|
@c -*-texinfo-*- |
|
@c This is part of the GNU Guile Reference Manual. |
|
@c Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2016, |
|
@c 2017, 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc. |
|
@c See the file guile.texi for copying conditions. |
|
|
|
@node Other Languages |
|
@section Support for Other Languages |
|
|
|
In addition to Scheme, a user may write a Guile program in an increasing |
|
number of other languages. Currently supported languages include Emacs |
|
Lisp and ECMAScript. |
|
|
|
Guile is still fundamentally a Scheme, but it tries to support a wide |
|
variety of language building-blocks, so that other languages can be |
|
implemented on top of Guile. This allows users to write or extend |
|
applications in languages other than Scheme, too. This section describes |
|
the languages that have been implemented. |
|
|
|
(For details on how to implement a language, @xref{Compiling to the |
|
Virtual Machine}.) |
|
|
|
@menu |
|
* Using Other Languages:: How to use other languages. |
|
* Emacs Lisp:: The dialect of Lisp used in Emacs. |
|
* ECMAScript:: As seen on television. |
|
@end menu |
|
|
|
|
|
@node Using Other Languages |
|
@subsection Using Other Languages |
|
|
|
There are currently only two ways to access other languages from within |
|
Guile: at the REPL, and programmatically, via @code{compile}, |
|
@code{read-and-compile}, and @code{compile-file}. |
|
|
|
The REPL is Guile's command prompt (@pxref{Using Guile Interactively}). |
|
The REPL has a concept of the ``current language'', which defaults to |
|
Scheme. The user may change that language, via the meta-command |
|
@code{,language}. |
|
|
|
For example, the following meta-command enables Emacs Lisp input: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
scheme@@(guile-user)> ,language elisp |
|
Happy hacking with Emacs Lisp! To switch back, type `,L scheme'. |
|
elisp@@(guile-user)> (eq 1 2) |
|
$1 = #nil |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
Each language has its short name: for example, @code{elisp}, for Elisp. |
|
The same short name may be used to compile source code programmatically, |
|
via @code{compile}: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
elisp@@(guile-user)> ,L scheme |
|
Happy hacking with Guile Scheme! To switch back, type `,L elisp'. |
|
scheme@@(guile-user)> (compile '(eq 1 2) #:from 'elisp) |
|
$2 = #nil |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
Granted, as the input to @code{compile} is a datum, this works best for |
|
Lispy languages, which have a straightforward datum representation. |
|
Other languages that need more parsing are better dealt with as strings. |
|
|
|
The easiest way to deal with syntax-heavy language is with files, via |
|
@code{compile-file} and friends. However it is possible to invoke a |
|
language's reader on a port, and then compile the resulting expression |
|
(which is a datum at that point). For more information, |
|
@xref{Compilation}. |
|
|
|
For more details on introspecting aspects of different languages, |
|
@xref{Compiler Tower}. |
|
|
|
@node Emacs Lisp |
|
@subsection Emacs Lisp |
|
|
|
Emacs Lisp (Elisp) is a dynamically-scoped Lisp dialect used in the |
|
Emacs editor. @xref{top,,Overview,elisp,Emacs Lisp}, for more |
|
information on Emacs Lisp. |
|
|
|
We hope that eventually Guile's implementation of Elisp will be good |
|
enough to replace Emacs' own implementation of Elisp. For that reason, |
|
we have thought long and hard about how to support the various features |
|
of Elisp in a performant and compatible manner. |
|
|
|
Readers familiar with Emacs Lisp might be curious about how exactly |
|
these various Elisp features are supported in Guile. The rest of this |
|
section focuses on addressing these concerns of the Elisp elect. |
|
|
|
@menu |
|
* Nil:: A third boolean. |
|
* Dynamic Binding:: Threadsafe bindings with fluids. |
|
* Other Elisp Features:: Miscellany. |
|
@end menu |
|
|
|
|
|
@node Nil |
|
@subsubsection Nil |
|
|
|
@code{nil} in ELisp is an amalgam of Scheme's @code{#f} and @code{'()}. |
|
It is false, and it is the end-of-list; thus it is a boolean, and a list |
|
as well. |
|
|
|
Guile has chosen to support @code{nil} as a separate value, distinct |
|
from @code{#f} and @code{'()}. This allows existing Scheme and Elisp |
|
code to maintain their current semantics. @code{nil}, which in Elisp |
|
would just be written and read as @code{nil}, in Scheme has the external |
|
representation @code{#nil}. |
|
|
|
In Elisp code, @code{#nil}, @code{#f}, and @code{'()} behave like |
|
@code{nil}, in the sense that they are all interpreted as @code{nil} by |
|
Elisp @code{if}, @code{cond}, @code{when}, @code{not}, @code{null}, etc. |
|
To test whether Elisp would interpret an object as @code{nil} from |
|
within Scheme code, use @code{nil?}: |
|
|
|
@deffn {Scheme Procedure} nil? obj |
|
Return @code{#t} if @var{obj} would be interpreted as @code{nil} by |
|
Emacs Lisp code, else return @code{#f}. |
|
|
|
@lisp |
|
(nil? #nil) @result{} #t |
|
(nil? #f) @result{} #t |
|
(nil? '()) @result{} #t |
|
(nil? 3) @result{} #f |
|
@end lisp |
|
@end deffn |
|
|
|
This decision to have @code{nil} as a low-level distinct value |
|
facilitates interoperability between the two languages. Guile has chosen |
|
to have Scheme deal with @code{nil} as follows: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(boolean? #nil) @result{} #t |
|
(not #nil) @result{} #t |
|
(null? #nil) @result{} #t |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
And in C, one has: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
scm_is_bool (SCM_ELISP_NIL) @result{} 1 |
|
scm_is_false (SCM_ELISP_NIL) @result{} 1 |
|
scm_is_null (SCM_ELISP_NIL) @result{} 1 |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
In this way, a version of @code{fold} written in Scheme can correctly |
|
fold a function written in Elisp (or in fact any other language) over a |
|
nil-terminated list, as Elisp makes. The converse holds as well; a |
|
version of @code{fold} written in Elisp can fold over a |
|
@code{'()}-terminated list, as made by Scheme. |
|
|
|
On a low level, the bit representations for @code{#f}, @code{#t}, |
|
@code{nil}, and @code{'()} are made in such a way that they differ by |
|
only one bit, and so a test for, for example, @code{#f}-or-@code{nil} |
|
may be made very efficiently. See @code{libguile/boolean.h}, for more |
|
information. |
|
|
|
@subsubheading Equality |
|
|
|
Since Scheme's @code{equal?} must be transitive, and @code{'()} |
|
is not @code{equal?} to @code{#f}, to Scheme @code{nil} is not |
|
@code{equal?} to @code{#f} or @code{'()}. |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(eq? #f '()) @result{} #f |
|
(eq? #nil '()) @result{} #f |
|
(eq? #nil #f) @result{} #f |
|
(eqv? #f '()) @result{} #f |
|
(eqv? #nil '()) @result{} #f |
|
(eqv? #nil #f) @result{} #f |
|
(equal? #f '()) @result{} #f |
|
(equal? #nil '()) @result{} #f |
|
(equal? #nil #f) @result{} #f |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
However, in Elisp, @code{'()}, @code{#f}, and @code{nil} are all |
|
@code{equal} (though not @code{eq}). |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(defvar f (make-scheme-false)) |
|
(defvar eol (make-scheme-null)) |
|
(eq f eol) @result{} nil |
|
(eq nil eol) @result{} nil |
|
(eq nil f) @result{} nil |
|
(equal f eol) @result{} t |
|
(equal nil eol) @result{} t |
|
(equal nil f) @result{} t |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
These choices facilitate interoperability between Elisp and Scheme code, |
|
but they are not perfect. Some code that is correct standard Scheme is |
|
not correct in the presence of a second false and null value. For |
|
example: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(define (truthiness x) |
|
(if (eq? x #f) |
|
#f |
|
#t)) |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
This code seems to be meant to test a value for truth, but now that |
|
there are two false values, @code{#f} and @code{nil}, it is no longer |
|
correct. |
|
|
|
Similarly, there is the loop: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(define (my-length l) |
|
(let lp ((l l) (len 0)) |
|
(if (eq? l '()) |
|
len |
|
(lp (cdr l) (1+ len))))) |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
Here, @code{my-length} will raise an error if @var{l} is a |
|
@code{nil}-terminated list. |
|
|
|
Both of these examples are correct standard Scheme, but, depending on |
|
what they really want to do, they are not correct Guile Scheme. |
|
Correctly written, they would test the @emph{properties} of falsehood or |
|
nullity, not the individual members of that set. That is to say, they |
|
should use @code{not} or @code{null?} to test for falsehood or nullity, |
|
not @code{eq?} or @code{memv} or the like. |
|
|
|
Fortunately, using @code{not} and @code{null?} is in good style, so all |
|
well-written standard Scheme programs are correct, in Guile Scheme. |
|
|
|
Here are correct versions of the above examples: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(define (truthiness* x) |
|
(if (not x) |
|
#f |
|
#t)) |
|
;; or: (define (t* x) (not (not x))) |
|
;; or: (define (t** x) x) |
|
|
|
(define (my-length* l) |
|
(let lp ((l l) (len 0)) |
|
(if (null? l) |
|
len |
|
(lp (cdr l) (1+ len))))) |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
This problem has a mirror-image case in Elisp: |
|
|
|
@example |
|
(defun my-falsep (x) |
|
(if (eq x nil) |
|
t |
|
nil)) |
|
@end example |
|
|
|
Guile can warn when compiling code that has equality comparisons with |
|
@code{#f}, @code{'()}, or @code{nil}. @xref{Compilation}, for details. |
|
|
|
@node Dynamic Binding |
|
@subsubsection Dynamic Binding |
|
|
|
In contrast to Scheme, which uses ``lexical scoping'', Emacs Lisp scopes |
|
its variables dynamically. Guile supports dynamic scoping with its |
|
``fluids'' facility. @xref{Fluids and Dynamic States}, for more |
|
information. |
|
|
|
@node Other Elisp Features |
|
@subsubsection Other Elisp Features |
|
|
|
Buffer-local and mode-local variables should be mentioned here, along |
|
with buckybits on characters, Emacs primitive data types, the |
|
Lisp-2-ness of Elisp, and other things. Contributions to the |
|
documentation are most welcome! |
|
|
|
@node ECMAScript |
|
@subsection ECMAScript |
|
|
|
@url{http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf,ECMAScript} |
|
was not the first non-Schemey language implemented by Guile, but it was |
|
the first implemented for Guile's bytecode compiler. The goal was to |
|
support ECMAScript version 3.1, a relatively small language, but the |
|
implementer was completely irresponsible and got distracted by other |
|
things before finishing the standard library, and even some bits of the |
|
syntax. So, ECMAScript does deserve a mention in the manual, but it |
|
doesn't deserve an endorsement until its implementation is completed, |
|
perhaps by some more responsible hacker. |
|
|
|
In the meantime, the charitable user might investigate such invocations |
|
as @code{,L ecmascript} and @code{cat test-suite/tests/ecmascript.test}. |
|
|
|
|
|
@c Local Variables: |
|
@c TeX-master: "guile.texi" |
|
@c End: |
|
|