The other reason's a bit more in-depth: I think it's oftentimes good practice to use gensym keys, and especially gensym types. It helps prevent libraries from conflicting with each other. When using this technique, an 'obj that doesn't evaluate its keys is pretty useless, but an 'obj that does evaluate its keys is as convenient as (obj a 1 b 2) again, where 'a and 'b are variables holding the gensyms.

What I really think is best is to just have both. Looking at my site-generator code, I see that I defined (objal a 1 b 2) in terms of (tabal 'a 1 'b 2). :-p I think that's generally why I make so many macros that are merely cheap abbreviations of functions, actually; I like calling the function versions directly every once in a while, but I like saving a bit of line noise in the common cases.

I agree with this. Compare it with having naming and anaphoric macros: iflet and aif, rfn and afn, even fn and []; I'd add awhile and whilet to the list even though awhile isn't in official Arc, and fromfile, tofile, and ontofile[1].

In fact, it is a very general practice in (functional?) programming to first write a function that handles something basic, then write another function on top of it that's more pleasant to work with. It really is ubiquitous. It's good because it separates the primitives from the high-level interfaces; if you want to change the primitives, you don't need to concern yourself with the high-level interface, and if you want to change the high-level interface, you don't need to concern yourself with the primitives. And macros give you flexibility, the ability to construct pleasant interfaces in ways you can't do with pure functions; for example, functions must evaluate all their arguments once, from left to right, while macros don't have to.

In this case, I don't think we have a function that directly does what you're asking for (i.e. it operates like obj except it evaluates the keys). I consider this a problem. Note that in Scheme and CL, we can go (vector x y z) instead of crap like (let u (make-vector 3) (= u.0 x u.1 y u.2 z) u). We should likewise have a good table-constructing function even if it isn't strictly necessary as a primitive. At the moment, this is the closest we have:

  (apply listtab (pair:list 'a 1 'b 2))
  =
  (obj a 1 b 2)

  (def ???? args
    (apply listtab pair.args)) 

  (xdef table (lambda args
                (let ((h (make-hash-table 'equal)))
                  (if (pair? args) ((car args) h))
                  h)))
  --ac.scm

  (table 
     [each ip ips
       (= (_ ip) (dedup (map !by (+ (bads ip) (goods ip)))))]))

  (table [each-loaded-item i
           (awhen (and i!dead (check (sitename i!url) banned-sites*))
             (push i (_ it)))]))

  (let u (table)
     (each ip ips
        (= (u ip) ...))
     u)

  (w/table u
     (each ip ips
        (= (u ip) ...)))

So. Options: (1) Have table do alternating key-value stuff; if there's one argument remaining at the end, apply it to the table; then return the table. (2) Have table do alternating key-value stuff; signal an error if there's an odd number of arguments [and Paul Graham can get used to w/table], or (2a) if there's one argument, apply that function to the table, while if there are an odd number ≥3 of arguments, signal an error. (3) Leave table as is, and find a new name for our function.

I think (1) is the best thing to do at the moment, and (2) is probably a better future goal but I would be fine being overruled on that (its single advantage is error-reporting when you accidentally give table an odd number of arguments). I think (2a) is a stupid hack and (3) is bad. As such, here is an implementation of (1). Replace the old '(xdef table ...' definition in ac.scm with the following:

  (xdef table (lambda args
                (let ((h (make-hash-table 'equal)))
                  (define (slave xs)
                    (cond ((null? xs) 'nonce)
                          ((null? (cdr xs))
                           ((car xs) h))
                          (else (hash-table-put! h (car xs) (cadr xs))
                                (slave (cddr xs)))))
                  (slave args)
                  h)))
  ;Usage
  arc> (table)
  #hash()
  arc> (table [= _!a 1 _!b 2])
  #hash((a . 1) (b . 2))
  arc> (table 'a 1 'b 2)
  #hash((a . 1) (b . 2))
  arc> (table 'a 1 'b 2 [= _!b 3 _!c 4])
  #hash((a . 1) (b . 3) (c . 4))

I gave two ways we can already accomplish the behavior somewhat conveniently even if we don't have something sensible like your version of 'table:

  (copy (table) 'a 1 'b 2)
  (listtab:pair:list 'a 1 'b 2)

  (def - args
     (if (no cdr.args)  ;or no:cdr.args with my recent hack[1]
         (* -1 car.args)
         (+ car.args (* -1 (apply + cdr.args)))))

Taking '- as the example: there are a few non-obvious things about it (how it works with more than 2 arguments, or how it works with 1 argument), and people could reasonably end up with different versions of it (I do think the current version is best, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not thinking about the 3-or-more-variable case or for implementing it differently).

This is not a problem if you use '- as a utility in the definition of your library functions and someone else just imports the exported functions of your library and uses them. But if you intend to, say, paste code on the Arc Forum and expect anyone to understand it, or if you want people to be able to download the source code of your library and make improvements to it, then there's a cost to every non-standard definition you use: the reader has to learn it. If the language doesn't provide "map" and "let" and "with" (which are certainly not primitive; in fact, they're defined in arc.arc), then either you don't use those operators (and your code will suffer for it), or you do use them and that's one more thing the reader needs to learn to understand your code. It's not the end of the world, it's not a game-breaker for all projects, but it's one more obstacle to people understanding your code, and if you can get rid of it, then that is all to the good.

That's a good point. ^_^ I don't use Anarki- or Lathe-specific stuff in my examples if I can help it. And I recently mused on[1] the trend for a language to incorporate a lot of features in the standard so as to improve the common ground, so I should have seen that point to begin with.

[1] http://arclanguage.org/item?id=13139

Namespaces solve the problem flawlessly only if you plan for no one to work on or read anyone else's code, ever.

I've sorta been banking on the idea that everyone programs to their own languages of utilities anyway, and that each of those languages can be talked about, accepted as a common topic, promoted by its proponents, and standardized just like language cores can. Certainly CMSes and game engines have those kinds of communities. :)

Multiple independently developed libraries won't always work together well enough to all be clearly canon components of the language's identity, but I think they are more likely to be interoperable than are things designed from the outset to be entirely new languages.[2] So I don't think it's important for the core libraries to be cutting-edge in practice. The core can fade into the background to a degree.

I haven't thought about this stuff very deeply yet, and it's not rooted in a lot of fact, so please feel free to disillusion me. ^^

Lathe already defines (= global.x desired-value) so that it behaves just like (eval `(= ,x (',(fn () desired-value)))). As an everyday expression, global.x behaves like (bound&eval x), which makes (zap _ global.x) a bit more intuitive. This utility works on Arc 3.1, Anarki, Rainbow, and Jarc.

Finally, it's easier to see "symbol-value" written in the language description and use it than to figure out how to use the 'eval method properly. Just look at how complex your definition is; even I, who do see why it's necessary to go ',desired-value instead of ,desired-value in my version [if objs in code worked properly, you could use the former version for a while without noticing it was wrong], I don't see why it's necessary to go (',(fn () desired-value)), and I certainly wouldn't think of it myself. (I still don't believe it's actually necessary, but I won't press the point.) Like the case of (++ (car (pop xs))), this is one of the things a core language is good for: the implementor has considered and avoided all the subtle pitfalls for you. (Actually, implementing it as a primitive with the "namespace-..." functions, there aren't any pitfalls to avoid.)

By the way, I don't know if the core of the language is supposed to be all that axiomatic. It should be clean, certainly, but by its nature it should provide more than minimal axioms. In an essay[1], Paul Graham talks about "the core language—those operators that are neither primitives like car and cdr, nor special-purpose library functions. I mean operators like CL's mapcar, let, remove-if-not, and so on."

At any rate, here's what I think: (a) There will be people who need the equivalents of 'symbol-value and (setf symbol-value)--people who write module libraries or debugging facilities or for whatever reason[2] want to determine names at runtime. (b) This might be enough by itself to warrant placement in the core language, but (c) it is extremely easy, not to mention efficient, to implement these as primitives, while it is subtle, error-prone, and inefficient to implement it with 'eval. Therefore, it should be built into the language. (Technically, if it's a primitive, then it's not part of the core language by the implicit definition from the essay, but whatever you call it, it should be built in.)

I feel better about rambling/ranting when I also produce something tangible, like working code. So, here you go:

  (def symbol-value (x)
    ($.namespace-variable-value $.ac-global-name.x))
  
  (defset symbol-value (x)
    (w/uniq g
      (list `(,g ,x)
            `(symbol-value ,x)
            `(fn (val) (($ namespace-set-variable-value!)
                        ($.ac-global-name ,x)
                        val)
               val))))

[2] I once did the following in a chess program:

  (each p '(r k n)
    (each a '(a b c d e f g h)
      (each n '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8)
        (setf (symbol-function (symb p a n))
              (fn () ...)))))

That's why it's in Lathe, too. ^_^ Since it's there to implement the module system, it's one of only a couple dozen Lathe utilities that isn't in a module, but I find it useful enough that I like it that way.

I don't see why it's necessary to go (',(fn () desired-value))

If you embed a literal vector in an expression (for instance, a tagged value), Racket will evaluate that expression as a copy of the vector. So (let foo (annotate 'a 'b) (= global!x foo) (is global!x foo)) would return nil, which I find frustrating. ^^ (There might be significant mutations-aren't-reflected-in-both-copies gotchas too, but I'm not sure right now.)

If you embed a procedure instead, I don't know if it copies that too, but it doesn't matter 'cause a copy of the procedure should still close over the same bindings. In practice, (let foo (annotate 'a 'b) (= global!x foo) (is global!x foo)) works, so I'm satisfied.

By the way, I don't know if the core of the language is supposed to be all that axiomatic. It should be clean, certainly, but by its nature it should provide more than minimal axioms.

This is a point I just acknowledged but challenged at http://arclanguage.org/item?id=13266. I'm not sure entirely whether and how I (dis)believe it, so a response is welcome. ^_^

it is extremely easy, not to mention efficient, to implement these as primitives, while it is subtle, error-prone, and inefficient to implement it with 'eval.

Sure. Implementing 'symbol-value in terms of 'eval is a pretty big abstraction inversion, and it causes lots of unnecessary consing and compilation at runtime. I'm kinda conviced. ^_^

working code

Incidentally, official Arc allows you to say (assign a.b t) and observe (bound 'a.b). Your 'symbol-value makes it possible to get the value of 'a.b again, whereas there's no non-exploit way to do that with 'eval. ^_^ (You can use the (cdr `(0 . ,_a.b)) bug, lol.)

  (obj 'a 1 'b 2)

Again, as you already pointed out, it boils down to flexibility and consistency. I don't see why I would trade saving one character spot over both 1. being clear & consistent and 2. allowing functions to be passed in:

  (obj (look-up-something) 1 (look-up-something-else) 2)

Using the same heiroglyphics as I posted last time, we can implement 'case entirely as a function:

  ; Hypothetically, this uses the macros 'def, 'whenlet, 'iflet, and
  ; 'do; the functions 'if, 'testify, 'get, and 'apply; the special
  ; forms 'fn, 'zap, and 'quote; and the read macros
  ; #,x for (fn (gs123) (zap gs123 x)), #'x for (fn () x), and
  ; 'x for (quote x).
  
  (def #,case (subject . args)
    (whenlet (first . rest) args
      (iflet (then . rest) rest
        
        ; Check the testified result of (first) against the subject.
        (if (.subject:testify:do.first)
          
          ; Return the result of (then).
          then
          
          #'(apply case-part-2 subject rest))
        
        ; Return the result of (first). It's the last else.
        first)))
  
  ; was (case x y (dosomething))
  (case x #''y dosomething)

Though it reminds me a little on how clojure handles inline anonymous functions, which I really like:

    #{+ %1 %2} ;% being the args, %1 being the first, %2 the second, and so on

(case x #(myfun)(dosomething))

yet still able to:

(case x 'y (dosomething))

All the necessary assumptions are listed in the top comment though (assuming you can intuit my intentions for the 'iflet macro, etc.). It's by no means implemented. ^^

There is at least some precedent of special treatment. In JavaScript's object literals, for example, you can do

  {a : 1, b : 2}

  {'a' : 1, 'b' : 2}

  {:a => 1, :b => 2}

no, I prefer

  arc> (= x 1 y 2 z 3)

What I don't want to do is to this:

  [1]arc> (= a x b y c z)

  [2]arc> (= a 'x b 'y c 'z)

And I currently can do this in arc.

However there's

  (case a x (dosomething))