Code = data
You may have noticed that Clojure code and literal Clojure data structures look quite similar. All function applications and special forms are sequences of items in parentheses, which look a lot like literal lists. Parameter lists and variable definitions in the let and loop forms look a lot like vectors. And so on.
This is not a coincedence. The Clojure language has a property called homoiconicity, which simply means that code and data have a common representation.
Why this is useful
Because Clojure code is represented using Clojure data structures, it is possible to transform and generate code at runtime. What’s more, Clojure can evaluate data structures as code. This raises the possibility of implementing new language features by simply writing Clojure code.
First we will need to look at how Clojure code is read and evaluated.
The reader is the component of Clojure responsible for translating textual representations of Clojure code and literal data structures (remember that due to homoiconicity, these are the same!) into actual (run-time) data structures. In other words, it is the component which turns text such as
into a list where the symbol + is the first item, the number 2 is the second item, and the number 3 is the third item.
read-string function applies the reader to a string and returns the resulting Clojure data structure. E.g.:
user=> (read-string "(if 1 2 3)") (if 1 2 3) user=> (read-string "123") 123 user=> (read-string "[1 2 3]") [1 2 3]
The evaluator takes a Clojure data structure representing a form, and evaluates it. You can invoke the evaluator directly using the eval function. E.g.:
user=> (eval (read-string "(+ 1 2)")) 3 user=> (eval '(+ 1 2)) 3 user=> (eval (list '+ 1 2)) 3
In each case, we are evaluating a list with three elements — the symbol +, the number 1, and the number 2 — and evaluating it. Since this data structure is the representation of a function application, evaluating it
- Looks up the function associated with the name “+” (the built-in addition function)
- Applies the function to the evaluated form of the arguments
- Returns the result of the function
What does the evaluator do?
How the evaluator evaluates a form data structure depends on what kind it is.
Some forms self-evaluate. For example:
- Keyword values
- The empty list
A vector is evaluated by constructing a vector whose members are the results of evaluating the members of the original vector. E.g.:
user=> (eval ['(+ 1 2) '(* 3 5)]) [3 15]
A non-empty list evaluates either as a special form or a function evaluation, depending on what the first member of the list is. E.g.:
user=> (eval '(if (> 3 4) "boo" "yah")) "yah" user=> (eval '(conj [:a :b] :c)) [:a :b :c]
Symbols are one of the most interesting forms to evaluate: they represent a variable lookup. E.g.:
user=> (def lunch "beans and rice") #'user/lunch user=> (eval 'lunch) "beans and rice"
Sometimes it’s important to prevent a form from being evaluated. With self-evaluating forms such as numbers and keyword values, there’s no need to prevent evaluation since the result of evaluation is the same as the original form. However, it is useful to prevent the evaluation of lists and symbols. A list is usually evaluated as a special form or a function application, so if you want a literal list, you need to prevent evaluation. Similarly, a symbol is usually evaluated as a variable lookup, so if you want a literal symbol, again, you need to prevent evaluation.
The good news is that Clojure makes it really simple to prevent evaluation through quoting:
user=> (+ 2 3) 5 user=> '(+ 2 3) (+ 2 3) user=> + #object[clojure.core$_PLUS_ 0x2bc19629 "[email protected]"] user=> '+ +
What we’re seeing here is:
- The text
(+ 2 3), which the reader transforms into a list, is evaluated as a function application
- In the text
'(+ 2 3), the reader interprets the quote (
') character as meaning “prevent the evaluation of the next form”, which produces a literal list as a result
- The text
+, which the reader transforms into a symbol, is evaluated as a variable lookup, and by default the name “
+” refers to the built-in “plus” function
- In the text
'+, the quote prevents evaluation, yielding the literal symbol “
So, now you know how quoting works and why it’s necessary.
Note that the single quote (“
'”) is a reader macro that converts the next expression expr into the special form
This special form tells the evaluator, “Hey evaluator, I know you would really like to evaluate expr, but don’t do it, OK? Just return it as a literal value.”
You can use this more verbose way of quoting directly if you want to:
user=> (quote (+ 1 2)) (+ 1 2) user=> (quote +) +
So, the way Clojure works is that the reader turns code into data, and the evaluator carries out the computation embodied by the data.
What if we could intervene in the process by changing the data produced by the reader before it goes on to the evaluator? Then we could change the language itself.
Macros offer precisely this capability. A macro is a function which transforms a “raw” form as produced by the reader.
Let’s say we’re having trouble dealing with the fact that Clojure uses prefix syntax for function applications, including applications of arithmetic operators. We can write a macro to allow us to use infix notation!
user=> (infix 2 + 3) 5
One issue is that this macro does not recursively translate subexpressions from infix form to prefix form. Better version:
user=> (infix 2) 2 user=> (infix 2 + 3) 5 user=> (infix 2 * ((3) + 5)) 16
sequential?function returns true if its argument is a sequence (such as list)
caseform tests a value against a series of possibilities, returning a result expression on match: the
from-infixfunction uses it to check whether the sequence containing an infix expression has 1 or 3 members
- in the
infixmacro, the syntax
[& expr]allows the macro to take any number of arguments, causing
exprto be a sequence containing the arguments
We just changed the language! This example is somewhat frivolous, but macros can be tremendously powerful when applied thoughtfully. With macros, you never need to wish that your programming language had a construct that would make your life easier. You can just add the constructs you need.
A macro is essentially a function which translates a form into another form prior to evaluation.
We need to be careful how the result form is constructed. In particular, we need to make sure that symbols (representing names of variables, functions, and syntactic forms) aren’t evaluated.
Example: an “unless” macro, to be used as follows:
(unless cond if-false if-true)
(Note that there is a built-in
unless macro that works exactly this way.)
We might try to define it as
This would translate unless forms into if forms. Looks good, right?
If we try defining the macro this way, we get an error about the compiler being unable to resolve the symbol “if”. The problem is that the body of the macro is evaluated to produce the translated form, and the identifier “if” is treated as a variable reference. To prevent the evaluation of “if” as a variable, we need to quote it:
This works as intended:
=> (unless (< 4 3) "yep" "oh no") yep
A general observation about macros is that most of the time we have a specific idea about what we want the generated form to look like, and we just need to substitute in forms or values as necessary. So, it would be nice to have the body of the macro be a “picture” of the generated form. This capability is provided by syntax quoting.
Alternate version of unless:
The idea is that the syntax quote (“`”) automatically quotes all symbols in its scope, and the “unquote” (“
~”) evaluates code to be substituted into the result.
If you have ever developed a web application using a template engine (such as Java Server Pages) to dynamically generate HTML, this is much the same idea, except to generate Clojure forms.