This is just a draft.
Strangely enough, in case of legacy CL programs, their packages are declared in one file (maybe named "package.lisp"). In other hand, we recommend to declare each packages in each files.
You should always put like following code at the top of each Lisp files.
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage style-guide.core (:use :cl)) (in-package :style-guide.core) ;; body
If you adopt this style on your programs, you will notice you think about dependence of each components. It is a good signal. This style keeps a program to be loosely coupled.
Don't use :use
unnecessarily. It is often hard to understand where a function came from. We recommend using :import-from
for instead.
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage style-guide.core (:use :cl) (:import-from :style-guide.util :funky-feature)) (in-package :style-guide.core)
We allow you to use :use
only if most of symbols are needed or it is obvious.
(in-package :cl-user) (defpackage style-guide.core (:use :cl :anaphora) (:import-from :style-guide.util :funky-feature)) (in-package :style-guide.core)
Why we recommend such a complicated rule is from our thoughts. We think codes are also documents, and furthermore if we say, they are also novels. If we say from the point, importing symbols are introducing characters. We think it might help readers.
Though "Annotation" is not supported in Common Lisp, "cl-annot" provides the feature. We recommend using it almost always. For example, "@export" annotation means exporting the following function or something.
@export (defun plus-ten (x) (+ x 10))
If you want to know the truth, that is just a macro actually. So, you can say that just a shorthand. Of course, you can define your own annotations.
Why we recommend such an ugly syntax? Because it provides transparency to our code.
For example, defwidget
is one of macros in Weblocks. It is just a defclass
, actually. Well, really? You have to expand the macro to know that. It is not transparent.
If I write Weblocks from scratch now, I will provide "@widget" annotation, for instead of defwidget
. You can use familiar defclass
to define a widget. It makes you be relieved.
In that way, we can represent the will we won't disturb your code by using annotations. This is another expression we can use.
(defclass <aluminium> (<metal>) (color solidity cost))
(defconstant +kikuko-inoue-age+ 17)
(defvar *cache-table* (make-hash-table)) (defparameter *debug* t)
;; in core.lisp (in-package :cl-user) (defpackage style-guide.core (:use :cl)) (in-package :style-guide.core) ;; in util.lisp (in-package :cl-user) (defpackage style-guide.util (:use :cl)) (in-package :style-guide.util) ;; in class/metal.lisp (in-package :cl-user) (defpackage style-guide.class.metal (:use :cl)) (in-package :style-guide.class.metal)
All comments are optional. Usually, comments are for writer of the program and it is you in most of the times. If you think that it should be known by users, it must be included in docstring, not comment.
This is just a rule.
;; TODO: rewrite to recursive at tail position. (defun factorial (n) (if (<= n 1) 1 (* n (factorial (1- n))))))
Docstring is always needed for every parts. Don't forget Packages and ASDF Systems.
You can omit only if it is obvious what to do.
(defclass <aluminium> (<metal>) ((color :type string :initarg :color :initform "white") (solidity :type (or integer <solidity>) :initarg :solidity :initform (make-instance '<solidity>)) (cost :type (or integer null) :initarg :cost)) (:documentation "A class represents Aluminium."))
Don't forget a type "null" for optional slots.
You know Macro is one of the strongest feature in Common Lisp. But it is also a dangerous thing. You should avoid using Macro if it is possible.
This is a really important warning. If you feel it is needed once, you should think this well again. How do other languages manage it? They really manage the problems without macros.
For example, it is often used that defines something specialized type (like "defwidget"). Must it be a macro, not an annotation? Why don't you use defclass
for instead. There are more choices than you think. Macro is the last one to choose.
Don't use if
without "else" expression. when
is more precise for it.
etypecase
and ecase
are a strict version of typecase
and case
. If you don't expect other types specified, you should use etypecase
or ecase
for safety.
However if
is a simple feature and most of languages have it, it could make a program hard to understand.
;; Hard to understand (defun count-all-numbers (alist) (if (null alist) 0 (+ (if (listp (first alist)) (count-all-numbers (first alist)) (if (numberp (first alist)) 1 0)) (count-all-numbers (rest alist)))))
Above example should be rewritten as following.
;; quoted from "Good Lisp Style" (defun count-all-numbers (exp) (typecase exp (cons (+ (count-all-numbers (first exp)) (count-all-numbers (rest exp)))) (number 1) (t 0)))
A large typecase
may be rewritten with defmethod
or Polymorphism.
Large condition expressions makes the codes hard to read. If you felt the condition will be larger, you should separate them into another function or method.
(if (and (person-name user) (<= 20 (person-age user))) (write-line "this person is valid.") (error "Invalid person."))
(defmethod valid-person-p ((person <person>)) (and (person-name person) (<= 20 (person-age person)))) (if (valid-person-p person) (write-line "this person is valid.") (error "Invalid person."))