Cleanup Issue FUNCTION-DEFINITION

Category
ADDITION
References
Issue FUNCTION-TYPE

Problem Description

There are portable ways to turn symbols and lists into functions, but there are no portable ways to get back the original symbols and lists given the functions.

In many cases, it used to be possible to recover the lambda expression after a DEFUN by using FUNCTION or SYMBOL-FUNCTION, but the passage of FUNCTION-TYPE will make this no longer be the case.

Proposal (JAN89-X3J13)

Introduce a new function called FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION which takes as its argument a function and returns three values: #1: The function's defining lambda expression, or NIL if the information is not available. The lambda expression may have been pre-processed in some ways, but it should remain a suitable argument to COMPILE or FUNCTION. #2: NIL if the definition was enclosed in the null lexical environment or something non-NIL if the definition might have been enclosed in some non-null lexical environment. #3: the `name' of this function. The name is intended for debugging only and may be any lisp object -- not necessarily one that would be valid for use as a name in DEFUN or FUNCTION, for example. By convention, NIL is used to mean that the function had no name.

Implementations are free to always return NIL T NIL, but are encouraged to return the lambda expression in the case where the argument was created by an in-core call to COMPILE or EVAL (as opposed to being created by loading a compiled file).

Examples

The following examples illustrate some possible return values, but are not intended to be exhaustive:

    #1:    (FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION #'(LAMBDA (X) X))
	or (FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION
		(FUNCALL #'(LAMBDA () #'(LAMBDA (X) X))))
	might return NIL, NIL, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA (X) X), T, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA (X) X), NIL, NIL

    #2: (FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION 
		(FUNCALL #'(LAMBDA (X) #'(LAMBDA () X)) NIL))
	might return NIL, T, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA () X), T, NIL
	   but -not- (LAMBDA () X), NIL, NIL

    #3: (DEFUN FOO (X) X)
	(SETF (SYMBOL-FUNCTION 'BAR) #'FOO)
	(FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION #'BAR)
	might return NIL, NIL, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA (X) (BLOCK FOO X)), T, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA (X) (BLOCK FOO X)), NIL, FOO
		  or (SI::BLOCK-LAMBDA FOO (X) X), NIL, FOO

    #4: (DEFUN FOO ()
	  (FLET ((BAR (X) X))
	    #'BAR))
	(FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION (FOO))
	might return NIL, T, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA (X) (BLOCK BAR X)), T, NIL
		  or (LAMBDA (X) (BLOCK BAR X)), T, (:INTERNAL FOO 0 BAR)
		  or (LAMBDA (X) (BLOCK BAR X)), NIL, "BAR in FOO"

Rationale

This functionality would be useful to a pretty printer, debugger, inspector, and other tools.

Cost to Implementors

The following implementation is technically legitimate, although many implementations would want to provide something more useful:

     (DEFUN FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION (FUNCTION)
       (CHECK-TYPE FUNCTION FUNCTION)
       (VALUES NIL T NIL))

Current Practice

Many implementations record this information, but not all that do publish an interface to extracting the information. VAXLISP and Lucid call it SOURCE-CODE. Coral calls it UNCOMPILE-FUNCTION. The language T has this operation and calls it DISCLOSE. It is the conceptual inverse of the ENCLOSE which occurs in some Scheme dialects, and is implemented as what CLOS would call a "generic function".

Cost to Users

None. The change is upward compatible.

Cost of Non-Adoption

Certain kinds of portable debugging tools would be harder to write.

Benefits

The cost of non-adoption would be avoided.

Aesthetics

The phrase ``program is data; data is program'' comes up a lot in discussions about Lisp. This makes the case for ``program is data'' more interesting.

Discussion

The initial name proposed for this function was FUNCTION-DEFINITION. This was changed because of technical uses of the term ``definition'' to refer to the entire defining form (e.g. a DEFUN form) rather than the lambda expression that might be recovered from it.

The possibility of _requiring_ the lambda expression to be available for all functions created by in-core calls to COMPILE or FUNCTION was considered but didn't receive much support. Pitman would prefer that option because it is considerably more useful in practice, but would like to see at least the current proposal.

Jan 89 X3J13 amended the proposal of Version 2 to change the name from FUNCTION-SOURCE to FUNCTION-LAMBDA-EXPRESSION.

Edit History