;;;; This software is made available AS IS, and Xerox Corporation makes no
;;;; warranty about the software, its performance or its conformity to any
;;;; specification.
-\f
+
(in-package "SB-PCL")
+\f
+(/show "starting pcl/macros.lisp")
(declaim (declaration
- ;; FIXME: Since none of these are supported in SBCL, the
- ;; declarations using them are just noise now that this is
- ;; not a portable package any more, and could be deleted.
- values ; I use this so that Zwei can remind
- ; me what values a function returns.
- arglist ; Tells me what the pretty arglist
- ; of something (which probably takes
- ; &REST args) is.
- indentation ; Tells ZWEI how to indent things
- ; like DEFCLASS.
- class
- variable-rebinding
- pcl-fast-call
- method-name
- method-lambda-list))
-
-;;; These are age-old functions which CommonLisp cleaned-up away. They
-;;; probably exist in other packages in all CommonLisp
-;;; implementations, but I will leave it to the compiler to optimize
-;;; into calls to them.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: MEMQ, ASSQ, and DELQ are already defined in SBCL, and we should
-;;; use those. POSQ and NEQ aren't defined in SBCL, and are used too often
-;;; in PCL to make it appealing to hand expand all uses and then delete
-;;; the macros, so they should be boosted up to SBCL to stand by MEMQ,
-;;; ASSQ, and DELQ.
-(defmacro memq (item list) `(member ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro assq (item list) `(assoc ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro delq (item list) `(delete ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro posq (item list) `(position ,item ,list :test #'eq))
-(defmacro neq (x y) `(not (eq ,x ,y)))
-
-;;; FIXME: Rename these to CONSTANTLY-T, CONSTANTLY-NIL, and CONSTANTLY-0,
-;;; and boost them up to SB-INT.
-(defun true (&rest ignore) (declare (ignore ignore)) t)
-(defun false (&rest ignore) (declare (ignore ignore)) nil)
-(defun zero (&rest ignore) (declare (ignore ignore)) 0)
-
-;;; ONCE-ONLY does the same thing as it does in zetalisp. I should
-;;; have just lifted it from there but I am honest. Not only that but
-;;; this one is written in Common Lisp. I feel a lot like
-;;; bootstrapping, or maybe more like rebuilding Rome.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: We should only need one ONCE-ONLY in SBCL, and there's one
-;;; in SB-INT already. Can we use only one of these in both places?
-(defmacro once-only (vars &body body)
- (let ((gensym-var (gensym))
- (run-time-vars (gensym))
- (run-time-vals (gensym))
- (expand-time-val-forms ()))
- (dolist (var vars)
- (push `(if (or (symbolp ,var)
- (numberp ,var)
- (and (listp ,var)
- (member (car ,var) '(quote function))))
- ,var
- (let ((,gensym-var (gensym)))
- (push ,gensym-var ,run-time-vars)
- (push ,var ,run-time-vals)
- ,gensym-var))
- expand-time-val-forms))
- `(let* (,run-time-vars
- ,run-time-vals
- (wrapped-body
- (let ,(mapcar #'list vars (reverse expand-time-val-forms))
- ,@body)))
- `(let ,(mapcar #'list (reverse ,run-time-vars)
- (reverse ,run-time-vals))
- ,wrapped-body))))
+ ;; These three nonstandard declarations seem to be used
+ ;; privately within PCL itself to pass information around,
+ ;; so we can't just delete them.
+ %class
+ %method-name
+ %method-lambda-list
+ ;; This declaration may also be used within PCL to pass
+ ;; information around, I'm not sure. -- WHN 2000-12-30
+ %variable-rebinding))
+
+(/show "done with DECLAIM DECLARATION")
;;; FIXME: This looks like SBCL's PARSE-BODY, and should be shared.
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
+
(defun extract-declarations (body &optional environment)
;;(declare (values documentation declarations body))
(let (documentation
- declarations
- form)
+ declarations
+ form)
(when (and (stringp (car body))
- (cdr body))
+ (cdr body))
(setq documentation (pop body)))
(block outer
(loop
- (when (null body) (return-from outer nil))
- (setq form (car body))
- (when (block inner
- (loop (cond ((not (listp form))
- (return-from outer nil))
- ((eq (car form) 'declare)
- (return-from inner 't))
- (t
- (multiple-value-bind (newform macrop)
- (macroexpand-1 form environment)
- (if (or (not (eq newform form)) macrop)
- (setq form newform)
- (return-from outer nil)))))))
- (pop body)
- (dolist (declaration (cdr form))
- (push declaration declarations)))))
+ (when (null body) (return-from outer nil))
+ (setq form (car body))
+ (when (block inner
+ (loop (cond ((not (listp form))
+ (return-from outer nil))
+ ((eq (car form) 'declare)
+ (return-from inner t))
+ (t
+ (multiple-value-bind (newform macrop)
+ (macroexpand-1 form environment)
+ (if (or (not (eq newform form)) macrop)
+ (setq form newform)
+ (return-from outer nil)))))))
+ (pop body)
+ (dolist (declaration (cdr form))
+ (push declaration declarations)))))
(values documentation
- (and declarations `((declare ,.(nreverse declarations))))
- body)))
+ (and declarations `((declare ,.(nreverse declarations))))
+ body)))
) ; EVAL-WHEN
-;;; FIXME: This seems to only be used to get 'METHOD-NAME and
-;;; METHOD-LAMBDA-LIST declarations. They aren't ANSI. Are they important?
+(/show "done with EVAL-WHEN (..) DEFUN EXTRACT-DECLARATIONS")
+
(defun get-declaration (name declarations &optional default)
(dolist (d declarations default)
(dolist (form (cdr d))
(when (and (consp form) (eq (car form) name))
(return-from get-declaration (cdr form))))))
-(defmacro collecting-once (&key initial-value)
- `(let* ((head ,initial-value)
- (tail ,(and initial-value `(last head))))
- (values #'(lambda (value)
- (if (null head)
- (setq head (setq tail (list value)))
- (unless (memq value head)
- (setq tail
- (cdr (rplacd tail (list value)))))))
- #'(lambda nil head))))
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 85")
(defmacro doplist ((key val) plist &body body &environment env)
(multiple-value-bind (doc decls bod)
(setq ,val (pop .plist-tail.))
(progn ,@bod)))))
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 101")
+
(defmacro dolist-carefully ((var list improper-list-handler) &body body)
`(let ((,var nil)
(.dolist-carefully. ,list))
(setq ,var (pop .dolist-carefully.))
,@body)
(,improper-list-handler)))))
-
-;;; FIXME: Do we really need this? It seems to be used only
-;;; for class names. Why not just the default ALL-CAPS?
-(defun capitalize-words (string &optional (dashes-p t))
- (let ((string (copy-seq (string string))))
- (declare (string string))
- (do* ((flag t flag)
- (length (length string) length)
- (char nil char)
- (i 0 (+ i 1)))
- ((= i length) string)
- (setq char (elt string i))
- (cond ((both-case-p char)
- (if flag
- (and (setq flag (lower-case-p char))
- (setf (elt string i) (char-upcase char)))
- (and (not flag) (setf (elt string i) (char-downcase char))))
- (setq flag nil))
- ((char-equal char #\-)
- (setq flag t)
- (unless dashes-p (setf (elt string i) #\space)))
- (t (setq flag nil))))))
\f
;;;; FIND-CLASS
;;;;
-;;;; This is documented in the CLOS specification.
-;;;; KLUDGE: Except that SBCL deviates from the spec by having CL:FIND-CLASS
-;;;; distinct from PCL:FIND-CLASS, alas. -- WHN 19991203
+;;;; This is documented in the CLOS specification. FIXME: Except that
+;;;; SBCL deviates from the spec by having CL:FIND-CLASS distinct from
+;;;; PCL:FIND-CLASS, alas.
-(defvar *find-class* (make-hash-table :test 'eq))
-
-(defun make-constant-function (value)
- #'(lambda (object)
- (declare (ignore object))
- value))
-
-(defun function-returning-nil (x)
- (declare (ignore x))
- nil)
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 119")
-(defun function-returning-t (x)
- (declare (ignore x))
- t)
+(defvar *find-class* (make-hash-table :test 'eq))
(defmacro find-class-cell-class (cell)
`(car ,cell))
(defmacro make-find-class-cell (class-name)
(declare (ignore class-name))
- '(list* nil #'function-returning-nil nil))
+ '(list* nil #'constantly-nil nil))
(defun find-class-cell (symbol &optional dont-create-p)
(or (gethash symbol *find-class*)
(error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol))
(setf (gethash symbol *find-class*) (make-find-class-cell symbol)))))
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 157")
+
(defvar *create-classes-from-internal-structure-definitions-p* t)
(defun find-class-from-cell (symbol cell &optional (errorp t))
;;; (DECLAIM (TYPE (MEMBER NIL :EARLY :BRAID :COMPLETE) *BOOT-STATE*))
(defvar *boot-state* nil)
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 187")
+
;;; Note that in SBCL as in CMU CL,
;;; COMMON-LISP:FIND-CLASS /= SB-PCL:FIND-CLASS.
;;; (Yes, this is a KLUDGE!)
(find-class-from-cell ',symbol ,class-cell nil))))))
form))
-;;; FIXME: These #-SETF forms are pretty ugly. Could they please go away?
-#-setf
-(defsetf find-class (symbol &optional (errorp t) environment) (new-value)
- (declare (ignore errorp environment))
- `(SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS ,new-value ,symbol))
-
-(defun #-setf SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS #+setf (setf find-class) (new-value
- symbol)
+(defun (setf find-class) (new-value symbol)
(if (legal-class-name-p symbol)
(let ((cell (find-class-cell symbol)))
(setf (find-class-cell-class cell) new-value)
(eq *boot-state* 'braid))
(when (and new-value (class-wrapper new-value))
(setf (find-class-cell-predicate cell)
- (symbol-function (class-predicate-name new-value))))
+ (fdefinition (class-predicate-name new-value))))
(when (and new-value (not (forward-referenced-class-p new-value)))
- (dolist (keys+aok (find-class-cell-make-instance-function-keys cell))
+ (dolist (keys+aok (find-class-cell-make-instance-function-keys
+ cell))
(update-initialize-info-internal
(initialize-info new-value (car keys+aok) nil (cdr keys+aok))
'make-instance-function))))
new-value)
(error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol)))
-#-setf
-(defsetf find-class-predicate (symbol &optional (errorp t) environment) (new-value)
- (declare (ignore errorp environment))
- `(SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS-PREDICATE ,new-value ,symbol))
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 230")
-(defun #-setf SETF\ SB-PCL\ FIND-CLASS-PREDICATE
- #+setf (setf find-class-predicate)
- (new-value symbol)
+(defun (setf find-class-predicate)
+ (new-value symbol)
(if (legal-class-name-p symbol)
- (setf (find-class-cell-predicate (find-class-cell symbol)) new-value)
- (error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol)))
+ (setf (find-class-cell-predicate (find-class-cell symbol)) new-value)
+ (error "~S is not a legal class name." symbol)))
(defun find-wrapper (symbol)
(class-wrapper (find-class symbol)))
-(defmacro gathering1 (gatherer &body body)
- `(gathering ((.gathering1. ,gatherer))
- (macrolet ((gather1 (x) `(gather ,x .gathering1.)))
- ,@body)))
-
-(defmacro vectorizing (&key (size 0))
- `(let* ((limit ,size)
- (result (make-array limit))
- (index 0))
- (values #'(lambda (value)
- (if (= index limit)
- (error "vectorizing more elements than promised")
- (progn
- (setf (svref result index) value)
- (incf index)
- value)))
- #'(lambda () result))))
-
-;;; These are augmented definitions of list-elements and list-tails from
-;;; iterate.lisp. These versions provide the extra :by keyword which can
-;;; be used to specify the step function through the list.
-(defmacro *list-elements (list &key (by #'cdr))
- `(let ((tail ,list))
- #'(lambda (finish)
- (if (endp tail)
- (funcall finish)
- (prog1 (car tail)
- (setq tail (funcall ,by tail)))))))
-
-(defmacro *list-tails (list &key (by #'cdr))
- `(let ((tail ,list))
- #'(lambda (finish)
- (prog1 (if (endp tail)
- (funcall finish)
- tail)
- (setq tail (funcall ,by tail))))))
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 241")
(defmacro function-funcall (form &rest args)
`(funcall (the function ,form) ,@args))
(defmacro function-apply (form &rest args)
`(apply (the function ,form) ,@args))
-\f
-;;;; various nastiness to work around nonstandardness of SETF when PCL
-;;;; was written
-;;; Convert a function name to its standard SETF function name. We
-;;; have to do this hack because not all Common Lisps have yet
-;;; converted to having SETF function specs.
-;;;
-;;; KLUDGE: We probably don't have to do this any more. But in Debian
-;;; cmucl 2.4.8 the :SETF feature isn't set (?). Perhaps it's because of
-;;; the comment ca. 10 lines down about how the built-in setf mechanism
-;;; takes a hash table lookup each time? It would be nice to go one
-;;; way or another on this, perhaps some benchmarking would be in order..
-;;; (Oh, more info: In debian src/pcl/notes.text, which looks like stale
-;;; documentation from 1992, it says TO DO: When CMU CL improves its
-;;; SETF handling, remove the comment in macros.lisp beginning the line
-;;; #+CMU (PUSHNEW :SETF *FEATURES*). So since CMU CL's (and now SBCL's)
-;;; SETF handling seems OK to me these days, there's a fairly decent chance
-;;; this would work.) -- WHN 19991203
-;;;
-;;; In a port that does have SETF function specs you can use those just by
-;;; making the obvious simple changes to these functions. The rest of PCL
-;;; believes that there are function names like (SETF <foo>), this is the
-;;; only place that knows about this hack.
-(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
-; In 15e (and also 16c), using the built-in SETF mechanism costs
-; a hash table lookup every time a SETF function is called.
-; Uncomment the next line to use the built in SETF mechanism.
-;#+cmu (pushnew :setf *features*)
-) ; EVAL-WHEN
-
-(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
-
-#-setf
-(defvar *setf-function-names* (make-hash-table :size 200 :test 'eq))
-
-(defun get-setf-function-name (name)
- #+setf `(setf ,name)
- #-setf
- (or (gethash name *setf-function-names*)
- (setf (gethash name *setf-function-names*)
- (let ((pkg (symbol-package name)))
- (if pkg
- (intern (format nil
- "SETF ~A ~A"
- (package-name pkg)
- (symbol-name name))
- *pcl-package*)
- (make-symbol (format nil "SETF ~A" (symbol-name name))))))))
-
-;;; Call this to define a setf macro for a function with the same behavior as
-;;; specified by the SETF function cleanup proposal. Specifically, this will
-;;; cause: (SETF (FOO a b) x) to expand to (|SETF FOO| x a b).
-;;;
-;;; do-standard-defsetf A macro interface for use at top level
-;;; in files. Unfortunately, users may
-;;; have to use this for a while.
-;;;
-;;; do-standard-defsetfs-for-defclass A special version called by defclass.
-;;;
-;;; do-standard-defsetf-1 A functional interface called by the
-;;; above, defmethod and defgeneric.
-;;; Since this is all a crock anyways,
-;;; users are free to call this as well.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: Once we fix up SETF, a lot of stuff around here should evaporate.
-(defmacro do-standard-defsetf (&rest function-names)
- `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
- (dolist (fn-name ',function-names) (do-standard-defsetf-1 fn-name))))
-
-(defun do-standard-defsetfs-for-defclass (accessors)
- (dolist (name accessors) (do-standard-defsetf-1 name)))
-
-(defun do-standard-defsetf-1 (function-name)
- #+setf
- (declare (ignore function-name))
- #+setf nil
- #-setf
- (unless (and (setfboundp function-name)
- (get function-name 'standard-setf))
- (setf (get function-name 'standard-setf) t)
- (let* ((setf-function-name (get-setf-function-name function-name)))
- (eval `(defsetf ,function-name (&rest accessor-args) (new-value)
- (let* ((bindings (mapcar #'(lambda (x) `(,(gensym) ,x)) accessor-args))
- (vars (mapcar #'car bindings)))
- `(let ,bindings
- (,',setf-function-name ,new-value ,@vars))))))))
-
-(defun setfboundp (symbol)
- (fboundp `(setf ,symbol)))
-
-) ; EVAL-WHEN
-
-;;; PCL, like user code, must endure the fact that we don't have a
-;;; properly working SETF. Many things work because they get mentioned
-;;; by a DEFCLASS or DEFMETHOD before they are used, but others have
-;;; to be done by hand.
-;;;
-;;; FIXME: We don't have to do this stuff any more, do we?
-(do-standard-defsetf
- class-wrapper ;***
- generic-function-name
- method-function-plist
- method-function-get
- plist-value
- object-plist
- gdefinition
- slot-value-using-class)
+(/show "pcl/macros.lisp 249")
+\f
+(defun get-setf-fun-name (name)
+ `(setf ,name))
(defsetf slot-value set-slot-value)
+
+(/show "finished with pcl/macros.lisp")
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff