I want to compile this list comprehension:
>> lc [reduce [x y] | x in [1 2 3] y in [4 5 6]]
== [[1 4] [1 5] [1 6] [2 4] [2 5] [2 6] [3 4] [3 5] [3 6]]
in:
collect [
foreach x [1 2 3] [
foreach y [4 5 6] [
keep/only reduce [x y]]]]
or:
>> lc [reduce [x y] | x in range [1 5] y in range reduce[1 x] if x + y > 4]
== [[3 2] [3 3] [4 1] [4 2] [4 3] [4 4] [5 1] [5 2] [5 3] [5 4] [5 5]...
in:
collect [
foreach x range [1 5] [
foreach y range reduce [1 x] [
if x + y > 4 [keep/only reduce [x y]]]]]
or:
>> lc/flat [reduce [x y] | x in range [1 5] y in range reduce [1 x] if x + y > 4]
== [3 2 3 3 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5]
in:
collect [
foreach x range [1 5] [
foreach y range reduce [1 x] [
if x + y > 4 [keep reduce [x y]]]]]
My ugly implementation in Red is:
fx: func [code] [func [x] code]
lc: function [list-comp /flat] [ ; list-comp = [code | generators [opt if test]]
flat: any [flat false]
var: none
part-gen: part-if: rest: code: []
rule-var: [set var word! 'in]
list: copy []
generator+if: [copy part-gen to 'if copy part-if to end]
generator: [copy part-gen to end]
emit: fx [append/only list x]
parse list-comp [
copy code to '| skip [
generator+if
|
generator ]
]
parse part-gen [
some [
rule-var (emit var) copy rest to [rule-var | end ] (emit rest)
]
]
option: either flat [copy [keep]] [copy [keep/only]]
code: append option code
if part-if <> [] [code: append/only part-if code]
foreach [l v] reverse list [code: compose [foreach (v) (l) (reduce [code])]]
collect code
]
; from hof.r
range: func [
{Makes a block containing a range of ord! values.
Format: .. [1 5] == [1 2 3 4 5]
.. [1 3 6] == [1 2 5]
.. [2 2 6] == [2 2 2 2 2 2]
}
xs [block!] {either [start end] or [start next end]}
/local range x1 x2 delta result [block!]
][
range: reduce xs
x1: range/1
either range/3 [
x2: range/3
delta: (range/2 - x1)
][
x2: range/2
delta: 1
]
;result: make block! (x2 - x1) / delta
result: copy []
either delta <> 0 [
result: reduce [x1]
loop x2 - x1 [
append result delta + last result
]
][
loop absolute x2 [
insert tail result x1
]
]
result
]
The program does not flow, it is full of variables, of if and append (I had difficulty with parse; compose, in this case, is limited).
Is there a more "rebolish" way (in rebol2/rebol3/red/ren-c) to resolve this problem?
Update: My implementation of the 'compiler' is only an indication of what I intend to do. I am not asking for a correction of my program (I could not even report it) but for a solution that better uses parse and builds the code more clearly.
List-comprehension is a great exercise in dialect building: it's moderately small, has a well-defined purpose and, in general, serves as a code kata for aspiring young Grasshopper — there is no single "right" way to do it, but many better or worse solutions.
"Rebolish" way would be to stay pragmatic, start with use-cases, and let the problem domain guide you — perhaps you're solving Euler project and need a set-theoretic library, perhaps what you want are LINQ-like database queries, maybe it's just for the sake of learning and the pleasure of reinventing the wheel, who knows?
While thinking about it, you might realize that you actually don't need list comprehensions, and that's good! The leanest code is the one never being written, and the cleverest solution is the one that nips the problem in the bud by redefining it in simpler terms.
Assuming you're just dabbling with metaprogramming or learning Red without any specific problem in mind, and taking my initial comment with your subsequent edit into account, here are my 2¢:
List comprehension, as a syntactic construct, has a well-defined form. Consulting respective wiki page makes it possible to define a basic grammar right away:
set-builder: [expression '| some generator predicate]
expression: [to '|]
generator: [word! 'in to [generator | predicate | end]]
predicate: ['if to end]
You got that covered already: for each generator in set-builder notation we need an extra layer of foreach; the body of inner foreach should have the form <predicate> [<keep> <expression>].
Instead of /flat I'd use /only, as this is a well-known idiom. Since there are a lot of set-word!s in our function's body, I'll use function constructor:
list: function [spec [block!] /only][...]
Proceed in baby steps and start simple:
spec with set-builder and extract the relevant parts for further processing.We need to modify our grammar accordingly: add collect / keep where needed and counter edge-cases.
There are 3 parts that we need to extract: expression, generators, and predicate. We can group generators together by adding an extra collect:
set-builder: [collect [expression '| collect some generator predicate]]
expression is straightforward:
expression: [keep to '|]
So as predicate, but we need to keep the if also:
predicate: [ahead 'if keep to end]
But generator is trickier, for two reasons:
There's such a thing called partial match. We cannot just write:
generator: [keep word! 'in keep to [generator | predicate | end]]
When generator or predicate matches inside to, it will recursively keep extra data because of the word! or to end match, messing up the extracted block.
keep behaves differently depending on the number of values being kept: it keeps single value as-is, but groups many of them together.
[1 2 3] -> foreach x [1 2 3] ..., not foreach x 1 2 3 ...
[range [4 5 6]] -> foreach y range [4 5 6] ...
So, what we need is (a) a rule that will check that the thing we look at is indeed a generator, without extracting anything (word! 'in should do) and (b) a slight modification to keep that will always extract a block! — keep copy dummy-word. Lo and behold:
generator: [keep word! 'in keep copy range to [word! 'in | 'if | end]]
Now mash all of that together:
set-builder: [collect [expression '| collect some generator predicate]]
expression: [keep to '|]
generator: [keep word! 'in keep copy range to [word! 'in | 'if | end]]
predicate: [ahead 'if keep to end]
set [expression ranges: clause:] parse spec set-builder
Note that I use set-word!s inside a block to subvert function to our cause. ranges contains, well, ranges, each in turn containing a word to iterate with and a range itself. clause is either a block! (if it was present in spec) or none! (if there wasn't any).
First thing first, we compose the body block of inner foreach:
body: [<clause> [<keep> <expression>]]
This leads to:
body: compose/deep [(any [clause 'do]) [(pick [keep/only keep] only) (expression)]]
Which covers two extra cases: the absence of predicate (unconditional evaluation) and the presence of /only refinement.
Let's figure out how each layer of subsequent foreach looks like:
layer: [foreach <word> <range> <body>]
<word> can be used as-is; <range> might be spliced; <body> is either a body or an innermost layer. Because of the range splicing (i.e. peeling off an extra layer of [...] from extracted data), we cannot use compose/only, so we need wrap <body> in a block and use compose/deep:
layer: [foreach (word) (range) [(body)]]
One last thing: we extracted data from top to bottom, but we need to accrue it the other way around, by layering foreach one on another, starting with body. So we need to reverse the block of ranges:
foreach [range word] reverse ranges [...]
All set! Now just slap collect on top and track body to wrap over on next iteration:
collect foreach [range word] reverse ranges [body: compose/deep layer]
And the whole thing is:
list: function [
"List comprehension"
spec [block!]
/only
][
#1
set-builder: [collect [expression '| collect some generator predicate]]
expression: [keep to '|]
generator: [keep word! 'in keep copy range to [word! 'in | 'if | end]]
predicate: [ahead 'if keep to end]
set [expression ranges: clause:] parse spec set-builder
#2
body: compose/deep [(any [clause 'do]) [(pick [keep/only keep] only) (expression)]]
layer: [foreach (word) (range) [(body)]]
collect foreach [range word] reverse ranges [body: compose/deep layer]
]
Examples:
>> list [as-pair x y | x in [1 2 3] y in [4 5 6]]
== [1x4 1x5 1x6 2x4 2x5 2x6 3x4 3x5 3x6]
>> list/only [reduce [x y] | x in range [1 5] y in range reduce [1 x] if x + y > 4]
== [[3 2] [3 3] [4 1] [4 2] [4 3] [4 4] [5 1] [5 2] [5 3] [5 4] [5 5]]
Is it good? If it helped you to grok Red, Parse and dialects just a little bit, then I think it might be. Is it bad? If so, then you can learn from my mistakes and do better.
In any case, if you find yourself struggling with Parse, there is a reference documentation in the pipeline that you might want to skim through and parse Gitter room where you can ask for help.
Once you refactored your code and is happy with it, share the joy in Red community chat and get some feedback. Until then, take care!