Grokking the ‘call’ construct
While implementing the MUPL (Made Up Programming Language) for a programming languages course I found call to be interesting. I’ll underline some of the implementation here.
this of a function call and here we’ll do a similar thing, but it seems more fun because you’re also using lexical scope and closure environment within the call implementation. It’s easier if I just show some of the code.
define (eval-exp e) (;; start with an empty list environment (eval-under-env e '()))
This is what’s called from within our language. Each expression has an environment which in this case is just a list of pairs of expressions. Briefly, when you create a struct you get helper function for checking an expression and the equivalent of getters. ex.
(struct add (e1 e2)) will allow you to test any expression with
(add? e) and get
(+ add-e1 add-e2) etc. These are the structs we care about here:
(struct call (funexp actual) #:transparent)(struct closure (env fun) #:transparent)
eval within a specific environment
The fun comes with defining
eval-under-env. This is the given spec for implementing call.
A call evaluates its first and second subexpressions to values. If the first is not a closure, it is an error. Else, it evaluates the closure’s function’s body in the closure’s environment extended to map the function’s name to the closure (unless the name field is #f) and the functions argument to the result of the second subexpression.
define (eval-under-env e env) (cond [(var? e) (envlookup env (var-string e))] (;; ...more expression checking [(call? e)
eval-under-env is a large
cond checking the given expression (
e) within the given environment (
env). The following is how we evaluate
let ([v1 (eval-under-env (call-funexp e) env)] ( [v2 (eval-under-env (call-actual e) env)])if (closure? v1) ;; make sure first expression is a closure (let* [carg1 (closure-fun v1)] ( [carg2 (closure-env v1)]cons (fun-nameopt carg1) v1)] [cname (cons (fun-formal carg2) v2)]) [cfunc (
let* is basically allowing contiguous use of bindings within the same let binding (ex.
carg1 is used within the
cname binding). After the args are set to cname and cfunc respectively, the function is evaluated within the specified closure-env (
carg2) but we have to construct that environment.
(eval-under-env (fun-body carg1)if (eq? (car cname) #f) (cons cfunc carg2) (cons cfunc (cons cname carg2)))) (
I’ve posted more of the MUPL implementation here if seeing the full bit of code would be helpful.