In order to have a complete Lisp, to be able to write a metacircular evaluator, we need to add a couple more primitives, and perhaps also refine the way we add primitives to our basis.
According to this StackOverflow answer, the required functions for building a Lisp are:
Although with some fun mathy things
you can do away with
This proposed Lisp does not have numbers, though they could reasonably easily be implemented using Church numerals. We’ve opted to make our lives a wee bit easier and our Lisp quite a bit faster by instead using OCaml’s built-in integer type.
The proposed Lisp also does not have the boolean type, and that is because
t is considered truthy, and everything else considered
In any case, let’s add
let basis = [...] let prim_car = function | [Pair (car, _)] -> car | _ -> raise (TypeError "(car non-nil-pair)") in let prim_cdr = function | [Pair (_, cdr)] -> cdr | _ -> raise (TypeError "(cdr non-nil-pair)") in let prim_atomp = function | [Pair (_, _)] -> Boolean false | [_] -> Boolean true | _ -> raise (TypeError "(atom? something)") in [...] List.fold_left newprim  [ [...] ("car", prim_car); ("cdr", prim_cdr); ("atom?", prim_atomp) ]
This should be fairly self-explanatory. Note that we’re defining atoms now as
Pair value. So
nil is an atom,
a is an atom,
21 is an atom,
Assuming we’re going to keep the booleans and the numbers (which we are), we’ll also probably want some more primitives, like:
Note that these are two separate classes of function: one class takes in two numbers and returns a number, and the other class takes in two numbers and returns a boolean. This generalization about the two classes helps us write a terse and minimally repetitive basis.
let basis = let numprim name op = (name, (function [Fixnum a; Fixnum b] -> Fixnum (op a b) | _ -> raise (TypeError ("(" ^ name ^ " int int)")))) in let cmpprim name op = (name, (function [Fixnum a; Fixnum b] -> Boolean (op a b) | _ -> raise (TypeError ("(" ^ name ^ " int int)")))) in [...] List.fold_left newprim  [ numprim "+" (+); numprim "-" (-); numprim "*" ( * ); numprim "/" (/); cmpprim "<" (<); cmpprim ">" (>); cmpprim "=" (=); [...] ]
This works nicely in OCaml because OCaml operators like
> are just
functions with signatures like
int -> int -> int and
int -> int -> bool, so
can be passed around like we do above.
Note that I’ve added spaces around the
( * ) because otherwise OCaml
would think that it was the start or end of a comment.
I’d like to also add something that makes our lives a little bit easier —
cond. Technically a
cond is equivalent to a long chain of
ifs, but in
every single implementation of Lisp in Lisp that I’ve seen (something that I’ve
been hinting is coming for some time), the author uses
cond because it’s much
cleaner. Instead of adding a whole new AST type for it, though, we’re going to
just make a syntax transformation to chained
let rec build_ast sexp = let rec cond_to_if = function |  -> Literal (Symbol "error") | (Pair(cond, Pair(res, Nil)))::condpairs -> If (build_ast cond, build_ast res, cond_to_if condpairs) | _ -> raise (TypeError "(cond conditions)") in match sexp with [...] | Pair _ when is_list sexp -> (match pair_to_list sexp with [...] | (Symbol "cond")::conditions -> cond_to_if conditions [...]
The way I’ve set up the code, the following are equivalent:
(cond ((< x 4) 'lower) ((= x 4) 'equal) ((> x 4) 'higher)) (if (< x 4) 'lower (if (= x 4) 'equal (if (> x 4) 'higher 'error)))
This is because we have no error handling at the moment, in two senses:
TypeError), it halts.
Both of these are suboptimal and should be touched on in future posts.
Download the code here if you want to mess with it.
That just about wraps up our Lisp implementation – it can now be considered reasonably fully complete (minus I/O and all that). For some proof of that… next up, the metacircular evaluator.