I’m missing Scheme (by alaric)

I've not done any Scheme programming for ages. In fact, the past few months have been quite a haze of relentless hard work; I'm liking what I'm actually doing for a living, except I've been doing rather a lot of faffing about recruitment rather than actually doing it lately.

I'm having to spend half of my week in London, and the other half working from home - but with Sarah away that half of the week doing her course, I'm working from home alone by day and looking after Jean in the evening, while having my working day bracketed by taking Jean to and from nursery, which is a half hour round trip each way. All the thrill of commuting without the fun of working somewhere different to where you sleep, or with people.

So, no programming-for-fun lately! But that can't last forever, since trying to stop my mind from going exploring for too many months in a row is always rather futile.

So I came across Ventonegro's post on and-let* and it set me thinking. The Lisp family of languages (which includes Scheme) are renowned for their macros, which are the key rationale for the minimalist syntax; without things like if holding a special place in the language, user-written macros are just as powerful as anything that comes built into the language. This lets you extend the language with features that you'd be mad to build into a language core, but which are nonetheless useful reusable constructs, such as and-let*.

As an aside, let me just explain and-let* - the name is a terse mnemonic that makes sense to Schemers and nobody else, but it's a way of compactly writing bits of code that attempt to compute something in steps, where the trail might end at any step and fall back to some default. The example Ventonegro gives is rather good:

  (define (get-session request)
    (and-let* ((cookies (request-cookies request))
               (p (assoc "session_id" cookies))
               (sid-str (cdr p))
               (sid (string->number sid-str))
               ((integer? sid))
               ((exact? sid))
               (sp (assq sid *sessions*)))
      (cdr sp)))

Which translates to:

• If there are cookies available
• And there is one called session_id
• And parsing it as a session id succeeds
• and the session id is a number
• and that number is an integer
• and that number is exact (eg, 3 rather than 3.0)
• and that number is the ID of an existing session
• ...return that session

A few languages happen to make that pattern easy to write natively by putting assignments inside an and, as Peter Bex points out, but with Lisp you don't need to rely on the that piece of luck; you can roll your own luck.

There's a whole library of useful macros and combinators (another handy higher-order programming tool) in most Scheme systems, and any your system lacks can be copied easily enough. But it occurs to me that there's very few educational resources on actually using them. I think a definite theme, if not a whole chapter, in a "practical Scheme" book would have to be the introduction and then applied use of such handy macros (and a damned good reference guide to them all), because reading the definition of and-let* failed to really fill me with inspiration for situations I'd use it in. While reading Ventonegro's example reminded me of some ugly code I'd written that could be tidied up by just using and-let*.

It's great to be able to assemble your own syntactic tools, but presenting them as one unorganised mass will just make your language seem as complex and messy as C++ and Perl combined; yet sticking only to the core base language and expecting programmers to spot their own patterns and abstract them out results in duplication of effort, and every piece of source code starting with a preamble full of generally rather general macros, neither of which are good. Rather than choosing a tradeoff between the two, as static programming language designers are forced to, we need to find a way of cataloguing such tools so that they can easily be split by category, and by priority; so the ones that are most widely useful can be learnt wholesale, and ones that are more useful in certain niches can be glanced at once then gone back to and studied if required.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment