Unexpected behavior with loop macro and closures

2019-01-25 21:20发布

Why do these forms behave this way?

CL-USER>
(setf *closures*
      (loop for num in (list 1 2 3 4)
            collect (lambda ()
                      num)))
(     
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004932E1F>
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004932DCF>
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004932D7F>
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004932D2F>)
CL-USER> 
(funcall (first *closures*))
4
CL-USER> 
(funcall (second *closures*))
4

I would have expected the first funcall to return 1, and the second to return 2, etc. This behavior is consistent with both Clozure Common Lisp and Steel-Bank Common Lisp implementations.

If I rework the loop macro to a version using dolist, what I'd expect is what's returned:

(setf *closures*
      (let ((out))
        (dolist (item (list 1 2 3 4) (reverse out))
          (push (lambda () item) out))))
(
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004A12C4F>
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004A12BFF>  
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004A12BAF>
#<COMPILED-LEXICAL-CLOSURE #x302004A12B5F>)
CL-USER> 
(funcall (first *closures*))
1
CL-USER> 
(funcall (second *closures*))
2

CL-USER>

What's going on with the loop macro version?

标签: common-lisp
2条回答
爷的心禁止访问
2楼-- · 2019-01-25 21:43

The name num represents the same binding during the evaluation of LOOP. Maybe you want to write:

(mapcar 'constantly (list 1 2 3 4))

to get what you meant.

查看更多
唯我独甜
3楼-- · 2019-01-25 21:56

num is same variable shared by all lambdas.

Use

(setf *closures*
  (loop for num in (list 1 2 3 4)
        collect (let ((num1 num))
                  (lambda ()
                    num1))))

num1 is fresh variable for each iteration.

As of dolist, "It is implementation-dependent whether dolist establishes a new binding of var on each iteration or whether it establishes a binding for var once at the beginning and then assigns it on any subsequent iterations." (CLHS, Macro DOLIST). So it may work on one implementation and fail on other.

查看更多
登录 后发表回答