In my core.contracts code I’ve experimented with using unification to aide read- and re-readability in my macros. Often I’ve found that I’ll hit a wall when returning to a macro that I wrote long ago. A mass of documentation often helps, but I wanted something more. I think I’ve found it… or at least the beginnings of ‘it’.1 Observe the following macro:2

(defn- build-contract-body
  [[args cnstr descr :as V]]
  (unify/subst     
   '(?PARMS
     (let [ret ?PRE-CHECK]
       ?POST-CHECK))

   {'?ARGS       args
    '?F          'f
    '?PARMS      (vec (list* 'f args))
    '?MSG        descr
    '?PRE-CHECK  (build-condition-body 
                   {:pre (:pre cnstr)}   
                   '(apply ?F ?ARGS) 
                   "Pre-condition failure: ")
    '?POST-CHECK (build-condition-body 
                   {:post (:post cnstr)} 
                   'ret 
                   "Post-condition failure: ")}))

This macro builds a data-structure that corresponds to a function body useful for tracking pre- and post-condition constraint failures. You’ll see that the meat of the macro is simply:

'(?PARMS
   (let [ret ?PRE-CHECK]
     ?POST-CHECK))

My approach uses unification (subst from the core.unify library) to fill in the body variables ?PARMS, ?PRE-CHECK and ?POST-CHECK with further data structures. Specifically, the structures to fill are provided in a bindings map to subst and built directly or via another macro shown below:

(defn- build-condition-body
  [constraint-map body prefix-msg]
  (unify/subst
   '(try
      ((fn []
         ?CNSTR
         ?BODY))
      (catch AssertionError ae
        (throw (AssertionError. (str ?PREFIX ?MSG \newline (.getMessage ae))))))

   {'?CNSTR  constraint-map
    '?PREFIX prefix-msg
    '?BODY   body}))

Using this method allows me to effectively draw a picture of the data3 structure representing a function body and fill in the required values via substitution. I need to explore this deeper, so buyer beware, but I like the initial findings.

:F

originally posted on my coderwall profile


  1. I hesitate to say that ‘it’ is the ever-elusive self-documenting code.↩︎

  2. I was considering expanding on this theme in the 2nd edition of the Joy of Clojure, but decided against it.↩︎

  3. It’s a poor man’s RHS of a define-syntax (maybe) so maybe someone should just create a define-syntax library. (cough cough)↩︎