2013-06-24: Cascading Switches in Racket

The source for this post is online at 2013-06-24-cas-cad-e.rkt.

A few years ago, Shriram Krishnamurthi sent a message to the Racket user mailing list about a little macro problem. The goal was to create a switch with "fall-through", like in C and some other languages. I enjoyed my solution, so I will present it here.

-

Here’s the specification of the problem:

case Define aconstruct syntactically just like that of Racket. In terms of semantics:

each branch automatically falls through to the next,

the last one returns its answer since it has no next clause, and

any branch can contain (break <expr>), which evaluates <expr> and returns its value as that of the entire case.

For instance, if we have three cases where the second breaks:

( define printed "" ) ( define ( cas v ) ( set! printed "" ) ( cas-cad-e v [ ( 1 ) ( set! printed ( string-append printed "1" ) ) ] [ ( 2 ) ( set! printed ( string-append printed "2" ) ) ( break 2 ) ] [ ( 3 ) 3 ] ) )

Then, we can observe the effect of the first in the second, but when we start on the third case, then the previous cases are invisible:

( check-equal? ( cas 1 ) 2 ) ( check-equal? printed "12" ) ( check-equal? ( cas 2 ) 2 ) ( check-equal? printed "2" ) ( check-equal? ( cas 3 ) 3 ) ( check-equal? printed "" ) ( check-equal? ( cas 4 ) ( void ) ) ( check-equal? printed "" )

We’re going to generate code like:

( define printed "" ) ( define ( cas v ) ( set! printed "" ) ( let/ec escape ( let* ( [ third-case ( λ ( ) 3 ) ] [ second-case ( λ ( ) ( set! printed ( string-append printed "2" ) ) ( escape 2 ) ( third-case ) ) ] [ first-case ( λ ( ) ( set! printed ( string-append printed "1" ) ) ( second-case ) ) ] ) ( case v [ ( 1 ) ( first-case ) ] [ ( 2 ) ( second-case ) ] [ ( 3 ) ( third-case ) ] ) ) ) )

The idea behind this code generation is that:

Breaking is handled with an escape continuation that break is rewritten to.

The case logic is handled exactly by the existing case macro.

Each case is turned into one function, because we have delayed code evaluation.

Each case explicitly calls the next case.

The case functions are defined in the reverse order from the way they are defined, facilitating the use of let* rather than letrec.

The basic structure of this macro is simple, given the example expansion and modulo the classic use of syntax parameters:

There’s a convenient function to generate a list of fresh identifiers for each of a list of syntaxes called generate-temporaries:

But, since we need to put them into the output in the opposite order, we reverse that list:

Similarly, we must reverse the list of function bodies (not reverse their bodies, but just reverse the order the bodies are seen in):

Finally, the most complicated part is finding out the next function to call. We take the identifiers in the forward order, but drop the first one, because we don’t want to create a lot of infinite loops. This creates the problem of the last case not having a next, so we add one at the end. Rather than adding void as the thing to call, we instead have each of the next ids be a list, so the last one is just empty.

And that’s it!

I like this macro because the expansion is so beautiful: it doesn’t use complicated features like mutation or recursion and is thus easy to parse and understand.

1 Yo! It’s almost time to go!

But first let’s remember what we learned today!

Everything you miss about C can be recovered in Racket with a few short macros, including the bizarre behavior of .

If you’d like to run this exact code at home, you should put it in this order: