type was expected (eg: send-email, send-email-to-client, send-email-to-client-id), this also didn't seem to offer any advantage over a simple typecase * naming parameters after what can be accepted (client-id, email-string, client-or-id, etc) ended up hard to keep up to date. There are a lot of tradeoffs with this approach, and obviously this wouldn't work for anything with high performance requirements. Has anyone else run into a similar problem and come up with a different/same/better solution? Any problems I'm missing? [1] https://github.com/AccelerationNet/access Thanks, -- Ryan Davis Acceleration.net Director of Programming Services 2831 NW 41st street, suite B Gainesville, FL 32606 Office: 352-335-6500 x 124 Fax: 352-335-6506
Ryan Davis <ryan@acceleration.net> writes:
The answer we arrived at was "yes":
(defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (etypecase to (string to) ((integer 0) (email (fetch-client to))) (client (email to)) ))) ;; ... more code ))
The "to" parameter can be anythings that can be mapped to an email address.
Yes, it's what's usually called a "designator", specifically, an email designator. CL itself defines and uses a few designator types (string designators, package designators, pathname designators, list designators, etc). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
On Thu, 31 May 2012 21:22:01 +0200 "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:
Yes, it's what's usually called a "designator", specifically, an email designator. CL itself defines and uses a few designator types (string designators, package designators, pathname designators, list designators, etc).
Designators are an interesting and useful concept indeed. If creating new ones, some common sense might be required to decide how to "resolve" to the final object, and this might need to be documented as well. For instance, I noticed that an implementation given a symbol as function designator (i.e. 'foo vs #'foo) might use SYMBOL-FUNCTION at run-time, while its optimizing compiler might generate a direct call to the function for #'foo if it considers this safe in a whole-file compile. In the latter case redefining dynamically FOO after loading the module might still cause existing non-recompiled callers to call an older version of the function #'foo, but correctly call the new instance for 'foo, resolving the function object from the symbol at run-time. Thus, the symbol function designator was not resolved at compile-time. The hyperspec seems unclear about if designators should always resolve at run-time, though, and it may be tempting to resolve some at compile-time... But it's clear that some shouldn't. -- Matt
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 14:50 -0400, Ryan Davis wrote: [...]
I'd like some more opinions on a pattern that has cropped up. One of the problems we were having was quickly determining what a function expected for it's arguments. As a somewhat contrived example, SLIME helpfully would tell me that #'send-email wanted (to from subject body), but then it was left to me to guess what values I should pass in. In real code this was frequently non-trivial, and we'd be hand-tracing to figure out where the parameter was used to figure out what it should be. Should "to" be a string, a CLOS Client object, or the database ID of a Client? The answer we arrived at was "yes":
(defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (etypecase to (string to) ((integer 0) (email (fetch-client to))) (client (email to)) ))) ;; ... more code ))
The "to" parameter can be anythings that can be mapped to an email address. It is send-email's job to send email, and it will figure it out based on whatever you provide. If it can't do it, it'll tell you. Usually the etypecase is pulled into it's own function, and we have something like:
(defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (coerce-email to))) ;; ... more code ))
I've started using this idiom too: for a type FOO, have, in addition to the assembling constructor that is make-instance, a coercing constructor having the same name as the type itself, which can be elided with a clever use of inlining and type declarations. The CL standard has some instances of this, e.g. with pathnames: cl:pathname coerces a pathname-designator(pathnamem, string or file stream) and cl:make-pathname assembles from components. Example: (declaim (inline email)) (defun email (email-designator) (etypecase email-designator (string email-designator) (unsigned-byte (email-of (fetch-client email-designator))) (client (email-of email-designator)))) (declaim (inline send-email)) (defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (email to)) (from (email from))) (%send-email to from subject body))) (defun send-site-warning (to) (declare (type string to)) (send-email to "admin@site.com" "Warning" "Bandwidth quota reached")) The creation of the above wrapper - send-email that checks type and coerces then calls %send-email - can also be easily automated with some macrology -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib
In article <4FC7BD7C.7050205@acceleration.net>, Ryan Davis <ryan@acceleration.net> wrote:
I'd like some more opinions on a pattern that has cropped up. One of the problems we were having was quickly determining what a function expected for it's arguments. As a somewhat contrived example, SLIME helpfully would tell me that #'send-email wanted (to from subject body), but then it was left to me to guess what values I should pass in. In real code this was frequently non-trivial, and we'd be hand-tracing to figure out where the parameter was used to figure out what it should be. Should "to" be a string, a CLOS Client object, or the database ID of a Client? The answer we arrived at was "yes":
(defun send-email (to from subject body) (let ((to (etypecase to (string to) ((integer 0) (email (fetch-client to))) (client (email to)) ))) ;; ... more code ))
Hi Ryan! As others have pointed out the use of designators is widely used both in the Common Lisp language itself, and in real world usage. Here's my experience which matches yours: * As Stelian has pointed out, lifting the ETYPECASE into a separate function e.g. EMAIL or EMAIL-DESIGNATOR is usually a good idea. * If user of the code can meaningfully extend the notion of what an email is, then it's a good idea to also export a generic function COERCE-EMAIL-DESIGNATOR which is supposed to take a user's object and turn it into something that the above function EMAIL-DESIGNATOR can understand. If CLIENT is a class, users can already subclass that one for extension. However: Often you have a thing that simply contains a CLIENT (e.g. a SESSION), and you might want to be able to just pass the SESSION object to send-email to stand for its CLIENT slot. In that case COERCE-EMAIL-DESIGNATOR would be the right thing. * You may also want to define a type EMAIL in your case, and declaim the ftype of your functions to take those. Or use something like DEFINE-API which does exactly that in a more succinct way. You can find it in named-readtables, or sequence-iterators. E.g. in your example: (deftype email () `(or string unsigned-byte client)) (define-api send-email (to from subject body) (email email string string => (values R1 R2)) ; R1,R2 (let ((to (email-designator to)) ; return (from (email-designator from))) ; types ...) This has two advantages: 1. C-c C-d d will show you the function's argument types (unfortunately fully expanded in case of SBCL. It would be nice if it stored the original types and gave access to it.) 2. passing a wrong type can be caught at compile time if that type is known at compile time. E.g. writing (send-email :A :B ...) will result in a warning at compile-time. 3. Combined with good docstrings, you can produce nice documentation of the code automatically. The Documentation for named-readtables and sequence-iterators were entirely auto-generated. Combined with hyperdoc and slime-hyperdoc, you can get access to documentation and argument types directly from within Slime very conveniently. T
participants (5)
-
Matthew Mondor -
Pascal J. Bourguignon -
Ryan Davis -
Stelian Ionescu -
Tobias C Rittweiler