The source for this post is online at 2013-05-27-stxparam.rkt.
Greg Hendershott recently wrote a blog post about a "threading" macro for Racket. This post presents a possible "improvement" to that macro and uses it as a way to explain the use of syntax parameters in Racket.
A classic macro is the so-called "anaphoric if", where you can refer to the value of the condition in the true branch. It is typically used as:
(define ht (hasheq 'key 7)) (define (f k) (aif (hash-ref ht k #f) (+ it 5) 0)) (check-equal? (f 'key) 12) (check-equal? (f 'other-key) 0)
It is "classic" because it non-hygienically introduces a binding for it. The normal definition is:
(define-syntax (aif stx) (syntax-parse stx [(_ c:expr t:expr f:expr) (with-syntax ([it (datum->syntax #'t 'it)]) (syntax/loc stx (let ([it c]) (if it t f))))]))
This definition is problematic. Since it breaks hygiene, there is no way for the user to have access to the it binding from the user program inside the aif macro. For example, this use returns #f:
In normal libraries, it is possible to rename bindings to ensure that they won’t conflict with your bindings or other libraries. For example, you could use prefix-in when you require the library. The it introduced by aif is not actually a binding, so these techniques fail. Similarly, if we try to use aif’s it outside an aif, then we just get a "Unbounded identifier" error and not one that references aif.
Syntax parameters solve all these problems. We can rewrite the macro as:
(define-syntax-parameter it (λ (stx) (raise-syntax-error 'it "Only allowed inside true branch of aif" stx))) (define-syntax (aif stx) (syntax-parse stx [(_ c:expr t:expr f:expr) (syntax/loc stx (let ([this-it c]) (if this-it (syntax-parameterize ([it (make-rename-transformer #'this-it)]) t) f)))]))
Syntax parameters are like parameters (which we’ve discussed before in 2012-07-25: Continuation Marks, part II: Parameters), but rather than affecting the dynamic (run-time) behavior of their body, they affect the static (expansion-time) behavior.
In this case, we change the it make to be a rename transformer (a macro that just rewrites all references from it to its argument, in this case the newly bound this-it). In addition, we specify a default value of the parameter which gives a nice error message about where you allowed to use it.
Furthermore, we specifically only parameterize the true branch, because it’s the only branch where the value of it is useful. There would be no easy way to do this without syntax parameters.
Since it is now a binding, whenever our user uses it, they automatically shadow the macro’s binding and preserve what they think the value should be. But, since it is also a binding, the user can explicitly rename it to something else, either in their program (as below) or with prefix-in. This example demonstrates:
(check-true (let ([it 5]) (aif 6 (= it 5) #f))) (check-false (let-syntax ([old-it (make-rename-transformer #'it)]) (let ([it 5]) (aif 6 (= old-it 5) #f))))
Now, this is the "traditional" use syntax parameters. But, they don’t have to be bound to syntax transformers. They can be bound to arbitrary data. That’s how we’ll make a new threading macro.
The goal of a threading macro is to remove nesting and replace it with sequencing. For example,
This is similar to Forth style, actually, because it emphasizes the implicit flow of values, rather than the structure of the computation.
A threading macro that only works on unary functions seems pretty trivial:
But a more interesting version would allow you call multi-arity functions where you’ve specified just a prefix of the arguments. For example:
We can improve this macro by noticing that some arguments have been given and expanding to the right kind of application:
(define-syntax appish (syntax-rules () [(_ (fun arg0 ...) argN) (fun arg0 ... argN)] [(_ fun arg0) (fun arg0)])) (define-syntax ~> (syntax-rules () [(_ val) val] [(_ val fun more ...) (~> (appish fun val) more ...)]))
But, what if the nesting isn’t in the last argument position, such as with (number->string (- (+ 1 5) 6))? Obviously there is a dual to appish that puts the new argument in the first position rather than the last, but clearly that is brittle.
It would be better if we could specify where the nesting occurs. I also prefer not having a default place where nesting occurs, so that we can use expressions like (curry map add1) and (λ (x) x) in threading. For example:
(check-equal? (number->string (+ 5 (- (+ 1 5) 6))) (~> 5 (+ 1 <>) (- <> 6) (curry + 5) number->string))
The key will be to make <> a syntax parameter that records the last thing in the threading macro and then insert <> if one isn’t there already.
(define-syntax (ensure-<> stx) (syntax-case stx () [(_ e) (if (contains-<>? #'e) (syntax/loc stx e) (syntax/loc stx (e <>)))])) (define-syntax ~> (syntax-rules () [(_ val) val] [(_ val fun more ...) (let ([new-val val]) (~> (syntax-parameterize ([<> (make-rename-transformer #'new-val)]) (ensure-<> fun)) more ...))]))
However, it is quite complicated to implement contains-<>?. One approach would be to search through the syntax for a use of <>, but that would hide uses behind macros and find uses of nested ~> forms. Instead, we’ll locally expand the syntax after rebinding <> back to the original binding. Then, we ensure that when <> is used outside ~> it throws a unique error message that we can catch to tell that there was one there.
(begin-for-syntax (struct exn:fail:syntax:<> exn:fail:syntax ()) (define default-<> (λ (stx) (raise (exn:fail:syntax:<> "<>: Only allowed inside ~>:" (current-continuation-marks) (list stx)))))) (define-syntax-parameter <> default-<>) (begin-for-syntax (define (contains-<>? stx) (with-handlers ([exn:fail:syntax:<>? (λ (x) #t)] [(λ (x) #t) (λ (x) #f)]) (local-expand (with-syntax ([body stx]) #' (syntax-parameterize ([<> default-<>]) body)) 'expression empty) #f)))
This is a neat macro, but what if we want to be able to refer to more than just one of the threaded positions? We could change <>, so that it takes an optional argument which names the value (backwards in the stack) that it needs. For example:
One way to do this would be to compile to something like Forth where we have an explicit data stack recording what values have been computed. There’s a few things distasteful about that. First, it would be expensive to store this stack and second, it would mean that we might accidentally refer to values too far back in the stack and get dynamic errors. It would be nice to catch those statically.
We’ll do this by having <> always be the same macro, but use a different syntax parameter to name the identifiers that refer to earlier values. If these identifiers are not referenced, then Racket’s safe-for-space guarantees will garbage collect them, so they won’t be expensive to store. Furthermore, when they are referenced, they will be used directly without any intermediate data structure access.
The core is almost exactly the same as before, except that we don’t use a make-rename-transformer. Instead, we extend <>s to have one more identifier (using syntax-parameter-value to read the old value). A more subtle change is that the syntax-parameterize has to be around the entire recursive ~> so that the more ... piece can view this identifier.
(define-syntax-parameter <>s empty) (define-syntax (~> stx) (syntax-parse stx [(_ last:expr) (syntax/loc stx last)] [(_ rand:expr rator:expr more:expr ...) (syntax/loc stx (let ([rand-v rand]) (syntax-parameterize ([<>s (list* #'rand-v (syntax-parameter-value #'<>s))]) (~> (ensure-<> rator) more ...))))]))
The macro to ensure that <> is present is exactly the same:
(define-syntax (ensure-<> stx) (syntax-parse stx [(_ e:expr) (if (contains-<>? #'e) (syntax/loc stx e) (syntax/loc stx (e <>)))]))
contains-<>? is very close to what it was before, but now it resets <>s back to the empty list:
(begin-for-syntax (struct exn:fail:syntax:<> exn:fail:syntax ()) (define (contains-<>? stx) (with-handlers ([exn:fail:syntax:<>? (λ (x) #t)] [(λ (x) #t) (λ (x) #f)]) (local-expand (with-syntax ([body stx]) #' (syntax-parameterize ([<>s empty]) body)) 'expression empty) #f)))
The most interesting piece is the <> macro. If the macro is used by itself, then it expands to a use of (<> 0). Otherwise, it checks if <>s is as long as the static number. If it is, then it expands to a use of that identifier. Otherwise it errors, with our special error structure:
(define-syntax (<> stx) (syntax-parse stx [:id (syntax/loc stx (<> 0))] [(_ idx:nat) (define l (syntax-parameter-value #'<>s)) (define idx-v (syntax->datum #'idx)) (if (> (length l) idx-v) (list-ref l idx-v) (if (empty? l) (raise (exn:fail:syntax:<> "<>: Only allowed inside ~>:" (current-continuation-marks) (list stx))) (raise-syntax-error '<> (format "~e is too large" idx-v) stx)))]))
This version allows some exciting code like this:
But I don’t recommend using many nested ~>s or a large number of <> uses with many indexes.
But first let’s remember what we did today!
Syntax parameters are great for having hygiene-breaking-like effects in a safe way and creating context-sensitive macros that communicate from outside (~>) to inside (<>).
You might want to read Keeping it Clean with Syntax Parameters by Eli Barzilay, Ryan Culpepper, and Matthew Flatt.
The combined version is just 55 lines, with about a hundred lines of interesting tests. But if you’d like to run this exact code at home, you should put it in this order:
(require rackunit racket/stxparam racket/function (for-syntax syntax/parse racket/base racket/list)) (let () <classic-aif> <aif-ex> <aif-bad-ex>) (let () <modern-aif> <aif-ex> <aif-good-ex>) (let () <unary-tm> <tm-ex1>) (let () <better-tm> <tm-ex1> <tm-ex2>) <best-tm-contains> <best-tm-<>> <best-tm-ensure> <best-tm-core> <tm-ex3> <tm-ex4> <tm-ex5>