Re: Eval keymapp in a macros

[Michael Heerdegen]

Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> writes:

> > And instead of `eval' better use `bound-and-true-p' - you know that you
> > look at a symbol.
>
> Thanks. I can remove at least the eval in test with bound-and-true-p,
> but I don't think I can remove the second eval, since I have to get
> object the symbol is representing.

And exactly this is what `bound-and-true-p' returns.  But that doesn't
matter if you are actually having a problem like this:

> However I am getting false positives from keymapp, it accepts anything
> seems like:
>
> (defmacro with-key-map (mapname &rest body)
>   `(dolist (def '(,@body))
>      (define-key ,mapname
>        (if (vectorp (car def)) (car def)
>        (read-kbd-macro (car def)))
>        (if `(bound-and-true-p ,(cdr def))
>              (if `(keymapp ,(cdr def))
>                  (eval (cdr def))
>                (cdr def))))))
>
> Instead I have to use to test for listp and functionp first:
>
> (defmacro with-key-map (mapname &rest body)
>   `(dolist (def '(,@body))
>      (define-key ,mapname
>        (if (vectorp (car def)) (car def)
>        (read-kbd-macro (car def)))
>        (if `(bound-and-true-p ,(cdr def))
>            (if (or (listp (cdr def))
>                    (functionp (cdr def)))
>                (cdr def)
>              (if `(keymapp ,(cdr def))
>                  (eval (cdr def))))))))
>
> And I can also remove last if, and just leave eval, keymapp does not
> seems to cull anything out.

I think you have a problem here with these nested backquotes, not
everything you think gets evaluated.  Have a look at the expansion
(`macroexpand').

> Anyway, thanks you for the help and feedback. I do have some better
> understanding after this.

An honest opinion: Maybe the advice to start with a function is the best
one so far.  Else you will be wasting time for nothing.  Don't write
macro code and look what happens when you call it and then try to fix
what seems to be wrong.  You'll get crazy and not learn very much.  That
approach doesn't work for most human brains.

One cool trick for learning: make the macro expander a named function.

I'm using your first definition from above - it is equivalent to

#+begin_src emacs-lisp
(defmacro with-key-map (mapname &rest body)
  (apply #'my-with-key-map-expander mapname body))

(defun my-with-key-map-expander (mapname &rest body)
  `(dolist (def '(,@body))
     (define-key ,mapname
       (if (vectorp (car def)) (car def)
         (read-kbd-macro (car def)))
       (if `(bound-and-true-p ,(cdr def))
           (if (or (listp (cdr def))
                   (functionp (cdr def)))
               (cdr def)
             (if `(keymapp ,(cdr def))
                 (eval (cdr def))))))))
#+end_src

While this is semantically exactly the same and doesn't make much of a
difference you can now better study what the expander does: how it
transforms code (or forms) to code (to be evaluated).

E.g. now

  (with-key-map global-map ([f1] . make-frame-command))

will internally use an ordinary function call:

  (my-with-key-map-expander 'global-map '([f1] . emacs-list-mode-map))

to generate the expansion.  You can use the debugger, study the return
value etc.  Why does the code it returns not work as expected?  Would
you write the code like that?

To repeat: this is actually working in the wrong direction.  Better
start from the expected expansion, and then write an expander function
that generates that expansion.

Michael.