Please consider the following code:
(defparameter init-a 1)
(let ((init-a 42) (serial-no 0)) (defstruct foo (a init-a) (b (incf serial-no))) (defun get-foo-serial-no () serial-no))
(defstruct (bar (:include foo)) (c 33) d)
When one loads the above and then try to call #'make-bar the result varies widely from one lisp implementation (clisp) to another.
clisp: (make-bar) --> #S(BAR :A 1 :B 1 :C 33 :D NIL) ccl: (make-bar) --> <enter the debugger saying: "Unbound variable: SERIAL-NO">
lispworks, allegro and sbcl also behave more or less like ccl.
What is the proper ANSI-CL behavior in this case here? Is clisp right in evaluating the slot initform in its "proper" lexical context? Or is the correct behavior to replicate the slot initform verbatim in the sub-structure constructor regardless of its original lexical context like the others do?
I guess that this question has probably been asked before, in a somewhat distant past, but my google skills have not been sharp enough to find it, sorry.
It looks like you need a LET* to guarantee the order of evaluation within your LET. Otherwise, it’s undefined.
Laughing Water
On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the following code:
(defparameter init-a 1)
(let ((init-a 42) (serial-no 0)) (defstruct foo (a init-a) (b (incf serial-no))) (defun get-foo-serial-no () serial-no))
(defstruct (bar (:include foo)) (c 33) d)
When one loads the above and then try to call #'make-bar the result varies widely from one lisp implementation (clisp) to another.
clisp: (make-bar) --> #S(BAR :A 1 :B 1 :C 33 :D NIL) ccl: (make-bar) --> <enter the debugger saying: "Unbound variable: SERIAL-NO">
lispworks, allegro and sbcl also behave more or less like ccl.
What is the proper ANSI-CL behavior in this case here? Is clisp right in evaluating the slot initform in its "proper" lexical context? Or is the correct behavior to replicate the slot initform verbatim in the sub-structure constructor regardless of its original lexical context like the others do?
I guess that this question has probably been asked before, in a somewhat distant past, but my google skills have not been sharp enough to find it, sorry.
That makes no sense, the bindings in the let are independent.
On 03/08/15 22:42, Laughing Water wrote:
It looks like you need a LET* to guarantee the order of evaluation within your LET. Otherwise, it’s undefined.
Laughing Water
On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the following code:
(defparameter init-a 1)
(let ((init-a 42) (serial-no 0)) (defstruct foo (a init-a) (b (incf serial-no))) (defun get-foo-serial-no () serial-no))
(defstruct (bar (:include foo)) (c 33) d)
When one loads the above and then try to call #'make-bar the result varies widely from one lisp implementation (clisp) to another.
clisp: (make-bar) --> #S(BAR :A 1 :B 1 :C 33 :D NIL) ccl: (make-bar) --> <enter the debugger saying: "Unbound variable: SERIAL-NO">
lispworks, allegro and sbcl also behave more or less like ccl.
What is the proper ANSI-CL behavior in this case here? Is clisp right in evaluating the slot initform in its "proper" lexical context? Or is the correct behavior to replicate the slot initform verbatim in the sub-structure constructor regardless of its original lexical context like the others do?
I guess that this question has probably been asked before, in a somewhat distant past, but my google skills have not been sharp enough to find it, sorry.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
My read of the spec is that either behaviour is allowable.
DEFSTRUCT[1] says:
"If a slot is not initialized in this way, it is initialized by evaluating /slot-initform/ in the slot description at the time the constructor function is called."
Which makes no reference to the environment in which the form should be evaluated in.
Later on it says:
"It is as if the /slot-initforms/ were used as /initialization forms/ http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/26_glo_i.htm#initialization_form for the /keyword parameters/ http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/26_glo_k.htm#keyword_parameter of the constructor function"
The page describing keyword arguments in ordinary lambda lists[2] also makes no reference to which environment should be used for initforms.
I guess they didn't think about people using closures for initforms when they were drawing it up?
To side-step the issue I would invoke a closure from the initform instead (if that's how you want to do it).
[1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_defstr.htm [2] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/03_dad.htm
On 03/08/15 23:04, Peter Stirling wrote:
That makes no sense, the bindings in the let are independent.
On 03/08/15 22:42, Laughing Water wrote:
It looks like you need a LET* to guarantee the order of evaluation within your LET. Otherwise, it’s undefined.
Laughing Water
On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the following code:
(defparameter init-a 1)
(let ((init-a 42) (serial-no 0)) (defstruct foo (a init-a) (b (incf serial-no))) (defun get-foo-serial-no () serial-no))
(defstruct (bar (:include foo)) (c 33) d)
When one loads the above and then try to call #'make-bar the result varies widely from one lisp implementation (clisp) to another.
clisp: (make-bar) --> #S(BAR :A 1 :B 1 :C 33 :D NIL) ccl: (make-bar) --> <enter the debugger saying: "Unbound variable: SERIAL-NO">
lispworks, allegro and sbcl also behave more or less like ccl.
What is the proper ANSI-CL behavior in this case here? Is clisp right in evaluating the slot initform in its "proper" lexical context? Or is the correct behavior to replicate the slot initform verbatim in the sub-structure constructor regardless of its original lexical context like the others do?
I guess that this question has probably been asked before, in a somewhat distant past, but my google skills have not been sharp enough to find it, sorry.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Peter Stirling peter@pjstirling.plus.com wrote:
My read of the spec is that either behaviour is allowable.
The two behaviors are so different that I have a hard time accepting this.
I guess they didn't think about people using closures for initforms when they were drawing it up?
Yet they clearly thought about closures when they specified DEFCLASS[3] (see the part where processing of :initform form is mentioned). So, was this really just simple oversight?
To side-step the issue I would invoke a closure from the initform instead
(if that's how you want to do it).
This is indeed probably the proper workaround that would assure portability across CL implementation.
But I find sad that we'd have to force defstruct to be a top-level only form with this workaround instead of letting perfectly normal language constructs intermix freely as the problem would find appropriate and natural.
My interest here is that I am reworking the implementation of the DEFSTRUCT macro in MKCL. And honestly I am of the opinion that there is a pretty strong case to be made in favor of the clisp behavior on this issue. But I cannot figure out the justification for the other behavior illustrated by almost all of the other implementations. Is this just some long standing historical quirk at play here or is there really a reason for this way of doing it?
[3] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_defcla.htm
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin < jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Peter Stirling <peter@pjstirling.plus.com
wrote:
My read of the spec is that either behaviour is allowable.
The two behaviors are so different that I have a hard time accepting this.
The issue is not the degree of behavior difference, the issue is the degree to which the language of the spec constrains an implementor.
Did Peter miss this, or am I missing something completely (I am just a simple application programmer): "The slot default init forms are evaluated in the lexical environment in which the defstruct form itself appears and in the dynamic environment in which the call to the constructor function appears.
-kt
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Kenneth Tilton ken@tiltontec.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin < jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Peter Stirling < peter@pjstirling.plus.com> wrote:
My read of the spec is that either behaviour is allowable.
The two behaviors are so different that I have a hard time accepting this.
The issue is not the degree of behavior difference, the issue is the degree to which the language of the spec constrains an implementor.
Did Peter miss this, or am I missing something completely (I am just a simple application programmer): "The slot default init forms are evaluated in the lexical environment in which the defstruct form itself appears and in the dynamic environment in which the call to the constructor function appears.
It seems that Peter and I both missed it somehow. That clears the issue pretty clearly; clisp wins and all the others, well...
Thank you very much Ken for pointing this key sentence.
Case closed.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin < jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Kenneth Tilton ken@tiltontec.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin < jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Peter Stirling < peter@pjstirling.plus.com> wrote:
My read of the spec is that either behaviour is allowable.
The two behaviors are so different that I have a hard time accepting this.
The issue is not the degree of behavior difference, the issue is the degree to which the language of the spec constrains an implementor.
Did Peter miss this, or am I missing something completely (I am just a simple application programmer): "The slot default init forms are evaluated in the lexical environment in which the defstruct form itself appears and in the dynamic environment in which the call to the constructor function appears.
It seems that Peter and I both missed it somehow.
I missed it, too, the first 2-3 times. Then I happened to look back at the section and there it was as plain as day. Perception is like that.
That clears the issue pretty clearly; clisp wins and all the others, well...
No, CLisp loses (a little*).
In the dynamic environment of the execution of your top-level (make-bar) example the variable serial-no is unbound, so evaluating the initform (incf serial-no) should fail as you documented.
The CLisp source is available, AFAIK. I suspect we would discover that the initform is implemented as an anonymous function that closes over the lexically available serial-no at definition time, and that the :include option does not copy the slot *definition* and then proceed with struct compilation*, instead it copies the compilation* and hence the same closure over the same serial-no.
* Probably relevant: Clisp is interpreted.
-hk
Thank you very much Ken for pointing this key sentence.
Case closed.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:55:30 -0400, Jean-Claude Beaudoin said:
But I find sad that we'd have to force defstruct to be a top-level only form with this workaround instead of letting perfectly normal language constructs intermix freely as the problem would find appropriate and natural.
My interest here is that I am reworking the implementation of the DEFSTRUCT macro in MKCL. And honestly I am of the opinion that there is a pretty strong case to be made in favor of the clisp behavior on this issue. But I cannot figure out the justification for the other behavior illustrated by almost all of the other implementations. Is this just some long standing historical quirk at play here or is there really a reason for this way of doing it?
Probably because remembering the initform and splicing it into the constructor of the included defstruct is the most obvious implementation.
It is easy to make that implementation evaluate the initform in the correct lexical environment by including the constructor in the macroexpansion of defstruct. Doing that for included defstructs requires more effort to avoid slowdown in the simple cases.
Another related case is EQ'ness of the initform values. For example, with two files:
q1.lisp: (defstruct q1 (a '(1 2 3))) (defun t1 () (eq (q1-a (make-q1)) (q1-a (make-q1))))
q2.lisp: (defstruct (q2 (:include q1))) (defun t12 () (eq (q1-a (make-q1)) (q1-a (make-q2))))
If you compile and load each of these files, then t1 should always return t whereas t12 might return nil or t depending on whether the code for the initform in q1 is shared or copied.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Peter Stirling peter@pjstirling.plus.com wrote:
My read of the spec is that either behaviour is allowable.
DEFSTRUCT[1] says:
"If a slot is not initialized in this way, it is initialized byevaluating *slot-initform* in the slot description at the time the constructor function is called."
Which makes no reference to the environment in which the form should be evaluated in.
Later on it says:
"It is as if the *slot-initforms* were used as *initialization forms*http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/26_glo_i.htm#initialization_form for the *keyword parameters* http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/26_glo_k.htm#keyword_parameter of the constructor function"
Later later on it says:
"The slot default init forms are evaluated in the lexical environment in which the defstruct form itself appears and in the dynamic environment in which the call to the constructor function appears."
So the defstruct sees the local/lexical serial-no but a call to make-bar outside does not.
In between we get more clues: "The symbols which name the slots must not be used by the implementation as the names for the lambda variables in the constructor function, since one or more of thosesymbols might have been proclaimed special or might be defined as the name of a constant variable. "
Indeed, if one compiles the example provided, when one *compiles *(ACL has both an interpreter and compiler, and they vary) make-bar one learns:
Warning: Free reference to undeclared variable serial-no assumed special.
I checked the spec on included structs but did not notice anything about included slot init-form evaluation, but I guess it makes sense that included slots be assembled and evaluated as if coded with the including struct.
-hk
The page describing keyword arguments in ordinary lambda lists[2] also makes no reference to which environment should be used for initforms.
I guess they didn't think about people using closures for initforms when they were drawing it up?
To side-step the issue I would invoke a closure from the initform instead (if that's how you want to do it).
[1] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_defstr.htm [2] http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/03_dad.htm
On 03/08/15 23:04, Peter Stirling wrote:
That makes no sense, the bindings in the let are independent.
On 03/08/15 22:42, Laughing Water wrote:
It looks like you need a LET* to guarantee the order of evaluation within your LET. Otherwise, it’s undefined.
Laughing Water
On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com jean.claude.beaudoin@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the following code:
(defparameter init-a 1)
(let ((init-a 42) (serial-no 0)) (defstruct foo (a init-a) (b (incf serial-no))) (defun get-foo-serial-no () serial-no))
(defstruct (bar (:include foo)) (c 33) d)
When one loads the above and then try to call #'make-bar the result varies widely from one lisp implementation (clisp) to another.
clisp: (make-bar) --> #S(BAR :A 1 :B 1 :C 33 :D NIL) ccl: (make-bar) --> <enter the debugger saying: "Unbound variable: SERIAL-NO">
lispworks, allegro and sbcl also behave more or less like ccl.
What is the proper ANSI-CL behavior in this case here? Is clisp right in evaluating the slot initform in its "proper" lexical context? Or is the correct behavior to replicate the slot initform verbatim in the sub-structure constructor regardless of its original lexical context like the others do?
I guess that this question has probably been asked before, in a somewhat distant past, but my google skills have not been sharp enough to find it, sorry.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-
Jean-Claude Beaudoin -
Kenneth Tilton -
Laughing Water -
Martin Simmons -
Peter Stirling