Closures + Lambda < CLOS

There's a blog post floating around the web[1] on how Closures + Lambda make up all the OO programming tools you'll ever want or need. Now this is a long running theme[2] in the Lisp family and really is a testament to how flexible Common Lisp (or any other language which shares these traits) is

.... however ....

the majority of these are for pedagogical purposes[3] and should never be seriously
compared with a fully fledged object system. It's seems to be in vogue to consider
CLOS elephantine[4] and complex but the truth is that at the surface CLOS is wonderfully simple.

We have classes with slots (read instance variables) created with defclass, we create
instances of these classes with make-instance. We access (and change) the slots of these
instances using slot-value and create methods for the classes using defmethod.

Simple, yes? Not complex or elephantine, Yes?

You can read more of course (all in the CLHS) and discover the object initialization protocol
and how the classes of objects can be changed on the fly, you can find out how to customize
the initialization of your classes and add accessors to your slots.
You can dig deeper and you'll discover the MOP and discover how to change the behaviour of
slot access and class definition.

But remember that you do not need to understand any of this in order to
define classes, create instances, access slots and define methods!

So next time you are rolling your own Object System because someone considers CLOS too slow,
or too large, stop and give CLOS a try, you may just like it.


--------------------
[1] : See here and here .
[2] : And is implemented in PAIP and On Lisp among others.
[3] : For a full OO implementation in CL see KR which is a prototype based object system with valuepropogation.
[4] : Or big, slow[5] or klunky
[5] : This myth has officially been debunked.

Lisp in Lisp

One of the fantastic things about Common Lisp is discovering how you can write parts of the language in the language itself and I'm not talking about implementing number parsing or some library function but rather a languages control structures. A nice and relatively simple one, is implementing handler-case[1] in portable Common Lisp[2].

(defvar *handlers* () "Alist of condition name to handler")
(defvar *old-handlers* () "Var to save the bindings of *handlers*")

(defclass root-error () 
  ((message :initarg :message :accessor message-of :initform "Unknown"))
  (:documentation "Our base error class."))

(defun raise (class text)
  "signals an error of class CLASS with message TEXT."
  (let ((handler (get-handler class)))
    (if handler
        (invoke-handler handler (make-instance class :message text))
        ;; This is our 'we crash now'
        (error text))))

;; We implement our handlers as functions.
(defun invoke-handler (handler class)
  (funcall handler class))

(defun get-handler (class)
  "Finds the first handler on *handlers* which is registered with a class
which CLASS is a subtype of."
  (cdr (find-if (lambda (handler) (subtypep class handler))
                *handlers* :key 'car)))

(defun add-handlers (&rest handlers)
  "Takes a list of (class . handler) forms and creates a new
list which can be used as *handlers*"
  (append handlers *handlers*))

;;; And all that is left now is to implement trycatch

(defmacro trycatch (form &body error-bindings)
  (let* ((block (gensym "BLOCK"))
         ;; turns each handler into a list of (tmpvar classname handler-fn)
         ;; its important that we save the state of *handlers* to prevent
         ;; using the handler bindings we are a part of  if we signal an error 
         ;; from within a handler.
         (binds (loop for (name args . body) in error-bindings
                      collect (list (gensym) name `(lambda ,args
                                                     (let ((*handlers* *old-handlers*))
                                                       (return-from ,block (progn ,@body))))))))
    `(block ,block
       (let* ((*old-handlers* *handlers*)
              ;; binds our tmpvar to the handler-function
              ,@(mapcar (lambda (bind) (list (first bind) (third bind)))
                        binds))
         ;; and add (classname . handler-fn) to *handlers*
         (let ((*handlers* (add-handlers ,@(mapcar (lambda (bind)
                                                     `(cons ',(second bind) ,(first bind)))
                                                   binds))))
           ,form)))))

;and we now raise and catch errors
(trycatch (raise 'root-error "foo")
  (root-error (c) (format t  "WE GOT AN ERROR ~A" c)))

(defclass my-error (root-error) ())

(defun test-my-error () (raise 'my-error "Whoops!~%"))

(trycatch (test-my-error)
  (my-error (c) (format t "Great it works!~%")))

(trycatch (test-my-error)
  (root-error (c) (format t "And subtyping works too~%")))

(trycatch (trycatch (test-my-error)
            (root-error (c) (raise 'my-error "new-error"))
            (my-error (c) "INNER MY-ERROR HANDLER"))
  (my-error (c) "OUTER MY-ERROR HANDLER"))

;; should return "OUTER MY-ERROR HANDLER"

Next step handler-bind[3].

-------------------------------


[1] : http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_hand_1.htm
Slow and renamed to trycatch for namespace reasons.
[2] : hmmmm, is this the start of recursive Greenspunning?
[3] : http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_handle.htm

-----
This post is courtesy of lispworks(5.0.2), emacs22 and lispdoc