While the above all explains what macros are and even have cool examples, I think the key difference between a macro and a normal function is that LISP evaluates all the parameters first before calling the function. With a macro it's the reverse, LISP passes the parameters unevaluated to the macro. For example, if you pass (+ 1 2) to a function, the function will receive the value 3. If you pass this to a macro, it will receive a List( + 1 2). This can be used to do all kinds of incredibly useful stuff.

Adding a new control structure, e.g. loop or the deconstruction of a list Measure the time it takes to execute a function passed in. With a function the parameter would be evaluated before control is passed to the function. With the macro, you can splice your code between the start and stop of your stopwatch. The below has the exact same code in a macro and a function and the output is very different. Note: This is a contrived example and the implementation was chosen so that it is identical to better highlight the difference. (defmacro working-timer (b) (let ( (start (get-universal-time)) (result (eval b))) ;; not splicing here to keep stuff simple ((- (get-universal-time) start)))) (defun my-broken-timer (b) (let ( (start (get-universal-time)) (result (eval b))) ;; doesn't even need eval ((- (get-universal-time) start)))) (working-timer (sleep 10)) => 10 (broken-timer (sleep 10)) => 0

您将在这里找到关于lisp宏的全面辩论。

这篇文章的一个有趣的子集:

In most programming languages, syntax is complex. Macros have to take apart program syntax, analyze it, and reassemble it. They do not have access to the program's parser, so they have to depend on heuristics and best-guesses. Sometimes their cut-rate analysis is wrong, and then they break. But Lisp is different. Lisp macros do have access to the parser, and it is a really simple parser. A Lisp macro is not handed a string, but a preparsed piece of source code in the form of a list, because the source of a Lisp program is not a string; it is a list. And Lisp programs are really good at taking apart lists and putting them back together. They do this reliably, every day. Here is an extended example. Lisp has a macro, called "setf", that performs assignment. The simplest form of setf is (setf x whatever) which sets the value of the symbol "x" to the value of the expression "whatever". Lisp also has lists; you can use the "car" and "cdr" functions to get the first element of a list or the rest of the list, respectively. Now what if you want to replace the first element of a list with a new value? There is a standard function for doing that, and incredibly, its name is even worse than "car". It is "rplaca". But you do not have to remember "rplaca", because you can write (setf (car somelist) whatever) to set the car of somelist. What is really happening here is that "setf" is a macro. At compile time, it examines its arguments, and it sees that the first one has the form (car SOMETHING). It says to itself "Oh, the programmer is trying to set the car of somthing. The function to use for that is 'rplaca'." And it quietly rewrites the code in place to: (rplaca somelist whatever)

一行程序回答:

简单的语法=>宏over表达式=>简洁=>抽象=>强大

Lisp宏只是以编程方式编写代码。也就是说，在展开宏之后，您得到的只不过是没有宏的Lisp代码。所以，原则上来说，他们没有什么新成就。

然而，它们与其他编程语言中的宏不同，它们在表达式级别上编写代码，而其他宏在字符串级别上编写代码。这在lisp中是独一无二的，这要感谢他们的括号;或者更准确地说，它们的最小语法多亏了括号。

正如本文中的许多示例所示，以及Paul Graham的On Lisp, Lisp宏可以成为使代码更加简洁的工具。当简洁性达到一定程度时，它为代码提供了新的抽象级别，使其更加简洁。回到第一点，原则上他们没有提供任何新的东西，但这就像说既然纸和铅笔(几乎)组成了图灵机，我们就不需要真正的计算机。

如果你懂点数学，想想为什么函子和自然变换是有用的想法。原则上，它们没有提供任何新东西。然而，通过将它们扩展到较低层次的数学中，你会发现几个简单想法的组合(就范畴理论而言)可能需要10页才能写下来。你喜欢哪一种?

Lisp宏允许您决定何时(如果有的话)对任何部分或表达式求值。举个简单的例子，想想C语言:

expr1 && expr2 && expr3 ...

它说的是:计算expr1，并且，如果它是正确的，计算expr2，等等。

现在试着把这个&&变成一个函数…没错，你不能。像这样调用:

and(expr1, expr2, expr3)

将在产生答案之前评估所有三个表达式，而不管expr1是否为假!

使用lisp宏，你可以编写如下代码:

(defmacro && (expr1 &rest exprs)
    `(if ,expr1                     ;` Warning: I have not tested
         (&& ,@exprs)               ;   this and might be wrong!
         nil))

现在你有一个&&，你可以像函数一样调用它，它不会计算你传递给它的任何表单，除非它们都为真。

要了解这是如何有用的，请进行对比:

(&& (very-cheap-operation)
    (very-expensive-operation)
    (operation-with-serious-side-effects))

and:

and(very_cheap_operation(),
    very_expensive_operation(),
    operation_with_serious_side_effects());

你可以用宏做的其他事情是创建新的关键字和/或迷你语言(例如，查看(loop…)宏)，将其他语言集成到lisp中，例如，你可以编写一个宏，让你这样说:

(setvar *rows* (sql select count(*)
                      from some-table
                     where column1 = "Yes"
                       and column2 like "some%string%")

这还没有涉及到Reader宏。

希望这能有所帮助。

通用Lisp宏本质上扩展了代码的“语法原语”。

例如，在C语言中，switch/case结构只适用于整型，如果你想将它用于浮点数或字符串，你就只能使用嵌套的if语句和显式比较。你也不可能编写一个C宏来为你做这项工作。

但是，由于lisp宏(本质上)是一个lisp程序，它接受代码片段作为输入，并返回代码来替换宏的“调用”，因此您可以尽可能地扩展您的“原语”库，通常最终会得到一个更可读的程序。

要在C中做同样的事情，您必须编写一个自定义预处理器，它会吃掉您的初始(不完全是C)源代码，并吐出C编译器可以理解的东西。这不是一种错误的方法，但它不一定是最简单的。

While the above all explains what macros are and even have cool examples, I think the key difference between a macro and a normal function is that LISP evaluates all the parameters first before calling the function. With a macro it's the reverse, LISP passes the parameters unevaluated to the macro. For example, if you pass (+ 1 2) to a function, the function will receive the value 3. If you pass this to a macro, it will receive a List( + 1 2). This can be used to do all kinds of incredibly useful stuff.

Adding a new control structure, e.g. loop or the deconstruction of a list Measure the time it takes to execute a function passed in. With a function the parameter would be evaluated before control is passed to the function. With the macro, you can splice your code between the start and stop of your stopwatch. The below has the exact same code in a macro and a function and the output is very different. Note: This is a contrived example and the implementation was chosen so that it is identical to better highlight the difference. (defmacro working-timer (b) (let ( (start (get-universal-time)) (result (eval b))) ;; not splicing here to keep stuff simple ((- (get-universal-time) start)))) (defun my-broken-timer (b) (let ( (start (get-universal-time)) (result (eval b))) ;; doesn't even need eval ((- (get-universal-time) start)))) (working-timer (sleep 10)) => 10 (broken-timer (sleep 10)) => 0