About one and a half years ago, I wrote a blog post about a Carp macro that enables deriving interfaces for arbitrary types based on their members.
It was a fun little hack, and I enjoyed playing around with it, but it wasn’t quite ready for production yet. The API was clumsy, it wasn’t extensible, and it suffered from a few limitations that Carp imposed on macros back then.
A few weeks ago I revisited and revised the macro, and now it’s made its way into the standard library.
The new design is more thoughtful: the API is uniform, the design is simple, and it can be extended to support new interfaces relatively easily and without touching the core implementation.
In this blog post, I’d like to guide you through the design. I won’t explain what this feature is and why I think it’s worth having in the standard library; I encourage you to read my first blog post if you haven’t already, in which I explain all of that!
derive and how to use it
Let’s first look at how to derive things, and how to write your own derivers. The documentation should roughly cover the same grounds, but I’ll try to rephrase it a little bit—you can switch between the explanation to see if one makes sense where the other doesn’t!
A normal invocation of
derive takes the type on which we should operated as well as the interface to derive as an argument. So if we defined a simple
Address type, this is what we might do:
(deftype Address [ street String number Int zip Int city String ]) ; we want to be able to compare addresses and create ; empty addresses, so we derive `zero` and `=` (derive Address zero) (derive Address =)
This is already better than defining equality and identity ourselves, since they will likely just rely on the same functions on member types anyway, and that’s exactly what
To drive this point home, and to learn how to add
derivers, which is what the pieces of code that enable you to derive new interfaces are called, let’s re-implement the deriver for
deriver is a bit of metadata and a function that, given a type, knows how to construct an implementation of the interface. Let’s see this in action:
(make-deriver 'zero  (fn [t] `(init @%(map (fn [_] '(zero)) (eval `(members %t))))))
As demonstrated in Figure 2, we have to use
make-deriver to register a new deriver. It takes the name of the interface as its first argument, the names of its arguments as an array as the second argument—in the case of
zero no arguments are given—, and the function that actually constructs
zero as its third argument. In the implementation of
zero, it just goes through the list of the type’s members and emits a call to
zero for each of them, wrapping the result in one call to the type’s initializer.
All in all, this makes for a clear and simple API. But how does it work? Let’s take a look!
In order to register derivers, we need a piece of mutable global state to save them to. While I’m generally wary of adding global state, in this case it makes sense: this state is part of the state of the system at compile time, and it is mutable, much like functions or type definitions change the state of the compiler.
(defdynamic derivers '())
Now I’d like to dial down expectations: we’re going to build a fully functional version of the derive mechanism in Carp, exactly as it works in Carp. But it won’t have any of the bells or whistles, and it will be completely implemented in the global space. If you want to check out the implementation Carp actually uses, here it is!
Now let’s implement the entry point for the derivation system,
derive itself. It will look up the deriver and call it.
(defmacro derive [t f] (let [deriver (get-deriver f derivers)] (if (nil? deriver) (macro-error "no deriver found for interface!") (eval ((cadr deriver) t)))))
At this point we’re missing two important pieces:
get-deriver, which will return the pair from the association list that matches the interface name—that’s why we call
cadr on it to get the actual derivation function, as it’s the second element of the pair—, and the code that defines derivers. Since the lookup shouldn’t be too hard, it looks like we’ll have to spend some time wrapping our heads around how registration works. It does all the actual heavy lifting, it seems.
But, first things first, here’s
(defndynamic get-deriver [f derivers] (if (empty? derivers) nil (if (= (caar derivers) f) (car derivers) (get-deriver f (cdr derivers)))))
All this function does is go through the list of pairs linearly, checking the key at each step. If it doesn’t find anything,
nil is returned.
Only one piece of the puzzle missing! We’ll have to implement
make-deriver. Let’s take care of the boilerplate first!
(defndynamic make-deriver [f args body] (set! derivers (cons (list f ; some sort of magical deriver ) derivers)))
Registering derivers is as simple by prepending the new deriver pair at the beginning of the list. The first element of that list is clear: the name of the function. But what would the actual deriver look like?
Let’s think about what it needs to do: the user will supply us with a function that generates the body of the derived function, that’s what
body does. We also have the name and the arguments it takes, so all we have to do is stick them together, right? We also need to wrap the function in the appropriate module—named, in Carp convention, the same as the type—and tell the system that that function implements the interface.
Let’s do that!
(fn [t] `(defmodule %t (defn %f %args %(body t)) (implements %f %(Symbol.prefix t f)))))
The function makes use of quasiquotation, which I explain in depth in another blog post. We also need to wrap the generation code in a function that takes the type, because that’s what
derive will call.
And that’s all we need! We’re done!
I understand if all of this seems like sleight of hand. It seems like we just wrote a bunch of connector code, and suddenly we were done. But that’s actually all that
derive does: it provides a faciliating mechanism and an API. Providing types and implementations for interfaces is left to the users of that API.
When I discovered how little code this feature actually required, and how easy that code was to write, I was quite surprised, but also quite proud. I hope some of that pride shines through in this blog post, and I hope the implementation “clicked” in the end. If not, sitting and thinking about it might help. After all, that’s what I did for over a year after implementing the initial version of
derive, and it seemed to work!
1. Association lists are lists of pairs where the first element is the “key” and the second the “value”. Its API is very similar to that of a hashmap, but all lookup operations on it are of linear complexity. In the case of derivers that is fine, since I don’t expect there to be many more than a few dozen entries in the list for any compile. How many interfaces can anyone need2?
2. This is the footnote I will link to in a couple years’ time when someone comes into the chat to complain that their 500 derivable interfaces blow up compile times.
3. Dynamic hashmaps are currently in the works.