问题
Is it possible to use/implement tacit programming (also known as point-free programming) in Lisp? And in case the answer is yes, has it been done?
回答1:
This style of programming is possible in CL in principle, but, being a Lisp-2, one has to add several #'
s and funcall
s. Also, in contrast to Haskell for example, functions are not curried in CL, and there is no implicit partial application. In general, I think that such a style would not be very idiomatic CL.
For example, you could define partial application and composition like this:
(defun partial (function &rest args)
(lambda (&rest args2) (apply function (append args args2))))
(defun comp (&rest functions)
(flet ((step (f g) (lambda (x) (funcall f (funcall g x)))))
(reduce #'step functions :initial-value #'identity)))
(Those are just quick examples I whipped up – they are not really tested or well thought-through for different use-cases.)
With those, something like map ((*2) . (+1)) xs
in Haskell becomes:
CL-USER> (mapcar (comp (partial #'* 2) #'1+) '(1 2 3))
(4 6 8)
The sum
example:
CL-USER> (defparameter *sum* (partial #'reduce #'+))
*SUM*
CL-USER> (funcall *sum* '(1 2 3))
6
(In this example, you could also set the function cell of a symbol instead of storing the function in the value cell, in order to get around the funcall.)
In Emacs Lisp, by the way, partial application is built-in as apply-partially
.
In Qi/Shen, functions are curried, and implicit partial application (when functions are called with one argument) is supported:
(41-) (define comp F G -> (/. X (F (G X))))
comp
(42-) ((comp (* 2) (+ 1)) 1)
4
(43-) (map (comp (* 2) (+ 1)) [1 2 3])
[4 6 8]
There is also syntactic threading sugar in Clojure that gives a similar feeling of "pipelining":
user=> (-> 0 inc (* 2))
2
回答2:
You could use something like (this is does a little more than ->
in
Clojure):
(defmacro -> (obj &rest forms)
"Similar to the -> macro from clojure, but with a tweak: if there is
a $ symbol somewhere in the form, the object is not added as the
first argument to the form, but instead replaces the $ symbol."
(if forms
(if (consp (car forms))
(let* ((first-form (first forms))
(other-forms (rest forms))
(pos (position '$ first-form)))
(if pos
`(-> ,(append (subseq first-form 0 pos)
(list obj)
(subseq first-form (1+ pos)))
,@other-forms)
`(-> ,(list* (first first-form) obj (rest first-form))
,@other-forms)))
`(-> ,(list (car forms) obj)
,@(cdr forms)))
obj))
(you must be careful to also export the symbol $
from the package in
which you place ->
- let's call that package tacit
- and put
tacit
in the use
clause of any package where you plan to use ->
, so ->
and $
are inherited)
Examples of usage:
(-> "TEST"
string-downcase
reverse)
(-> "TEST"
reverse
(elt $ 1))
This is more like F#'s |>
(and the shell pipe) than Haskell's .
, but they
are pretty much the same thing (I prefer |>
, but this is a matter of personal taste).
To see what ->
is doing, just macroexpand the last example three times (in SLIME, this is accomplished by putting the cursor on the first (
in the example and typing C-c RET
three times).
回答3:
YES, it's possible and @danlei already explained very well. I am going to add up some examples from the book ANSI Common Lisp by Paul Graham, chapter 6.6 on function builders:
you can define a function builder like this:
(defun compose (&rest fns)
(destructuring-bind (fn1 . rest) (reverse fns)
#'(lambda (&rest args)
(reduce #'(lambda (v f) (funcall f v))
rest
:initial-value (apply fn1 args)))))
(defun curry (fn &rest args)
#'(lambda (&rest args2)
(apply fn (append args args2))))
and use it like this
(mapcar (compose #'list #'round #'sqrt)
'(4 9 16 25))
returns
((2) (3) (4) (5))
The compose
function call:
(compose #'a #'b #'c)
is equlvalent to
#'(lambda (&rest args) (a (b (apply #'c args))))
This means compose can take any number of arguments, yeah.
Make a function which add 3 to argument:
(curry #'+ 3)
See more in the book.
回答4:
Yes, this is possible in general with the right functions. For example, here is an example in Racket implementing sum
from the Wikipedia page:
#lang racket
(define sum (curry foldr + 0))
Since procedures are not curried by default, it helps to use curry
or write your functions in an explicitly curried style. You could abstract over this with a new define
macro that uses currying.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11073250/tacit-programming-in-lisp