The proper use of macros in Lisp
People learning Lisp often try to learn how to write macros by taking an existing function they have written and turning it into a macro. This is a mistake: macros and functions serve different purposes and it is almost never useful to turn functions into macros, or macros into functions.
Let’s say you are learning Common Lisp^{1}, and you have written a fairly obvious factorial function based on the natural mathematical definition: if \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), then
\[ n! = \begin{cases} 1 &n \le 1\\ n \times (n  1)! &n > 1 \end{cases} \]
So this gives you a fairly obvious recursive definition of factorial
:
(defun factorial (n)
(if (<= n 1)
1
(* n (factorial (1 n )))))
And so, you think you want to learn about macros so can you write factorial
as a macro? And you might end up with something like this:
(defmacro factorial (n)
`(if (<= ,n 1)
1
(* ,n (factorial ,(1 n )))))
And this superficially seems as if it works:
> (factorial 10)
3628800
But it doesn’t, in fact, work:
> (let ((x 3))
(factorial x))
Error: In 1 of (x) arguments should be of type number.
Why doesn’t this work and can it be fixed so it does? If it can’t what has gone wrong and how are macros meant to work and what are they useful for?
It can’t be fixed so that it works. trying to rewrite functions as macros is a bad idea, and if you want to learn what is interesting about macros you should not start there.
To understand why this is true you need to understand what macros actually are in Lisp.
What macros are: a first look
A macro is a function whose domain and range is syntax.
Macros are functions (quite explicitly so in CL: you can get at the function of a macro with macrofunction
, and this is something you can happily call the way you would call any other function), but they are functions whose domain and range is syntax. A macro is a function whose argument is a language whose syntax includes the macro and whose value, when called on an instance of that language, is a language whose syntax doesn’t include the macro. It may work recursively: its value may be a language which includes the same macro but in some simpler way, such that the process will terminate at some point.
So the job of macros is to provide a family of extended languages built on some core Lisp which has no remaining macros, only functions and function application, special operators & special forms involving them and literals. One of those languages is the language we call Common Lisp, but the macros written by people serve to extend this language into a multitude of variants.
As an example of this I often write in a language which is like CL, but is extended by the presence of a number of extra constructs, one of which is called ITERATE (but it predates the wellknown one and is not at all the same):
(iterate next ((x 1))
(if (< x 10)
(next (1+ x))
x)
is equivalent to
(labels ((next (x)
(if (< x 10)
(next (1+ x))
x)))
(next 1))
Once upon a time when I first wrote iterate
, it used to manually optimize the recursive calls to jumps in some cases, because the Symbolics I wrote it on didn’t have tailcall elimination. That’s a nonproblem in LispWorks^{2}. Anyone familiar with Scheme will recognise iterate
as named let
, which is where it came from (once, I think, it was known as nlet
).
iterate
is implemented by a function which maps from the language which includes it to a language which doesn’t include it, by mapping the syntax as above.
So compare this with a factorial function: factorial is a function whose domain is natural numbers and whose range is also natural numbers, and it has an obvious recursive definition. Well, natural numbers are part of the syntax of Lisp, but they’re a tiny part of it. So implementing factorial as a macro is, really, a hopeless task. What should
(factorial (+ x y (f z)))
Actually do when considered as a mapping between languages? Assuming you are using the recursive definition of the factorial function then the answer is it can’t map to anything useful at all: a function which implements that recursive definition simply has to be called at run time. The very best you could do would seem to be this:
(defun fact (n)
(if (< n 3)
n
(* n (fact (1 n)))))
(defmacro factorial (expression)
`(fact ,expression))
And that’s not a useful macro (but see below).
So the answer is, again, that macros are functions which map between languages and they are useful where you want a new language: not just the same language with extra functions in it, but a language with new control constructs or something like that. If you are writing functions whose range is something which is not the syntax of a language built on Common Lisp, don’t write macros.
What macros are: a second look
Macroexpansion is compilation.
A function whose domain is one language and whose range is another is a compiler for the language of the domain, especially when that language is somehow richer than the language of the range, which is the case for macros.
But it’s a simplification to say that macros are this function: they’re not, they’re only part of it. The actual function which maps between the two languages is made up of macros and the macroexpander provided by CL itself. The macroexpander is what arranges for the functions defined by macros to be called in the right places, and also it is the thing which arranges for various recursive macros to actually make up a recurscive function. So it’s important to understand that the macroexpander is a critical part of the process: macros on their own only provide part of it.
An example: two versions of a recursive macro
People often say that you should not write recursive macros, but this prohibition on recursive macros is pretty specious: they’re just fine. Consider a language which only has lambda
and doesn’t have let
. Well, we can write a simple version of let
, which I’ll call bind
as a macro: a function which takes this new language and turns it into the more basic one. Here’s that macro:
(defmacro bind ((&rest bindings) &body forms)
`((lambda ,(mapcar #'first bindings) ,@forms)
,@(mapcar #'second bindings)))
And now
> (bind ((x 1) (y 2))
(+ x y))
(bind ((x 1) (y 2)) (+ x y))
> ((lambda (x y) (+ x y)) 1 2)
3
(These example expansions come via use of my tracemacroexpand package, available in a good Lisp near you: see appendix for configuration).
So now we have a language with a binding form which is more convenient than lambda
. But maybe we want to be able to bind sequentially? Well, we can write a let*
version, called bind*
, which looks like this
(defmacro bind* ((&rest bindings) &body forms)
(if (null (rest bindings))
`(bind ,bindings ,@forms)
`(bind (,(first bindings))
(bind* ,(rest bindings) ,@forms))))
And you can see how this works: it checks if there’s just one binding in which case it’s just bind
, and if there’s more than one it peels off the first and then expands into a bind*
form for the rest. And you can see this working (here both bind
and bind*
are being traced):
> (bind* ((x 1) (y (+ x 2)))
(+ x y))
(bind* ((x 1) (y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
> (bind ((x 1)) (bind* ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y)))
(bind ((x 1)) (bind* ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y)))
> ((lambda (x) (bind* ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))) 1)
(bind* ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
> (bind ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
(bind ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
> ((lambda (y) (+ x y)) (+ x 2))
(bind* ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
> (bind ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
(bind ((y (+ x 2))) (+ x y))
> ((lambda (y) (+ x y)) (+ x 2))
4
You can see that, in this implementation, which is LW again, some of the forms are expanded more than once: that’s not uncommon in interpreted code: since macros should generally be functions (so, not have sideeffects) it does not matter that they may be expanded multiple times. Compilation will expand macros and then compile the result, so all the overhead of macroexpansion happend ahead of runtime:
(defun foo (x)
(bind* ((y (1+ x)) (z (1+ y)))
(+ y z)))
foo
> (compile *)
(bind* ((y (1+ x)) (z (1+ y))) (+ y z))
> (bind ((y (1+ x))) (bind* ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z)))
(bind ((y (1+ x))) (bind* ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z)))
> ((lambda (y) (bind* ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z))) (1+ x))
(bind* ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z))
> (bind ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z))
(bind ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z))
> ((lambda (z) (+ y z)) (1+ y))
foo
nil
nil
> (foo 3)
9
There’s nothing wrong with macros like this, which expand into simpler versions of themselves. You just have to make sure that the recursive expansion process is producing successively simpler bits of syntax and has a welldefined termination condition.
Macros like this are often called ‘recursive’ but they’re actually not: the function associated with bind*
does not call itself. What is recursive is the function implicitly defined by the combination of the macro function and the macroexpander: the bind*
function simply expands into a bit of syntax which it knows will cause the macroexpander to call it again.
It is possible to write bind*
such that the macro function itself is recursive:
(defmacro bind* ((&rest bindings) &body forms)
(labels ((expandbind (btail)
(if (null (rest btail))
`(bind ,btail
,@forms)
`(bind (,(first btail))
,(expandbind (rest btail))))))
(expandbind bindings)))
And now compiling foo
again results in this output from tracing macroexpansion:
(bind* ((y (1+ x)) (z (1+ y))) (+ y z))
> (bind ((y (1+ x))) (bind ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z)))
(bind ((y (1+ x))) (bind ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z)))
> ((lambda (y) (bind ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z))) (1+ x))
(bind ((z (1+ y))) (+ y z))
> ((lambda (z) (+ y z)) (1+ y))
You can see that now all the recursion happens within the macro function for bind*
itself: the macroexpander calls bind*
’s macro function just once.
While it’s possible to write macros like this second version of bind*
, it is normally easier to write the first version and to allow the combination of the macroexpander and the macro function to implement the recursive expansion.
Two historical uses for macros
There are two uses for macros — both now historical — where they were used where functions would be more natural.
The first of these is function inlining, where you want to avoid the overhead of calling a small function many times. This overhead was a lot on computers made of cardboard, as all computers were, and also if the stack got too deep the cardboard would tear and this was bad. It makes no real sense to inline a recursive function such as the above factorial
: how would the inlining process terminate? But you could rewrite a factorial function to be explicitly iterative:
(defun factorial (n)
(do* ((k 1 (1+ k))
(f k (* f k)))
((>= k n) f)))
And now, if you have very many calls to factorial
, you wanted to optimise the function call overhead away, and it was 1975, you might write this:
(defmacro factorial (n)
`(let ((nv ,n))
(do* ((k 1 (1+ k))
(f k (* f k)))
((>= k nv) f))))
And this has the effect of replacing (factorial n)
by an expression which will compute the factorial of n
. The cost of that is that (funcall #'factorial n)
is not going to work, and (funcall (macrofunction 'factorial) ...)
is never what you want.
Well, that’s what you did in 1975, because Lisp compilers were made out of the things people found down the sides of sofas. Now it’s no longer 1975 and you just tell the compiler that you want it to inline the function, please:
(declaim (inline factorial))
(defun factorial (n) ...)
and it will do that for you. So this use of macros is now purely historicl.
The second reason for macros where you really want functions is computing things at compile time. Let’s say you have lots of expressions like (factorial 32)
in your code. Well, you could do this:
(defmacro factorial (expression)
(typecase expression
((integer 0)
(factorial/fn expression))
(number
(error "factorial of nonnatural literal ~S" expression))
(t
`(factorial/fn ,expression))))
So the factorial
macro checks to see if its argument is a literal natural number and will compute the factorial of it at macroexpansion time (so, at compile time or just before compile time). So a function like
(defun foo ()
(factorial 32))
will now compile to simply return 263130836933693530167218012160000000
. And, even better, there’s some compiletime error checking: code which is, say, (factorial 12.3)
will cause a compiletime error.
Well, again, this is what you would do if it was 1975. It’s not 1975 any more, and CL has a special tool for dealing with just this problem: compiler macros.
(defun factorial (n)
(do* ((k 1 (1+ k))
(f k (* f k)))
((>= k n) f)))
(definecompilermacro factorial (&whole form n)
(typecase n
((integer 0)
(factorial n))
(number
(error "literal number is not a natural: ~S" n))
(t form)))
Now factorial
is a function and works the way you expect — (funcall #'factoial ...)
will work fine. But the compiler knows that if it comes across (factorial ...)
then it should give the compiler macro for factorial
a chance to say what this expression should actually be. And the compiler macro does an explicit check for the argument being a literal natural number, and if it is computes the factorial at compile time, and the same check for a literal number which is not a natural, and finally just says ’I don’t know, call the function’. Note that the compiler macro itself calls factorial
, but since the argument isn’t a literal there’s no recursive doom.
So this takes care of the other antique use of macros where you would expect functions. And of course you can combine this with inlining and it will all work fine: you can write functions which will handle special cases via compiler macros and will otherwise be inlined.
That leaves macros serving the purpose they are actually useful for: building languages.
Appendix: setting up tracemacroexpand
(usepackage :org.tfeb.hax.tracemacroexpand)
;;; Don't restrict print length or level when tracing
(setf *tracemacroexpandprintlevel* nil
*tracemacroexpandprintlength* nil)
;;; Enable tracing
(tracemacroexpand)
;;; Trace the macros you want to look at ...
(tracemacro ...)
;;; ... and ntrace them
(untracemacro ...)

All the examples in this article are in Common Lisp except where otherwise specified. Other Lisps have similar considerations, although macros in Scheme are not explicitly functions in the way they are in CL. ↩

This article originated as a message on the
lisphug
mailing list for LispWorks users. References to ‘LW’ mean LispWorks, although everything here should apply to any modern CL. (In terms of tail call elimination I would define a CL which does not eliminate tail selfcalls in almost all cases under reasonable optimization settings as premodern: I don’t use such implementations.) ↩