Vernacular is a module system for languages embedded in Common Lisp. It is inspired by Racket.
Vernacular enables embedding languages where modules are lexical and are scoped to files. This is a scenario for which ASDF is useless, but which applies to almost all languages one might actually want to embed. Vernacular fills this gap.
Vernacular builds on Overlord.
Here are some example language embeddings:
Vernacular enables languages as libraries. Vernacular languages have several important properties:
Languages are first-class. Modules live in their own files, just like Lisp code, and are compiled into FASLs, just like Lisp code.
Languages can use any syntax. Unlike embedded DSLs, which are limited by what can be done with reader macros, full languages can use any parser they like.
Languages are interoperable. Lisp code can import modules written in embedded languages, and modules written in embedded languages can import other modules in the same language – or even modules written in other languages.
Languages are reusable. Support for meta-languages allows different languages to share the same parser or for the same language to be written in more than one syntax.
A Vernacular module is a file in a language. The language can be specified in two ways.
The language can be specified as part of the file itself, with a special first line. The special first line looks like this:
#lang my-lang ....
This is called (following Racket) a hash lang.
The language of a module can also be specified as part of the import syntax. This is important: since the language is not an inherent part of the file, the same file can be loaded as a module in more than one language. And each language-file combination gets its own, completely independent module.
In Vernacular, a language is just a package. The package exports a
reader and an expander. The symbol named
read-module is the package
reader. The symbol named
module-progn is the package expander.
The important thing: when the package’s reader is called, that same
package is also bound as the current package. It is then the
responsibility of the reader to make sure any symbols it reads in, or
inserts into the expansion, are interned in the correct package.
(There is a shortcut for this,
(There is one exception to the rule of language=package. If another
package exists, having the same name, but ending in
-user, and this
other package inherits from the original package, then this user
package is the package that is made current while reading (and
expanding). E.g. a file beginning with
#lang cl would actually be
read in using the
cl-user package, not the
cl package itself.)
Note that the reader is responsible for returning a single form, which
is the module. That is, the form returned by the package reader should
already be wrapped in the appropriate
module-progn. The exported
module-progn is only looked up when the language is
being used as the expander for a meta-language.
(Meta-languages are for language authors who want to reuse an existing syntax.)
Any package can be used as a hash lang, as long as its name is limited
to certain characters (
[a-zA-Z0-9/_+-]). Of course this name can
also be a nickname.
(Note that resolution of package names is absolute, even in a Lisp implementation that supports package-local nicknames.)
It is recommended, although not required, that your language package
vernacular/cl rather than from
cl. The result is the
same, except that
vernacular/cl globally shadows Common Lisp’s binding
and definition forms so they can, in turn, be shadowed locally by
The package must at least export a binding for one of
for direct use, or
module-progn, for use with a meta-language.
Preferably, it would export both.
If the syntax of your language makes it possible to determine exports
statically, you should also define and export
your language defines
static-exports, then Vernacular can statically
check the validity of import forms.
(This also has implications for phasing. If your language doesn’t
static-exports binding, then the only way Vernacular can
expand a request to import all bindings from a module is by loading
that module at compile time to get a list of its exports.)
Imports and exports
What Vernacular imports and exports are not values, but bindings. Bindings are indirect (and immutable): they refer to the module, rather than to the value of the export. This allows for modules to be reloaded at any time. It is even possible to unload modules.
Note that exports in Vernacular, with one exception, form a single namespace. This is in order to keep the notation for imports simple. Importing from a language with multiple namespaces into a language with multiple namespaces would create a Cartesian product problem.
The one exception is macros. A single namespace for run-time bindings and macros would not make sense in Vernacular where modules can be dynamically reloaded.
Finally, Vernacular allows local imports: imports that only take effect
within the body of a
Most of the time, your language’s package expander will return a
(vernacular:simple-module (#'moo) (defun make-moo (o) (concat "M" (make-string o :initial-element #\o))) (defun moo (&optional (o 2)) (print (make-moo o))))
This exports a single name,
moo, bound to a function that says “Moo”
with a varying amount of “oo”.
What makes simple modules simple is that they cannot export macros. If you do want to export macros, you need something more complex (see below).
simple-module form builds on the support for internal
definitions in Serapeum (the
local macro), and shares its
limitations with regard to the precedence of macro definitions. Macro
definitions must precede all function or variable definitions, and all
To be clear: you can define macros in a simple module (with
defmacro), you just can’t export them.
Vernacular’s syntax for import and export supports macros.
The ability to export macros from modules is not useful in itself. It only becomes useful in the presence of certain forms of macro hygiene. After experimenting with different ways to do this, I have concluded that the correct thing to do, if you want your language to be able to export macros, is to embed a hygiene-compatible language in Lisp, and then compile your language to that.
I’m not being flippant. Embedding a hygiene-compatible language in CL is not just doable; it’s already been done. As a proof of concept, I have converted Pascal’s Costanza’s hygiene-compatible implementation of ISLISP in Common Lisp (“Core Lisp”) to work with Vernacular’s module system. This version of Core Lisp lives in its own repository.
How macro exports are supported is one aspect of the Vernacular module system that is very likely to change.