Consider extending Hy's . form to accept calls

[gilch]

Clojure's .. can have method calls. This is especially useful when chaining accessors, for example:

 (.. System (getProperties) (get "os.name"))

expands to ., which can also have calls:

(. (. System (getProperties)) (get "os.name"))

This doesn't appear to work in Hy:

=> (import os)
=> (. os (getcwd))
  File "<input>", line 1, column 7

  (. os (getcwd))
        ^------^
HyTypeError: b'The attribute access DSL only accepts HySymbols and one-item lists, got HyExpression instead'

The error message seems to indicate that this should work, is this a bug? And why restrict it to one item? Clojure doesn't.

This makes chaining of accessors awkward (--spy):

=> (. ((. ((. os getcwd)) isalpha)) __class__ __name__)
os.getcwd().isalpha().__class__.__name__
'bool'

Although the -> macro helps.

=> (-> os (.getcwd) (.isalpha) (. __class__) (. __name__))
os.getcwd().isalpha().__class__.__name__
'bool'

But Hy's . can chain when not using calls

=> (. "" __class__ __name__)
''.__class__.__name__
'str'

This makes it more like Clojure's .., than Clojure's ., which can only take two arguments.

The proposed extended form would look like this:

=> (. os (getcwd) (isalpha) __class__ __name__ [0])
os.getcwd().isalpha().__class__.__name__[0]
'b'

The calls could also accept arguments, as Clojure.

[gilch]

The compiler could be simplified if we keep special forms as close as possible to the Python AST.

I think we should simplify the . special form to just do a single dot access, then make a core .. macro built on top of that that can chain access, including with [] and (). This is also more consistent with Clojure.

[VincentToups]

I just want to bump this with a few other suggestions (if it were up to me, I'd just extend . but .. is a good idea as well).

My suggestions are to just treat string and integer entries in .. as implicitly inside [] so that they work as access:

`(.. x 0 "y")`

Would be the same as

`(.. x [0] ["y"])`

I have a macro that does this (not super cleanly) already if someone wants to play with it. It also expands method calls as originally suggested.

(defmacro _. [&rest forms]
  (defn same-class-as [item exemplar]
    (= (type item)
       (type exemplar)))
  (defn expression? [item]
    (same-class-as item '(a)))
  (defn list? [item]
    (same-class-as item '[a]))
  (defn string-exp? [item]
    (same-class-as item '""))
  (defn symbol-exp? [item]
    (same-class-as item 'x))
  (defn int-exp? [item]
    (same-class-as item '10))
  (cond
    [(= 1 (len forms)) (first forms)]
    [True
     (setv head (first forms))
     (setv first-index (second forms))
     (setv rest-forms (cut forms 2))
     (cond
       [(expression? first-index)
        (setv method (first first-index))
        (setv args (cut first-index 1))
        `(_. ((. ~head ~method) ~@args)
             ~@rest-forms)]
       [(symbol-exp? first-index)
        `(_. (. ~head ~first-index) ~@rest-forms)]
       [(or (string-exp? first-index)
            (int-exp? first-index))
        `(_. (. ~head [~first-index]) ~@rest-forms)]
       [True `(_. (. ~head ~first-index) ~@rest-forms)])]))

[allison-casey]

this seems reasonable and pretty easy to do by changing the definition of the . macro to

-@pattern_macro(".", [FORM, many(SYM | brackets(FORM))])
+@pattern_macro(".", [FORM, many(FORM)])
 def compile_attribute_access(compiler, expr, name, invocant, keys):
    ret = compiler.compile(invocant)

    for attr in keys:
        if isinstance(attr, Symbol):
            ret += asty.Attribute(attr,
                                  value=ret.force_expr,
                                  attr=mangle(attr),
                                  ctx=ast.Load())

-        else: # attr is a hy List
+        elif isinstance(attr, List):
             compiled_attr = compiler.compile(attr[0])
             ret = compiled_attr + ret + asty.Subscript(
                 attr,
                 value=ret.force_expr,
                 slice=ast.Index(value=compiled_attr.force_expr),
                 ctx=ast.Load())
+        elif isinstance(attr, Expression):
+            root, *args = attr
+            func = asty.Attribute(
+                root, value=ret.force_expr, attr=mangle(root), ctx=ast.Load()
+            )
+
+            args, funcret, keywords = compiler._compile_collect(args, with_kwargs=True)
+            ret += (
+                funcret
+                + func
+                + asty.Call(expr, func=func, args=args, keywords=keywords)
+            )
+        else:
+            raise ValueError("Bad member access")
 
     return ret

in my tests this seems to work in all the ways i expect it too. Does anyone see any reason this shouldn't be PR'd?

[Kodiologist]

I would extend the pattern, rather than generalizing it to FORM and then raising an error in an if-else ladder in the body of the macro. However, I'm not entirely clear what the intended semantics are, so some tests would be helpful.