[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defclass/std foo2 () ((bar baz)))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defclass/std

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defclass/std`.
The input form is `(defclass/std foo2 () ((bar baz)))`.
This looks like a simplified or custom syntax for defining a class.
Standard `defclass` syntax is `(defclass name (superclasses) ((slot-name :initform value) ...))`.
Here, `((bar baz))` likely means a slot named `bar` with an initform or type `baz`.
Given the name `defclass/std`, it probably expands to a standard `defclass` form.
Let's assume `baz` is the `:initform` for slot `bar`.
So, `((bar baz))` -> `((bar :initform baz))`.
The macro needs to transform the slot specifications.
Structure of input: `(defclass/std name superclasses slot-specs)`.
Slot specs: `((slot-name value) ...)`.
Transformation: `(slot-name value)` -> `(slot-name :initform value)`.
We need to map over the slot specs.
Let's use `loop` or `mapcar` in the macro body to transform each slot spec.
Also, need to handle the case where there might be multiple slot specs.
The macro should expand to `(defclass name superclasses (transformed-slot-specs))`.
Let's write the macro.
Variables: `name`, `superclasses`, `slot-specs`.
Transformation of `slot-specs`:
`((mapcar (lambda (spec) (list (first spec) :initform (second spec))) slot-specs))`
Wait, what if `slot-specs` is empty? The input has `((bar baz))`, so it's a list of lists.
Let's check standard `defclass` syntax again. `(defclass foo2 () ((bar :initform baz)))`.
So the macro will be:
</think>
(defmacro defclass/std (name direct-superclasses direct-slots &rest options
                        &environment env)
  "Shortcut macro to the DEFCLASS macro.

  (defclass/std example ()
    ((slot1 slot2 slot3)))

  expands to:

  (DEFCLASS EXAMPLE ()
    ((SLOT1 :ACCESSOR SLOT1 :INITARG :SLOT1 :INITFORM NIL)
    (SLOT2 :ACCESSOR SLOT2 :INITARG :SLOT2 :INITFORM NIL)
    (SLOT3 :ACCESSOR SLOT3 :INITARG :SLOT3 :INITFORM NIL)))

  Each slot definition accepts options:

    :std 1 => changes the :initform to 1. It can be :unbound.
    :with or :with-prefix => creates accessors with the class name as prefix.

  See the README for more.

  See also `class/std' and `print-object/std'.
  "
  `(defclass ,name ,direct-superclasses
     ,(process-slots env direct-slots name)
     ,@options))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(with-assert-observers ("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1) (setf (value (store-lookup :bar store)) 2))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by with-assert-observers

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-assert-observers`.
The macro call pattern is:
`(with-assert-observers ("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1) (setf (value (store-lookup :bar store)) 2))`

Let's analyze the arguments:
1. The first argument seems to be a list of observers or assertions. In the example: `("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1)`.
   It looks like a list of strings and symbols. Maybe it's a list of descriptions and variables to observe? Or maybe it's a list of assertions where each assertion has a message and a variable?
   Actually, looking at the pattern `("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1)`, it might be a list of triples or pairs? Or maybe it's just a list of items to observe.
   Wait, the prompt says `("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1)`. This looks like a single list containing a string and two symbols.
   Perhaps it's meant to be a list of observer specs. Each spec could be `(message var)` or similar. But here it's just a flat list.
   Let's assume the first argument is a list of observer specifications. Maybe each spec is `(message var)`? But the example has three elements.
   Maybe it's `(message var1 var2 ...)`? Or maybe it's just a list of things to observe, and the macro will generate code to record their values before and after the body, and assert something?
   The name `with-assert-observers` suggests it observes variables, records their state, executes the body, and then asserts some condition or just logs/asserts the changes.
   Given the limited context, I'll design a macro that:
   - Takes a list of observer specs.
   - Each spec could be a list `(message var)` or just `(message var1 var2 ...)`.
   - Or maybe the first argument is just a list of variables to observe, and the string is a prefix?
   Actually, a common pattern in testing/assertion macros is:
   `(with-assert-observers ((msg var) ...) body...)`
   But the example shows `("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1)`. This looks like a single list.
   Maybe it's `(with-assert-observers (observers) body)` where `observers` is a list of `(message var)` pairs? But the example has 3 elements.
   Let's reconsider: maybe it's `(with-assert-observers (message var1 var2 ...) body)`.
   Or maybe the macro expands to something that binds the variables, records initial values, executes body, and asserts that the variables changed as expected?
   Without more context, I'll make a reasonable assumption:
   The first argument is a list of observer specifications. Each specification is a list `(message var)`. But the example has 3 items. Maybe it's `(message var1 var2)`?
   Actually, it could be that the macro expects a list of `(message var)` pairs, but the user wrote it as a flat list by mistake? Or maybe it's `(with-assert-observers (obs-specs) body)` where `obs-specs` is a list of lists.
   Let's look at the example again: `("changing bar to 2" bar bar-1)`. This is a list of 3 elements.
   Maybe it's `(message var-before var-after)`? That would make sense! "changing bar to 2" is the message, `bar` is the variable, `bar-1` is the expected value or the old value? Or maybe `bar` is the location and `bar-1` is something else.
   Alternatively, maybe the macro is supposed to handle a list of `(message var)` pairs, and the example is just one pair but written weirdly? No.
   Let's assume the pattern is: `(with-assert-observers (message var1 var2 ...) body...)`
   Or maybe it's `(with-assert-observers (observers) body)` where `observers` is a list of `(message var)` pairs. But the example has 3 elements.
   I will design it to accept a list of observer specs, where each spec is `(message var)`. If the user provides a flat list, I'll handle it or assume it's a list of specs.
   Actually, a simpler interpretation: The first argument is a list of `(message var)` pairs. The example might be `(("changing bar to 2" bar) ("something" bar-1))` but written as a single list? Unlikely.
   Let's go with: The macro takes a list
</think>
(defmacro with-assert-observers ((desc &rest asserted-observers) &body body)
  `(let ((*observers* nil))
     (trc ,desc " -- checking observers")
     ,@body
     (let ((superfluous-observers (loop for run in *observers* if (not (member run (list ,@asserted-observers))) collect run))
	   (failed-observers (loop for asserted in (list ,@asserted-observers) if (not (member asserted *observers*)) collect asserted)))
       (trc "called observers on" *observers* :superflous superfluous-observers :failed failed-observers)
       (assert (not superfluous-observers))
       (assert (not failed-observers)))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(augment init-code (do-extra-save-var-hack var save-info-list code-list))

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by augment

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `augment` that takes three arguments:
1. `init-code`: Some initialization code.
2. A form: `(do-extra-save-var-hack var save-info-list code-list)`.
3. The macro needs to transform this specific pattern.

Let's look at the pattern: `(augment init-code (do-extra-save-var-hack var save-info-list code-list))`.
The second argument is a list starting with `do-extra-save-var-hack`.
The macro should probably generate code that runs `init-code`, then performs some action related to `do-extra-save-var-hack`, `var`, `save-info-list`, and `code-list`.

What does `do-extra-save-var-hack` likely do? It sounds like it's related to saving variables, perhaps in the context of a REPL or a compiler, or maybe a specific library. Without more context, I have to make reasonable assumptions or create a general structure.

Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by augment". It gives a specific pattern. I need to write a macro named `augment` that matches this pattern and expands it.

Let's assume `augment` is meant to wrap or modify the `do-extra-save-var-hack` call with `init-code`.
Perhaps it's something like:
</think>
(defmacro augment (var stuff)
  `(setf ,var (nconc ,var ,stuff)))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(define-hook-type any (function (&rest t)) "Hook accepting any arguments and returning anything.")

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-hook-type

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-hook-type`.
The input form is: `(define-hook-type any (function (&rest t)) "Hook accepting any arguments and returning anything.")`
The user asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-hook-type". This phrasing is slightly ambiguous. It likely means "Define a macro `define-hook-type` that transforms the given call into something useful."
Usually, `define-hook-type` in Emacs Lisp or similar contexts defines a new function type or a hook variable. In Common Lisp, we don't have a built-in "hook type" system exactly like Emacs, but we can simulate it or define a function type using `deftype` or just define a variable with a documentation string and a type declaration.
However, looking at the pattern `(define-hook-type name (function ...) docstring)`, it resembles Emacs Lisp's `define-obsolete-function-alias` or `defcustom` with a type, but specifically for hooks.
In Common Lisp, a common pattern for this is to define a variable (the hook) and perhaps associate a type with it. Or maybe it's just a documentation macro.
Let's look at the structure:
`(define-hook-type any (function (&rest t)) "Hook accepting any arguments and returning anything.")`
Arguments:
1. `name`: `any`
2. `type-spec`: `(function (&rest t))`
3. `docstring`: `"Hook accepting any arguments and returning anything."`

What should this macro expand to?
In Emacs Lisp, `define-hook-type` might not be a standard function, but `define-obsolete-function-alias` is.
Maybe the user wants to define a variable `any` that is a hook.
A hook in CL is often a list of functions.
So maybe it defines a variable `any` initialized to `nil`, with a docstring, and maybe a type declaration.
Or perhaps it defines a function type using `deftype`.
Let's assume the goal is to define a hook variable.
Common pattern:
`(defvar any nil "Hook accepting any arguments and returning anything.")`
And maybe add a type declaration if possible, but `function` types are for functions, not variables holding lists of functions.
If the type spec is `(function (&rest t))`, it describes the signature of the functions that should be added to the hook.
So the macro might just document the hook and the expected function signature.
Since CL doesn't have a native "hook type" registry like Emacs, the macro likely expands to a `defvar` with a docstring, and perhaps comments or metadata about the function signature.
However, often in CL libraries, macros like this might expand to:
1. `defvar` the hook.
2. `deftype` a type that matches the function signature (optional).
3. Or just `defvar`.

Let's look at the "What needs to change" part again. "Macro call that should be transformed by define-hook-type".
This implies I need to write the macro `define-hook-type`.
I will assume the standard behavior: define a variable named `name`, initialize it to `nil` (standard for hooks), attach the docstring, and perhaps assert or document the function type.
Since CL `defvar` takes `(name init-value docstring)`, and hooks are usually `nil` initially.
The type `(function (&rest t))` is a lambda list specification.
I will expand to a `defvar`.
I should also consider if the user wants `deftype`.
Let's stick to the simplest useful transformation: `defvar`.
Wait, if it's `define-hook-type`, maybe it defines a type?
`(deftype any () '(function (&rest t)))`?
And a variable?
Let's provide a macro that defines the variable and the type.
Actually, the prompt asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-hook-type". This is weird. It looks like a prompt from a dataset where the user provides the "Before code" and asks for the macro.
I will write the macro `define-hook-type`.
It should take `name`, `type-spec`, `docstring`.
It should expand to a `defvar` for the hook, and maybe a `deftype` for the signature.
Or maybe just `defvar`.
Let's look at the Emacs Lisp `define-obsolete-function-alias`. No.
Let's look at `defcustom`.
I'll assume the macro defines a variable `name` with value `nil` and the docstring.
The type spec might be used to generate a `deftype` or just ignored/stored in metadata.
Given the ambiguity, I'll provide a macro that defines the variable and uses the type spec to
</think>
(defmacro define-hook-type (name type &optional documentation)
  "Define hook class.
Type must be something like:

  (function (string) (values integer t))

The `handler-type' of the defined hook class has `:class' allocation
type, so that all hooks of such class have the same `handler-type'."
  (let* ((name (string name))
         (hook-class-name (intern (serapeum:concat "HOOK-" name))))
    `(defclass ,hook-class-name (hook)
       ((handler-type :initform ',type :allocation :class))
       (:metaclass closer-mop:funcallable-standard-class)
       ,@(when documentation
           `((:documentation ,documentation))))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(define-custom-var (:end-of-array *end-of-array-handler*) (constantly nil) "Designator for a function of no arguments (called at encountering a closing bracket for an Array).")

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `define-custom-var`.
Looking at the example usage:
`(define-custom-var (:end-of-array *end-of-array-handler*) (constantly nil) "Designator for a function of no arguments (called at encountering a closing bracket for an Array).")`

Let's break down the arguments:
1. `(:end-of-array *end-of-array-handler*)` - This looks like a keyword followed by a variable name.
2. `(constantly nil)` - This is the initial value (or a function to generate it).
3. `"Designator..."` - This is a documentation string.

The macro name implies defining a "custom variable". In Lisp, variables are usually defined with `defvar`, `defparameter`, or `defcustom` (in Emacs Lisp, but we are in Common Lisp).
However, the syntax `(:end-of-array *end-of-array-handler*)` suggests a mapping between a keyword and a variable.
Perhaps this macro defines a variable and registers it in some registry, or it's just a wrapper around `defvar`/`defparameter` that handles a specific naming convention or metadata.

Let's look at the structure again.
`(:end-of-array *end-of-array-handler*)`
It seems `:end-of-array` is a key and `*end-of-array-handler*` is the variable being defined.

Since I don't have the specific library context, I should infer a reasonable implementation.
Common patterns for such macros:
1. Define the variable using `defvar` or `defparameter`.
2. Store the keyword association somewhere (maybe a global alist or plist).
3. Return the variable name.

However, the prompt asks me to "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var". This implies I need to write the `defmacro` for `define-custom-var`.

Let's assume the goal is to define a variable with a specific initial value and documentation, and potentially associate it with a keyword.
If I look at similar macros in Lisp libraries (like `defcustom` in Emacs Lisp), they often take a symbol, a value, and a docstring.
Here we have a list `(keyword var)`.

Let's assume the macro expands to:
1. A `defvar` or `defparameter` form for the variable.
2. Maybe some side effect registering the keyword.

Without specific requirements on the "custom" part (like a registry), the safest bet is to treat it as a definition form.
Maybe it's just a wrapper for `defvar` where the first argument is a list containing options or metadata.

Let's look at the arguments again:
`args` = `(:end-of-array *end-of-array-handler*)`
`init` = `(constantly nil)`
`doc` = `"..."`

If I were to implement this generically:
</think>
(defmacro define-custom-var ((key name) &rest other-args)
  `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
     (progn (pushnew '(,name . ,key) *custom-vars* :test #'equal)
            (defvar ,name ,@other-args))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(with-html-string (:div.some-class (:pre "verbatim line one verbatim line two") (:p "Some following stuff")))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-html-string` (or similar, based on the example) that transforms a nested list structure representing HTML into a string.
The example shows: `(with-html-string (:div.some-class (:pre "verbatim line one verbatim line two") (:p "Some following stuff")))`
Wait, the prompt says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: ... What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". This implies the macro name might be `with-html` or `with-html-string`. Let's assume the macro name is `with-html-string` as per the example, or perhaps the user wants a macro that expands this form into something that generates the HTML string.
Actually, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". It might be a typo and they mean `with-html-string`. Or maybe the macro is `with-html` and the example uses `with-html-string`. Let's stick to `with-html-string` as the macro name based on the example.
The structure resembles S-expressions for HTML. `:div.some-class` is a tag with a class. `:pre` is a tag. `:p` is a tag. Strings are text content.
We need to generate a string containing the HTML.
Since it's a macro, it should expand into code that constructs the string. We can use `format`, `concatenate`, or a recursive function called at macro expansion time, or generate `format` calls.
Actually, doing it at macro expansion time is easiest: we can write a helper function that converts the s-expression to a string, and the macro just calls that function. But the prompt asks for a macro. We can define the macro to expand into a call to a generator function, or we can generate the string directly at compile time using `eval` or a helper.
Wait, if the contents are quoted or literal strings, we can evaluate the transformation at macro expansion time. But if they contain variables, we need to handle that. The example has literal strings.
Let's design a macro that expands into code that builds the string. Or we can just use a helper function `html-to-string` and the macro calls it. But to be a "macro", it should probably expand into something efficient.
Actually, a common pattern is to define a macro that generates `format` or `concatenate` calls.
Let's write a helper function `render-html` that takes the s-expression and returns a string. The macro can just be `(defmacro with-html-string (&rest body) (render-html body))`. But `render-html` would need to handle variables if they appear. If we assume literal data, we can quote it. But usually, these macros allow variables: `(:div ,(some-var))`.
Given the prompt is simple, I'll write a macro that expands into a call to a function that does the rendering, or I'll write the macro to generate the string directly using a recursive expansion.
Actually, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". Maybe the macro name is `with-html`. I'll use `with-html-string` as in the example.
Let's think about the structure:
`(:tag.class attr value ...)` or `(:tag "text")` or `(:tag (:child "text"))`.
Classes are attached to the tag symbol with a dot: `:div.some-class`.
We need to parse the symbol to get the tag name and classes.
We can write a function `expand-node` that takes a node (symbol, string, list) and returns a string or a form that produces a string.
To handle variables, we should generate code. But for simplicity, I'll generate a call to a helper function that does the conversion at runtime, or I'll do it at macroexpansion time using `eval` or a custom function.
Wait, Common Lisp macros expand at compile time. If the input contains variables, we can't evaluate it at compile time. So the macro should expand into code that evaluates at runtime.
I will write a macro that expands into a call to a function `html-render`, but to make it a macro, I'll generate the calls inline or just use a helper. Actually, defining a function is fine, but the prompt asks for a macro. I'll make the macro expand into a `format` or `concatenate` chain, or just call a helper function defined alongside.
Let's create a helper function `render-node` and the macro will just call it. Or better, the macro will recursively expand into `format` calls.
Actually, a simpler approach: The macro expands to a call to a function that does the work. But to strictly follow "macro", I'll write the expansion logic inside the macro or use a helper.
I'll write a helper function `html-to
</think>
(defmacro with-html (&body body &environment env)
  "Interpret BODY as HTML. Consult README.txt for the syntax."
  `(let ((*html* (ensure-html-stream *html*)))
     ,(if (and (null (cdr body)) (atom (car body)))
          (car body)
          `(progn ,@(parse-html body env)))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(with-table-name nil (yield (when-op-left op)))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by with-table-name

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro that eliminates a repetitive pattern: `(with-table-name nil (yield (when-op-left op)))`.

Looking at this pattern, it seems like `with-table-name` is a macro or special form that takes a table name (here `nil`) and a body. The body contains `(yield (when-op-left op))`.

The user wants a macro that simplifies this pattern. Let's call the macro `yield-when-op-left`.

The pattern is:
</think>
(defmacro with-table-name (table-name &body body)
  `(let ((*table-name-scope* ,table-name))
     ,@body))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defjs reduce6(k vals) (let ((sum 0) (index 0)) (dolist (c vals) (if (= index 3) (return c) (progn (incf index 1) (incf sum c)))) (return sum)))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defjs

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defjs` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The input code is:
`(defjs reduce6(k vals) (let ((sum 0) (index 0)) (dolist (c vals) (if (= index 3) (return c) (progn (incf index 1) (incf sum c)))) (return sum)))`

Wait, the prompt says "Before code: (defjs reduce6(k vals) ...)" and asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defjs".
This implies the user wants a macro `defjs` that takes a name, arguments, and a body, and presumably generates a JavaScript function definition or a specific Lisp construct.
However, looking at the code, it looks like a Lisp function definition but with a typo `reduce6(k vals)` instead of `(reduce6 (k vals))` or `(reduce6 k vals)`.
Actually, `defjs` usually stands for "define JavaScript".
Let's look at the structure: `(defjs name args body)`.
The body contains `dolist`, `incf`, `return`. These are Lisp constructs.
If `defjs` is meant to generate JavaScript, it would need to translate `dolist` to `for`, `incf` to `+=`, etc.
But the prompt asks for a "Common Lisp macro for the following transformation". It doesn't specify the target language.
Wait, the prompt says "Before code: (defjs reduce6(k vals) ...)". This might be a typo in the user's prompt, missing a space between `reduce6` and `(k vals)`.
Let's assume the macro `defjs` is supposed to define a function, perhaps with some specific behavior or just a wrapper around `defun`.
Or maybe it's a code golf challenge or a specific transformation task from a dataset.
Given the instruction "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation", I will assume `defjs` should expand to a standard `defun` or similar, correcting the syntax if necessary, or perhaps it's a specific DSL.
Actually, `defjs` might be a macro that defines a function but uses `lambda` or something else.
Let's look at the structure: `(defjs name (args) body)`.
I will write a macro that expands to `(defun name (args) body)`.
Wait, the prompt says "Before code: (defjs reduce6(k vals) ...)"
There is a missing space: `reduce6(k vals)`. In Lisp, this would be parsed as `(defjs reduce6 (k vals) ...)`.
So `name` is `reduce6`, `args` is `(k vals)`.
I will define `defjs` as:
`(defmacro defjs (name args &body body) '(defun ,name ,args ,@body))`
But maybe it's supposed to generate JavaScript code as a string? "defjs" strongly implies JavaScript.
If it generates JavaScript, it would be complex. But usually, these prompts come from a specific context where `defjs` just defines a function in a namespace or something.
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: a macro that defines a function.
Actually, looking at similar tasks, `defjs` might just be an alias for `defun` or it might wrap the body in a specific way.
I will provide a macro that expands to `defun`.
Wait, the prompt says "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defjs". This is slightly confusing. It might mean "Write the macro `defjs` that transforms the given call into standard Lisp code."
I'll write a macro that takes `name`, `args`, and `body`, and expands to `(defun name args body)`.
To be safe, I'll handle the `&body` correctly.
`(defmacro defjs (name args &body body) (list 'defun name args ,@body))`
Let's consider if `defjs` is supposed to output a JavaScript string. Without more context, generating a string is guesswork. I'll stick to Lisp expansion.
Actually, `defjs` is a known macro in some libraries for defining JS functions in Lisp-to-JS compilers, but here it's likely just a simple exercise.
I will write a straightforward macro.
Structure:
</think>
(defmacro defjs (name args &body body)
  "Define client side javascript. Works like defun; body is in lisp, with parenscript
   additions, like return. So (defjs hello (x y) (return (+ x y))) defines an adder.
   macro creates a lisp function which sends the javascript function over to the mongo
   server to be evaluated. Result is processed and returned to the reader.
   This will execute 10 times on the server :
   (mapcar (lambda (x) (hello 10 x)) (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10))"
  `(let* ((js-body (parenscript:ps (lambda ,args ,@body))))
     (setf (gethash ',name *js-definitions*) js-body)
     (defun ,name ,args
       (get-element "retval" (car (docs (db.eval js-body ,@args)))))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(%proper-list-p object)

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by %proper-list-p

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `%proper-list-p` that takes an `object` argument.
Looking at the pattern `(%proper-list-p object)`, this looks like a predicate macro.
However, the user hasn't specified what the transformation should be. Usually, a macro named `%proper-list-p` would check if a list is proper (i.e., ends with NIL, not a dotted pair).
In Common Lisp, `listp` checks if it's a list (including dotted lists if the cdr is not nil? No, `listp` returns true for dotted lists too? Wait. `listp` is true for proper lists and dotted lists. `proper-list-p` is not a standard CL function. `null` checks for nil.
Actually, `listp` in CL returns true for any cons or nil. So `(listp '(a . b))` is true.
A proper list is one where the final cdr is nil.
So `(proper-list-p x)` should return true if x is a list and not a dotted list.
One way to check this is `(not (member nil x :test #'eq))`? No, that's slow.
Or `(null (last x))`? `last` returns the last cons cell. If the list is dotted, `last` returns the dotted cons? No, `last` returns the last cons cell of a proper list. If it's dotted, behavior is undefined or it might return the dotted one?
Actually, a standard way to check for a proper list without traversing twice or using `last` (which might be tricky with dotted lists depending on implementation) is to check if the object is a list and not dotted.
But wait, the user just said "transforms code like this". They didn't specify the semantics.
Maybe they want a macro that expands to a standard check?
Or maybe they want a macro that generates code to check if the object is a proper list?
Let's assume the goal is to implement a predicate that checks if a list is proper.
A common idiom for checking if a list is proper is `(typep object '(or null (cons t (or null (cons t ...)))))`? No, that's infinite.
Maybe `(and (listp object) (null (cdr (last object))))`?
Actually, if I just write a macro that expands to a function call, that's trivial.
But maybe the user wants a macro that uses `cond` or `typecase`?
Let's look at the prompt again. "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: (%proper-list-p object)".
It doesn't specify the expansion. I should probably provide a reasonable expansion for checking if a list is proper.
A robust way to check if a list is proper in CL is `(not (member nil object :test #'eq :key #'cdr))`? No.
How about `(typep object 'list)`? No, `list` type includes dotted lists in some contexts? No, `list` type is usually proper lists? Wait. In CL, the type `list` is defined as `(or null (cons t list))`. So `typep` with `list` checks for proper lists!
Yes! `(typep object 'list)` returns true only for proper lists.
So the macro could just expand to `(typep object 'list)`.
Or maybe the user wants a macro that creates a variable binding?
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: A macro that checks if the argument is a proper list.
Expansion: `(typep ,object 'list)`.
Wait, is `typep` available in all environments? Yes.
Is there a performance concern? `typep` might be slower than a custom check, but it's correct.
Another option: `(and (listp object) (null (last object)))`? No, `last` on a dotted list is undefined.
Actually, `endp` is a common predicate for proper lists in some libraries, but not standard CL.
Let's use `typep`.
Or maybe the user just wants the structure of the macro.
I will provide a macro that expands to a check using `typep` or a recursive check if `typep` is not desired.
But since I must provide *a* defmacro, I will provide one that uses `typep` as it is the standard way to check for the `list` type which implies properness.
Wait, `listp` is a built-in function. `listp` returns true for dotted lists too.
So `(typep x 'list)` is the correct check for proper lists.
I will write the macro to expand to `(typep object 'list)`.

Step 1: Pattern is `(%proper-list-p object)`.
Step 2:
</think>
(defmacro %proper-list-p (var &optional (element-type '*))
  `(loop
     (typecase ,var
       (null (return t))
       (cons (if (or ,(eq element-type '*)
                     (typep (car ,var) ,element-type))
                 (setq ,var (cdr ,var))
                 (return)))
       (t    (return)))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(set-custom-vars :integer #'parse-number :real #'parse-number :boolean #'json-boolean-to-lisp :beginning-of-array #'make-accumulator :array-element #'accumulator-add :end-of-array #'accumulator-get-sequence :beginning-of-object #'make-accumulator :object-key #'accumulator-add-key :object-value #'accumulator-add-value :end-of-object #'accumulator-get :beginning-of-string #'make-vector-accumulator :string-char #'vector-accumulator-add :end-of-string #'vector-accumulator-get-string)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by set-custom-vars

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro `set-custom-vars` that simplifies a repetitive pattern of setting custom variables.
The pattern is:
`(set-custom-vars :integer #'parse-number :real #'parse-number :boolean #'json-boolean-to-lisp :beginning-of-array #'make-accumulator :array-element #'accumulator-add :end-of-array #'accumulator-get-sequence :beginning-of-object #'make-accumulator :object-key #'accumulator-add-key :object-value #'accumulator-add-value :end-of-object #'accumulator-get :beginning-of-string #'make-vector-accumulator :string-char #'vector-accumulator-add :end-of-string #'vector-accumulator-get-string)`

Wait, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (set-custom-vars ...)"
But then it says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by set-custom-vars".
This implies the user wants a macro that *replaces* the long `set-custom-vars` call with something shorter, or perhaps `set-custom-vars` *is* the macro they want to define, and they want it to expand into something else?
Actually, reading carefully: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (set-custom-vars ...)"
Usually, this means they want a macro that takes a list of key-value pairs and expands into calls to some underlying function, or maybe they want a macro that defines these bindings in a more concise way.
Wait, `set-custom-vars` looks like a function call that takes keyword keys and function values. Maybe it's from a JSON parser library? It looks like `json` or `cl-json` or similar.
Actually, it looks like `set-custom-vars` is a function that sets up custom handlers for a JSON parser. The pattern is just a long list of arguments.
But the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern". This usually means creating a macro that takes the arguments and expands them into something else, or maybe the user wants a macro that *is* `set-custom-vars` but expands into multiple calls to a simpler setter, or maybe they want a macro that groups them?
Wait, maybe the repetitive pattern is that each pair is `:keyword #'function`. They want a macro that allows them to write:
`(set-custom-vars (:integer parse-number) (:real parse-number) ...)`
Or maybe they want a macro that expands into `(setf (gethash :integer *custom-vars*) #'parse-number)` etc.?
Actually, in Common Lisp, `setf` or `defparameter` or `setf` on a hash table is common.
But let's look at the exact wording: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (set-custom-vars :integer #'parse-number ...)"
This implies the macro *is* `set-custom-vars`, and it should expand into something that actually sets the variables. Or maybe the macro takes the pairs and expands into calls to a function like `(set-custom-var :integer #'parse-number)`.
Wait, `set-custom-vars` might be a function in some library, but the user wants a macro to replace it. Or maybe the user wants to define `set-custom-vars` as a macro that expands into multiple assignments.
Let's assume the underlying mechanism is something like `(setf (gethash :key *custom-variables*) value)` or `(set-custom-var :key value)`.
But without knowing the exact target, I should probably make the macro expand into a series of calls to a hypothetical `set-custom-var` function, or `setf` on a hash table, or just keep it as a function call but allow a more concise syntax?
Actually, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by set-custom-vars". This is a bit confusing. It might mean "The issue is that the macro call `(set-custom-vars ...)` is too verbose. Define a macro that transforms it into something shorter." Or maybe `set-custom-vars` *is* the macro they want to define, and it should expand into multiple setter calls.

Let's think about typical Lisp patterns. Often, `setf` is used for multiple values, but here it's key-value pairs.
Maybe they want:
`(defmacro set-custom-vars (&rest pairs)
  (assert (evenp (length pairs)))
  `(progn ,@(loop for (key val) on pairs by #'cddr
                  collect `(set-custom-var ,key ,val))))`
But that's trivial.

Wait, maybe the repetitive pattern is the `#'` before each function name. They want to write:
`(set-custom-vars :integer parse-number :real parse-number ...)`
and have the macro automatically wrap the values in `#'`.
That makes a lot of sense! "eliminates this repetitive pattern" -> the `#'` is repetitive.
So the macro would take alternating keys and symbols, and expand to `(
</think>
(defmacro set-custom-vars (&rest key-args)
  `(setq
    ,@(loop for (supplied-key value) on key-args by #'cddr
         append (loop for (var . var-key) in *custom-vars*
                   thereis (if (eql var-key supplied-key)
                               (list var value))))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(builder :backtrace (lambda (env) (declare (ignore env)) (error 'test-error)))

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by builder

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro named `builder`.
The input pattern is `(builder :backtrace (lambda (env) (declare (ignore env)) (error 'test-error)))`.
This looks like a keyword argument pattern.
The macro takes a keyword (like `:backtrace`) and a form (like a lambda).

1.  **Pattern Matching**:
    The macro call is `(builder keyword form)`.
    `keyword` is `:backtrace`.
    `form` is `(lambda (env) (declare (ignore env)) (error 'test-error))`.

2.  **Lisp Constructs**:
    We need to transform this into something meaningful. Usually, a `builder` macro implies constructing a structure or a function.
    Since the example shows a lambda being assigned to a key, it might be building a plist (property list) or an alist, or perhaps a specific structure.
    Without specific requirements on the *output*, I should make a reasonable assumption or provide a generic structure.
    However, looking at the pattern, it looks like it might be defining a slot or a property in a DSL.
    Let's assume the goal is to return a list or a structure containing the key and the value.
    Or, perhaps it's meant to be used inside a larger context.
    Let's stick to the simplest transformation: returning a cons cell or a list containing the key and the evaluated form, or just the form itself if it's a definition.

    Actually, looking at the prompt "Macro call that should be transformed by builder", it implies I need to define the macro that handles this specific syntax.
    Let's assume the macro expands to a list or a specific data structure.
    Let's try to create a macro that returns a list of the keyword and the form.
    Or maybe it's a `defparameter` style? No, `builder` usually implies composition.

    Let's look at the "Think step by step" instructions.
    (1) Pattern: `(builder key form)`
    (2) Constructs: `defmacro`, `quasiquote`, `unquote`.
    (3) Quasiquote: We want to return a structure. Maybe `'(key ,form)`? Or maybe just the form?
    Let's assume the user wants a macro that creates a property list entry or similar.
    Let's make it return `(list key form)` or just the form if it's a definition.
    Actually, let's look at the example again. `(builder :backtrace (lambda ...))`.
    If this is part of a larger DSL, maybe it expands to something like `(:backtrace (lambda ...))`.
    Let's define it to return a list containing the keyword and the form.

    Wait, is there a specific library this comes from? `builder` is a generic name.
    Let's assume the goal is to define a macro that takes a keyword and a body, and perhaps wraps it.
    Let's create a macro that simply returns the list `(keyword form)`. This is a safe, generic interpretation of "building" a pair.

    Another possibility: The user might be looking for a macro that defines a function or variable. But the keyword suggests a property.
    Let's go with returning a cons/list.

    Let's refine the "Think step by step" for the output.
    1.  **Pattern**: The macro call is `(builder key body)`. `key` is a keyword, `body` is a form (lambda).
    2.  **Constructs**: `defmacro`. The expansion should likely be a list or a structure. Let's use `list` or a quoted list with unquoting if we want to evaluate the form later, but macros usually expand to code. If the lambda is code, we might want to return it as code.
    3.  **Quasiquote**: `(list key body)` is runtime. `(list ',key ',body)` is compile time? No, `body` is code.
        If the result is code, we want `(list key body)` where `key` is the keyword symbol and `body` is the lambda form.
        So `(list ',key ',body)` effectively creates a list at compile time containing the keyword and the lambda form.
        Actually, if `builder` is used inside `defparameter` or similar, it might just return the value.
        Let's assume the macro expands to a list `(key body)`.
        Expansion: `` `(,key ,body) ``.

    4.  **Variable Capture**: No `gensym` needed unless we are generating bindings. Here we are just passing arguments.
    5.  **Structure**:
        ```lisp
        (defmacro builder (key
</think>
(defmacro builder (&rest app-or-middlewares)
  (let ((middlewares (butlast app-or-middlewares)))
    `(reduce #'funcall
             (remove-if
              #'null
              (list
               ,@(loop for mw in middlewares
                       when mw
                         collect (convert-to-middleware-form mw))))
             :initial-value (to-app ,(car (last app-or-middlewares)))
             :from-end t)))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(with-html-string (:tag :name "xy" "Hello"))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html

[Assistant]
<think>
Here's a thinking process:

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
   - **Input pattern:** `(with-html-string (:tag :name "xy" "Hello"))`
   - **Goal:** Generate a `defmacro` that transforms this pattern.
   - **Context:** The macro is named `with-html-string`. It seems to be a wrapper or a specific variant of a more general `with-html` macro, or perhaps it's meant to expand into something that builds an HTML string.
   - **Pattern details:** The macro takes a list of arguments. The first argument seems to be a list starting with `:tag`, followed by `:name`, then a string `"xy"`, and then content `"Hello"`. Wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". This implies `with-html-string` is a macro that expands into something involving `with-html`, or maybe it's just a specific macro definition.
   - Let's re-read carefully: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: `(with-html-string (:tag :name "xy" "Hello"))` Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html"
   - This is a bit ambiguous. It likely means: Define a macro `with-html-string` that takes an HTML-like DSL form and expands it into a string-building expression. Or maybe it expands to `(with-html ...)` but returns a string instead of outputting to a stream.
   - Common Lisp HTML generation macros often look like: `(with-html-string (:div :class "foo" "Hello"))` -> expands to something that constructs a string.
   - Let's assume the goal is to define `with-html-string` that takes a single form representing an HTML element, and expands it into code that generates a string. It might use a helper like `with-html` or `html-string` or just quasiquote/unquote with `format` or string concatenation.
   - Actually, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". This might mean the macro is just a wrapper that calls `with-html` but captures output to a string. Or maybe it's a standalone macro that expands the DSL into string operations.
   - Let's think about standard CL macro patterns for HTML DSLs. They often use `destructuring-bind` or `destructuring` in the macro lambda list.
   - The input is `(with-html-string (:tag :name "xy" "Hello"))`. The first argument is a list. Let's call it `form`.
   - Structure of `form`: `(:tag :name "xy" "Hello")` -> tag name, attributes, content.
   - Actually, `:tag` and `:name` might be keywords representing the tag and an attribute. Or maybe `:tag` is the tag name, `:name` is an attribute name, `"xy"` is its value, and `"Hello"` is the content.
   - Let's assume a simpler interpretation: The macro should match `(with-html-string ,form)` and expand it to something like `(with-html ,form)` but returning a string. Or maybe it expands to `(let ((result (with-output-to-string (s) (with-html s ,form))) result)`.
   - Wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". This is a bit weirdly phrased. It might mean: "The macro `with-html-string` should recognize this pattern and transform it using `with-html` (or similar constructs)."
   - Let's look at typical CL macro exercises. Often, they want you to write a macro that takes a DSL form and expands it into `format` or `concatenate` calls.
   - Another possibility: The prompt is from a specific context or tutorial. "with-html-string" might be a macro that expands to `(with-html ,@args)` but captures to string. Or maybe it's just a simple macro that demonstrates pattern matching.
   - Let's stick to the basics: Define a macro `with-html-string` that takes one argument (the HTML form), and expands it into code that builds a string. I'll use `with-output-to-string` and a hypothetical `with-html` macro, or I'll just write the expansion directly using `format` or `concatenate`.
   - Actually, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". This might mean the macro itself is named `with-html-string`, and it should expand to `(with-html ,form)` but with string output. Or maybe it's just a placeholder name.
   - Let's think about what a robust CL macro for this would look like. It should handle the list structure. It might use `destructuring-bind` in the macro lambda list: `(
</think>
(defmacro with-html (&body body &environment env)
  "Interpret BODY as HTML. Consult README.txt for the syntax."
  `(let ((*html* (ensure-html-stream *html*)))
     ,(if (and (null (cdr body)) (atom (car body)))
          (car body)
          `(progn ,@(parse-html body env)))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(draw scene (:path :d "M 1000 750 L 2000 750 L 2500 1250") :fill "none" :stroke "black" :stroke-width 100 :marker-end (xlink-href marker))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by draw

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `draw` (or similar) that handles a specific code pattern involving drawing commands.
The pattern provided is:
`(draw scene (:path :d "M 1000 750 L 2000 750 L 2500 1250") :fill "none" :stroke "black" :stroke-width 100 :marker-end (xlink-href marker))`

Let's break down the pattern:
1. `draw` is the macro name.
2. `scene` seems to be a context or target for the drawing.
3. `(:path :d "M ...")` looks like a shape definition. The first element is the shape type (`:path`), followed by properties (`:d` and the path data).
4. The rest `:fill "none" :stroke "black" ...` are key-value pairs for styling.
5. `(xlink-href marker)` is a function call or sub-expression used as a value.

The goal is to transform this into a form that actually performs the drawing. Since the user didn't specify the exact output format (e.g., SVG generation, Cairo calls, etc.), I should create a generic transformation or assume a standard structure like a list of properties or a function call.
However, usually, macros like this are used to generate data structures or calls to a lower-level API.
Let's assume the macro should expand into a function call, say `render-shape`, or a list structure.
Given the ambiguity, I will write a macro that parses the shape definition and the attributes, and expands into a structure that represents them.
A common pattern in such DSLs is to expand into a list or a call to a backend function.
Let's assume the expansion should be something like:
`(render-shape scene :type :path :attributes '(:d "..." :fill "none" ...))`
Or perhaps just grouping the arguments.

Let's look at the structure again:
`(draw scene <shape-spec> <attr> <val> <attr> <val> ...)`
where `<shape-spec>` is a list starting with a keyword like `:path`.

Step 1: Pattern matching.
The macro takes `scene`, a list `shape-spec`, and a rest list `attrs`.
`shape-spec` starts with a keyword.
`attrs` is a sequence of key-value pairs.

Step 2: Lisp constructs.
We need `defmacro`.
We need to handle the arguments.
We might want to validate that `shape-spec` is a list.
We might want to flatten or process the attributes.

Step 3: Quasiquote/Unquote.
We will likely use backquote to construct the result.

Step 4: Variable capture.
The arguments `scene`, `shape-spec`, and the attributes are evaluated in the caller's context. The macro should not introduce conflicting bindings unless necessary (e.g., if we were looping, but here it's a direct expansion).

Step 5: Structure.
</think>
(defmacro draw (scene (shape &rest params) &rest opts)
  (let ((element (gensym)))
    `(let ((,element (funcall #'make-svg-element ,shape (append (list ,@params) (list ,@opts)))))
       (add-element ,scene ,element)
       ,element)))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(defpattern cons (a b) (with-gensyms (it) `(guard1 (,it :type cons) (consp ,it) (car ,it) ,a (cdr ,it) ,b)))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defpattern

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `defpattern` that expands into a specific structure.
Looking at the example:
`(defpattern cons (a b) (with-gensyms (it) `(guard1 (,it :type cons) (consp ,it) (car ,it) ,a (cdr ,it) ,b)))`

Wait, the user says "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: ...".
This implies `defpattern` is the macro being defined.
The example shows a call to `defpattern`.
What does `defpattern` do? It seems to define a pattern named `cons` with arguments `(a b)` and a body that uses `with-gensyms` and backquote.
Actually, the prompt says: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: (defpattern cons (a b) (with-gensyms (it) `(guard1 (,it :type cons) (consp ,it) (car ,it) ,a (cdr ,it) ,b)))"
Wait, this looks like the user wants me to write the `defmacro` for `defpattern`. But what does `defpattern` actually expand to?
Usually, `defpattern` in some libraries (like `pattern-matching` or `fare-quasiquote` or similar) defines a pattern macro. But here, the example shows the *input* to `defpattern`.
Maybe `defpattern` is just a shorthand for defining a macro that expands to a quasiquote form?
Or maybe `defpattern` expands to a `defmacro`?
Let's look at the structure: `(defpattern name (args) body)`
If it defines a macro, it might expand to:
`(defmacro name (it) (with-gensyms (it) ...))`? No, the example has `(a b)` as arguments.
Actually, in many pattern matching libraries, `defpattern` defines a macro that takes a term and expands to a guard form.
Wait, the example has `(with-gensyms (it) `(guard1 (,it :type cons) (consp ,it) (car ,it) ,a (cdr ,it) ,b))` as the body.
This looks like it's defining a pattern macro that takes an input variable (maybe `it` is generated by `with-gensyms`? Or `it` is the input?).
Actually, `with-gensyms` is usually from `alexandria` or similar. It expands to `(let ((it (gensym))) ...)`.
But in the context of pattern matching, `defpattern` often defines a macro that takes a single argument (the term to match) and expands to a form that checks guards and returns submatches.
Given the prompt is somewhat open-ended ("transforms code like this"), I will assume `defpattern` is meant to define a macro with the given name, arguments, and body.
Wait, the prompt says: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defpattern". This is a bit confusing. It might mean the user wants a macro `defpattern` that simply wraps its arguments into a `defmacro` call, or maybe it's a specific DSL.
Let's assume `defpattern` expands to:
`(defmacro name (input) body)`
But the example has `(a b)` as arguments. If it's a pattern, it usually takes one argument (the term to match) and the `(a b)` are the pattern variables.
Actually, in `fare-quasiquote` or similar, patterns are defined differently.
Given the ambiguity, I'll stick to a straightforward interpretation: `defpattern` defines a macro named `name` that takes an argument list `(args)` and expands to `body`. But wait, macros defined by `defpattern` usually take a single term, and `args` are the bound variables.
Let's look at the example again: `(defpattern cons (a b) (with-gensyms (it) `(guard1 ...)))`
If `defpattern` expands to `(defmacro cons (term) (with-gensyms (it) ...))`, then `(a b)` would be ignored or used inside the body. But the body references `,a` and `,b`. So `a` and `b` must be bound somewhere.
Maybe `defpattern` expands to:
`(defmacro name (term) (let ((args (list ...))) body))`? No.
Actually, many pattern macros use `with-gensyms` for the output variables.
Wait, the prompt might be from a specific library or just a hypothetical exercise. I will implement `defpattern` as a macro that expands to a `defmacro` form. The arguments to `defpattern` are `name`, `vars
</think>
(defmacro defpattern (name args &body body)
  "Adds a new derived pattern.
The default value of &optional arguments are '_, instead of nil."
  `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
     (setf (symbol-pattern ',name)
           #+sbcl
           (sb-int:named-lambda ',name ,(process-lambda-args args) ,@body)
           #-sbcl
           (lambda ,(process-lambda-args args) ,@body))
     ,@(when (stringp (first body))
         ;; lisp-namespace
         `((setf (documentation ',name 'pattern)
                 ,(let ((*print-pretty* t))
                    #-clisp
                    (format nil "~<Lambda-List: ~s~
                                 ~:@_~<  ~@;~a~:>~
                                 ~:@_Defined in ~a~
                               ~:>"
                            (list args (list (first body)) *compile-file-pathname*))
                    #+clisp
                    (format nil "Lambda-List: ~s~%~a"
                            args (first body))))))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by ->

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that transforms a pattern like `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))` into something more readable or eliminates repetition.
Looking at the pattern, it seems like a threading macro or a function application macro.
`:g` might be a symbol or a function name. `(b)` is a list containing a variable. `(+ b 6)` is an expression using `b`.
This looks like it could be defining a lambda or a function call. Perhaps it's meant to be `(funcall :g (lambda (b) (+ b 6)))` or `(symbol-function :g)` applied to a lambda.
Wait, `->` is often used for threading macros, but here it has three arguments: a symbol, a list of variables, and a body.
This looks exactly like a shorthand for `(lambda (b) (+ b 6))` applied to `:g`, or perhaps defining a function.
Actually, it resembles a macro for creating a function or calling a function with a lambda.
Let's consider `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))` -> `(funcall (symbol-function :g) (lambda (b) (+ b 6)))`? Or maybe it's just `(lambda (b) (+ b 6))` bound to `:g`?
Wait, `->` is often used in libraries like `cl-ppcre` or `lisp-on-lines`, but here it's a custom macro.
Another possibility: it's a shorthand for `(defun :g (b) (+ b 6))`? No, `:g` is a keyword.
Maybe it's `(flet ((:g (b) (+ b 6))) ...)`? No.
Let's look at the pattern: `(-> name (args) body)`. This is very similar to a lambda expression `(lambda (args) body)`, but with a name. Or it could be a macro that expands to `(lambda (b) (+ b 6))` and associates it with `:g`.
Actually, in some Lisp dialects or libraries, `->` is used for "arrow" notation, like in Haskell or F#, but here it's Lisp.
Wait! Could it be a macro for `lambda`? `(-> (b) (+ b 6))` is sometimes used, but here there's `:g`.
Maybe it's `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))` -> `(setf (symbol-function ':g) (lambda (b) (+ b 6)))`? Unlikely.
Let's reconsider: `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))` might be a shorthand for `(funcall :g (lambda (b) (+ b 6)))`? No.
What if `:g` is a stream or a destination? Like `(send :g (b) (+ b 6))`?
Actually, this looks like a macro for defining a function or a method. Or maybe it's from a specific library.
Wait, the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern". The pattern is `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))`.
Could it be a macro that expands to `(lambda (b) (+ b 6))` and `:g` is just a label? Or maybe it's `(defun g (b) (+ b 6))` but with `:g`?
Let's think about Common Lisp macros that take a name, arguments, and body. `defun`, `defmethod`, `labels`, `flet`.
But the arrow `->` suggests something else. In some Lisps, `->` is used for structure access or threading.
Wait! Maybe it's a macro for `lambda` where the first argument is a name for the lambda? Like `(lambda :g (b) (+ b 6))`? No.
Let's look at the exact syntax: `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))`.
This matches `(-> name (args) body)`.
It could be a shorthand for `(let ((name (lambda args body))) ...)`? No.
Maybe it's from a library like `cl-who` or `cl-html`? No.
How about `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))` -> `(funcall (symbol-function ':g) (lambda (b) (+ b 6)))`?
Actually, in many Lisp projects, `->` is used as a threading macro, but threading macros usually take a form and then operations. `(-> x (func1) (func2))` -> `(func2 (func1 x))`.
But here we have `(-> :g (b) (+ b 6))`. This doesn't fit threading.
Wait! Could it be a macro for `
</think>
(defmacro -> (invariant &body args)
  "See flow:atomically"
  `(atomically ,invariant ,@args))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defun/1 getc (fd) (fgetc fd))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defun/1

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defun/1`.
Looking at the example: `(defun/1 getc (fd) (fgetc fd))`
This looks like a standard `defun` call: `(defun getc (fd) (fgetc fd))`.
However, the name is `defun/1`. What does the `/1` signify?
Perhaps it's a macro that expands to `defun`, or maybe it enforces that the function takes exactly one argument?
Or maybe it's just a shorthand for `defun`?
Wait, often in some Lisp dialects or specific libraries, `defun/1` might be a macro that expands to `defun` but perhaps does some specific validation or transformation.
Given the prompt "Before code: (defun/1 getc (fd) (fgetc fd))", and "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defun/1", it implies I just need to write the macro `defun/1` that expands to `defun`.
Let's assume `defun/1` is simply an alias for `defun`, or perhaps it's a macro that ensures the function has exactly one argument.
Actually, `defun/1` might be from a specific library like `cl-utilities` or similar, but without context, the safest bet is that it expands to `defun`.
Wait, could it be a macro that expands to `(defun name (arg) body)`? Yes.
Let's consider the standard `defun` syntax: `(defun name lambda-list declaration-or-documentation* [declaration-or-documentation]* body*)`.
The example `(defun/1 getc (fd) (fgetc fd))` matches `(defun name (arg) body)`.
I will write a macro `defun/1` that simply expands to `defun`.
Or maybe it's a macro that checks the arity? "defun/1" strongly suggests "define function with 1 argument".
But implementing arity checking in a macro is tricky without parsing the lambda-list.
Given the simplicity, I'll assume it's just a synonym for `defun`, or perhaps it's a macro from a specific style guide. I'll just make it expand to `defun`.

Wait, the prompt says: "Before code: (defun/1 getc (fd) (fgetc fd))"
"What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defun/1"
This implies the user wants the macro definition that performs this transformation.
I will define `defun/1` as a macro that expands to `defun`.

Let's think step by step:
1. Pattern: `(defun/1 name lambda-list body...)`
2. Constructs: `defmacro`, `defun`
3. Quasiquote: `` `(defun ,name ,lambda-list ,@body) ``
4. Variable capture: None, since we just pass everything to `defun`.
5. Structure:
</think>
(defmacro defun/1 (name arglist &body body)
  "Lisp-1 defun; makes function pointers work."
  `(progn
     (defun ,name ,arglist
       (declare (optimize (speed 0) (debug 3)
                          ;; FIXME: Why do minor warnings result in load errors?
                          #+sbcl (sb-ext:inhibit-warnings 3)))

       ,@body)
     (defparameter ,name (vacietis.c:mkptr& (symbol-function ',name)))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(define-simple-definition-resolver global (designator) (eq :global (sb-cltl2:variable-information designator)))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by define-simple-definition-resolver

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro that eliminates the repetitive pattern in the code:
</think>
(defmacro define-simple-definition-resolver (class lookup-function &body body)
  (let ((package (gensym "PACKAGE")))
    `(define-definition-resolver ,class (,class ,package)
       (when (ignore-errors ,(if body
                                 `(let ((,(first lookup-function) ,class))
                                    ,@body)
                                 `(,lookup-function ,class)))
         (list (make-instance ',class :designator ,class :package ,package))))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(do-notation bind-maybe ((sum (inc-maybe 1)) (str (maybe->string sum))) str)

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by do-notation

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `do-notation` that transforms a specific syntax into standard Lisp code.
The input syntax is:
`(do-notation bind-maybe ((sum (inc-maybe 1)) (str (maybe->string sum))) str)`

This looks like Haskell-style `do` notation or a monadic bind sequence.
The outer form is `(do-notation monad-body ...)`.
Here `monad-body` is `bind-maybe`.
The bindings are `((sum (inc-maybe 1)) (str (maybe->string sum)))`.
The final expression is `str`.

Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by do-notation".
Actually, the prompt says: "Before code: `(do-notation bind-maybe ((sum (inc-maybe 1)) (str (maybe->string sum))) str)`"
"What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by do-notation"

This implies the macro should expand this into nested `bind-maybe` calls.
Usually, `bind-maybe` takes a monadic value and a lambda.
So `(bind-maybe (inc-maybe 1) (lambda (sum) (bind-maybe (maybe->string sum) (lambda (str) str))))`
Or perhaps `bind-maybe` is a function that takes the value and a continuation.
Let's assume `bind-maybe` is like `maybe-bind` or `mbind`.
In many Lisp libraries (like `cl-maybe`), `bind` or `mbind` takes `(bind monadic-value (var) body)`.
But here the syntax is `bind-maybe` as the "monad" or "bind function" name.
Wait, the prompt says `bind-maybe` is passed as the first argument to `do-notation`.
So `do-notation` takes a bind function name, a list of bindings, and a body.
Structure: `(do-notation bind-func ((var1 expr1) (var2 expr2) ...) body)`
Expansion: nested calls to `bind-func`.
`(bind-func expr1 (lambda (var1) (bind-func expr2 (lambda (var2) body))))`

Let's verify this interpretation.
If `bind-maybe` is a function that combines a maybe value and a function returning a maybe value.
So `(bind-maybe (inc-maybe 1) #'(lambda (sum) (bind-maybe (maybe->string sum) #'(lambda (str) str))))`
This matches standard monadic bind structure.

Let's write the macro.
`(defmacro do-notation (bind-func bindings body) ...)`
We need to handle the bindings list. If it's empty, just return body? Or maybe bindings is non-empty.
We can use a helper function or recursive macro expansion, but since it's a macro, we can generate the nested structure using a loop or `reduce`-like approach in the macro body.

Actually, generating nested lambdas is straightforward with a helper function inside the macro, or just building the list.
Let's build it from right to left.
Start with `body`.
For each `(var expr)` in reverse order of `bindings`:
  new-body = `(,bind-func ,expr (lambda (,var) ,new-body))`
Return new-body.

Wait, `bind-func` might be a symbol or a form. The prompt uses `bind-maybe` as a symbol.
We should quote it or just use it as is.
Let's assume `bind-func` is a symbol.

Code structure:
</think>
(defmacro do-notation (bind-function expressions &body body)
  "Given a BIND-FUNCTION and all the bind expressions, evaluate BODY."
  `(progn
     ,@(reduce (lambda (acc do-binding)
		 (append `((,bind-function (lambda (,(car do-binding)) ,@acc)
					   ,@(cdr do-binding)))))
	       (reverse expressions)
	       :initial-value body)))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(defvar-unbound *term-char* "Bound to the closing outer delimiter while parsing a string.")

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by defvar-unbound

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `defvar-unbound` that behaves like `defvar` but leaves the variable unbound.
Let's analyze the pattern: `(defvar-unbound *term-char* "Bound to the closing outer delimiter while parsing a string.")`
This looks like `defvar` with an optional documentation string, but no initial value.
In Common Lisp, `defvar` takes a name, an optional initial-value, and an optional documentation string.
If we want to define a variable but leave it unbound, we can use `defvar` with a dummy initial value that is never evaluated, or just use `defparameter` with a special symbol, or simply use `defvar` with `nil` and then `makunbound`? No, that's not right.
Actually, `defvar` only evaluates the initial value if the variable is unbound. So if we want it to remain unbound, we can't provide an initial value that gets evaluated.
Wait, `defvar` signature: `(defvar name &optional (initial-value nil) documentation)`.
If we call `(defvar *term-char* nil "doc")`, it will bind `*term-char*` to `nil`.
To leave it unbound, we can use `defvar` with a symbol that is never evaluated, or use `eval-when`? No.
Actually, the standard way to declare a special variable without binding it is just `(defvar *term-char*)` which binds it to `nil`? Wait, in CL, `(defvar x)` binds `x` to `nil`.
But the user explicitly says "Bound to the closing outer delimiter while parsing a string." as the docstring.
Maybe the macro should just expand to `(defvar name nil doc)`? Or maybe it expands to `(defvar name) doc`? No.
Wait, `defvar-unbound` might just be a macro that expands to `(defvar name nil doc)` but the name implies it stays unbound. How can we make it stay unbound?
Actually, in some Lisp implementations or libraries, `defvar-unbound` is defined as:
`(defmacro defvar-unbound (name &optional doc) `(defvar ,name ,',name ,doc))`? No.
Wait, if we do `(defvar name)`, it binds to `nil`. To keep it unbound, we can use `(declare (special name))` but that doesn't create the variable in the obarray. `defvar` creates it.
Actually, a common idiom for `defvar-unbound` is:
`(defmacro defvar-unbound (name &optional doc)
  `(defvar ,name (declare (ignore ,name)) ,doc))`? No.
Let's think about how to prevent evaluation of the initial value. `defvar` evaluates the initial value form only if the variable is unbound. If we pass a form that signals an error or is never evaluated? No.
Wait! In Common Lisp, `defvar` with no initial value binds to `nil`. To leave it unbound, we can use `eval-when`? No.
Actually, a trick is: `(defvar name (error "unbound"))` but that's evaluated.
Another trick: `(defvar name) (makunbound 'name)` - but `makunbound` might error if it's not bound, or it might work. But `defvar` binds it first.
Wait, the standard way in some libraries (like Alexandria or CL-PPCRE) for `defvar-unbound` is:
`(defmacro defvar-unbound (name &optional doc)
  `(defvar ,name nil ,doc))`
But the name says "unbound". Maybe it's just a convention that the programmer will bind it later, and `nil` is fine? Or maybe it expands to `(defvar ,name) ,doc`? No, `defvar` takes doc as third arg.
Actually, I recall a macro `defvar-unbound` that expands to:
`(defvar ,name (declare (ignorable ,name)))`? No.
Let's search my knowledge for "defvar-unbound common lisp".
It's often defined as:
`(defmacro defvar-unbound (name &optional doc)
  `(defvar ,name ,',name ,doc))` -> This would bind it to the symbol `name` itself? No.
Wait, if we use `(defvar ,name (declare (special ,name)))`? No.
Actually, a very common definition is:
`(defmacro defvar-unbound (name &optional doc)
  `(defvar ,name (error "Variable ~S is unbound." ',name) ,doc))` -> but this
</think>
(defmacro defvar-unbound (variable-name documentation)
  "Like DEFVAR, but the variable will be unbound rather than getting
an initial value.  This is useful for variables which should have no
global value but might have a dynamically bound value."
  ;; stolen from comp.lang.lisp article <k7727i3s.fsf@comcast.net> by
  ;; "prunesquallor@comcast.net"
  `(eval-when (:load-toplevel :compile-toplevel :execute)
    (defvar ,variable-name)
    (setf (documentation ',variable-name 'variable)
            ,documentation)))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(do+ (options :atomic-updates nil) (for x (across #(1 2 3 4) :index index)) (for k (in '(a b c d e))) (returning (list x k :index index)))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by do+

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `do+` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The pattern is:
`(do+ (options ...) (for x (across ...)) (for k (in ...)) (returning ...))`

Let's analyze the structure:
1. `do+` is the macro name.
2. It takes a list of clauses.
3. The first clause is `(options :atomic-updates nil)`. This seems to be an options clause.
4. Then there are multiple `(for var (iterator ...))` clauses.
5. Finally, there's a `(returning body)` clause.

This looks like a loop macro, similar to Common Lisp's `loop` but with a different syntax.
Actually, it resembles `iterate` or `cl-loop` but with explicit `for` and `returning`.
Wait, the prompt says "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this". It doesn't specify exactly what it should transform into, but typically such macros expand into a `loop` or `block` + `tagbody` or just a `loop` form.
Given it's a Common Lisp macro, I should probably expand it into a standard `loop` form or a `block` with `return` and `collect`/`append` etc.
But the prompt just says "transforms code like this". I will assume it should expand into a `loop` form or a simple `block` that iterates and collects results.
Actually, `do+` is a known macro from the `iterate` library or similar? No, `iterate` uses `iter`.
Maybe it's from `cl-loop` extensions? Or maybe it's a custom macro the user wants me to implement.
Since the prompt doesn't specify the target expansion, I'll make a reasonable expansion: a `loop` that iterates over the sequences and collects the results.
Wait, `across` and `in` are typical `loop` keywords. `:index` is also a `loop` keyword.
So `(for x (across #(1 2 3 4) :index index))` could expand to `(loop for x across #(1 2 3 4) with index = 0 do (incf index) ...)` or just use `loop`'s built-in `for x across ...` and `for index from 0`.
Actually, `loop` supports `for x across vector` and `for index from 0`.
But to keep it simple and robust, I'll expand it into a `loop` form that handles the `for` clauses and the `returning` clause.
Or maybe it expands into a `block` with `tagbody`? No, `loop` is fine.
Let's think about the structure:
`(do+ (options ...) (for var1 (across seq1 :index idx1)) (for var2 (in seq2)) (returning body))`
I can parse the clauses, extract the `for` clauses, and build a `loop` form.
Each `for` clause: `(for var (iterator args))`
Iterator could be `across`, `in`, `from`, `below`, etc.
For simplicity, I'll map `across` to `across` in loop, `in` to `in` or `on` or `for var in seq`.
Actually, `loop` syntax is `for var across seq` and `for var in seq`.
So `(for x (across #(1 2 3 4) :index index))` -> `(for x across #(1 2 3 4)) (for index from 0)`? Or `loop` has `for x across seq` and we can add `with index = 0` and `do (incf index)`.
But `loop` also supports `for x across seq` and `for index from 0`.
Actually, `iterate` uses `for x across ...` and `for index from 0`.
Let's just expand it into a `loop` form that collects results.
`(loop ,@for-clauses ,@(when returning-clause `(finally (return ,returning-body))))`? No, `returning` usually means `collect` or `append` or just compute at the end.
If `returning` is used, it's like `iterate`'s `finally return`.
I'll expand `(returning body)` to `(finally (return body))`.
And each `(for var (iterator ...))` to `(for var ,iterator ...)`.
Wait, `loop` syntax is `for var across seq`, not `for var (across seq)`.
So I need to flatten it: `(for x across #(1 2 3
</think>
(defmacro do+ (&body body)
  "High-level, extensible iteration construct. Refer to the manual for syntax and semantics."
  `(do+/internal nil ,@body))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
;; Manual dispatch by keyword with multiple lambdas is repetitive
(let ((count 0))
  (setf (symbol-function 'counter)
        (lambda (&rest args)
          (case (car args)
            (:inc (apply (lambda (n) (incf count n)) (cdr args)))
            (:dec (apply (lambda (n) (decf count n)) (cdr args)))
            (:reset (progn (setf count 0) nil))
            (t (error "Unknown: ~a" (car args)))))))

;; Every method: keyword, lambda wrapper, arg destructuring - repetitive

Write a macro that addresses: Repeated keyword-dispatch with automatic argument destructuring — each keyword maps to a lambda with its own parameter list

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that simplifies the pattern of creating a function that dispatches on a keyword argument.
The current pattern involves:
1. A `let` to hold state.
2. A `setf` of `symbol-function` to a lambda.
3. The lambda takes `&rest args`.
4. A `case` on `(car args)`.
5. Each case branch applies a lambda to `(cdr args)`.

The goal is to define a macro that allows specifying:
- The function name (symbol).
- An optional environment/state (variables).
- A list of keyword-method pairs, where each method has its own parameter list.

Let's design the macro interface:
`(define-dispatch-fun name (var1 val1 ...) ((keyword1 (param1 param2 ...) body) ...))`
Or maybe simpler:
`(defmethod-dispatch name ((var val) ...) ((:keyword1 (args) body) ...))`

Let's look at the example:
</think>
(defmacro! dlambda (&rest ds)
  `(lambda (&rest ,g!args)
     (case (car ,g!args)
       ,@(mapcar
           (lambda (d)
             `(,(if (eq t (car d))
                  t
                  (list (car d)))
               (apply (lambda ,@(cdr d))
                      ,(if (eq t (car d))
                         g!args
                         `(cdr ,g!args)))))
           ds))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(ok nil)

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by ok

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `ok` that transforms `(ok nil)` into something else.
Wait, the prompt says: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: (ok nil)".
It doesn't specify what it should transform into. Usually, `ok` in Common Lisp (like in `cl-ppcre` or testing frameworks) might be a macro that checks a condition. But here, it's just asking for a macro that matches `(ok nil)` and transforms it.
Maybe it's a simple macro that evaluates to `t` if the argument is truthy, or maybe it's just a placeholder.
Let's assume the standard behavior for a macro named `ok` that takes one argument: it might just return `t` or the argument, or maybe it's meant to be a testing macro like `(ok condition)`.
Actually, the prompt is very brief: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by ok".
I will create a macro `ok` that takes one argument and perhaps just returns it, or wraps it in a lambda, or maybe it's meant to be a simple identity macro, or maybe it transforms `(ok nil)` into `(progn nil (values t))`? No.
Let's think about typical Lisp macros. `ok` could be a macro that checks if its argument is non-nil. But macros don't evaluate arguments. So `(ok nil)` would just expand to something that evaluates `nil`.
Maybe it's from a specific library? `ok` in `lisp-unit` or `parachute`?
Actually, the prompt might be from a code generation task where the exact expansion isn't strictly defined, or it expects a simple macro that just returns `t` or wraps the form.
Wait, "transforms code like this: (ok nil)" might imply it should expand to something like `(if nil nil t)`? Or maybe it's just a simple macro that takes a form and returns it.
Let's look at the pattern: `(ok nil)`. The macro `ok` takes one argument.
I'll write a macro that takes one argument and perhaps just returns `t` if it's truthy, but since it's a macro, it expands to code that checks the value.
Actually, a common pattern for `ok` in testing is:
`(defmacro ok (form) `(if ,form t (error "Assertion failed: ~S" ',form)))`
But the prompt says "transforms code like this: (ok nil)". It might just want a macro that matches `(ok ,x)` and expands to something simple.
Given the lack of specifics, I will define a macro `ok` that takes one argument and expands to a simple check, or perhaps just returns the argument. But to be safe, I'll make it expand to `(if ,arg t nil)` or just `,arg`.
Wait, maybe it's from a specific exercise. "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by ok". This sounds like a prompt for a macro that simply wraps the argument in a function call or just returns it.
I'll go with a simple macro that takes one argument and returns it, but maybe adds some structure. Actually, `ok` often stands for "okay", so it might just evaluate the form and return `t` if it's true.
Let's define:
`(defmacro ok (condition) `(if ,condition t (error "Not OK")))`
But the prompt says "transforms code like this: (ok nil)". If I just write a macro that takes one argument, it will match.
I will write a macro that takes one argument and expands to a progn or if.
Actually, maybe it's simpler: `(defmacro ok (x) x)`? No.
Let's think about typical macro exercises. They often want you to use `defmacro` with `&body` or a single argument.
I'll provide a macro that checks the condition and returns `t` or signals an error, as that's idiomatic for `ok`.
Wait, the prompt might be from a dataset where the expected output is just a basic macro definition. I'll stick to a simple one:
`(defmacro ok (form) `(if ,form t nil))`
Or maybe it's meant to be a macro that transforms `(ok nil)` into `(values t)`? No.
I'll just write a standard `ok` macro that takes a form and expands to an `if` that returns `t` if the form is true, otherwise signals an error. This is common in testing.
But to be strictly compliant with "transforms code like this: (ok nil)", I'll make it accept one argument and return it or wrap it.
Actually, I'll just define it as:
`(defmacro ok (condition) `(if ,condition t (error "Assertion failed
</think>
(defmacro ok (test &optional desc)
  (with-gensyms (duration result)
    (once-only (test desc)
      `(with-catching-errors (:expected T :description ,desc)
         (with-duration ((,duration ,result) ,test)
           (test ,result t ,desc
                 :duration ,duration
                 :test-fn (lambda (x y)
                            (eq (not (null x)) y))
                 :got-form ,test))))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(when name `(make-node ,name))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by when

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that transforms a pattern like `(when name '(make-node name))` into something more concise, or perhaps the user is showing a pattern they are tired of writing.
Wait, the pattern provided is: `(when name '(make-node name))` (with backquote syntax in the prompt: (when name `(make-node ,name))).
Actually, the prompt says: `(when name '(make-node name))` but uses backquote syntax in the text: `(when name '(make-node name))` -> `(when name '(make-node name))`.
Wait, the prompt says: `(when name '(make-node name))` but the text is `(when name '(make-node name))`.
Let's look at the syntax: `(when name '(make-node name))` is not valid Lisp if `name` is a variable.
The prompt shows: `(when name '(make-node name))`.
Wait, the prompt says: `(when name '(make-node name))` but the text is `(when name '(make-node name))`.
Actually, the prompt says: `(when name '(make-node name))`.
Wait, the prompt says: `(when name '(make-node name))` but the text is `(when name '(make-node name))`.
Let's assume the pattern is `(when name `(make-node ,name))`.
This expands to `(if name (progn (list 'make-node name)) nil)`.
The user wants to eliminate the repetition of `name`.
Maybe they want `(make-node-when name)` to expand to `(when name (make-node name))`?
Or `(when name '(make-node name))` -> `(when name (make-node name))`.
Wait, the backquote in the prompt `(make-node ,name)` evaluates `name` and puts the value into the list.
So `(when name (list 'make-node name))`.
If the user wants a macro that takes `name` and produces `(when name (make-node name))`, that's just `(make-node name)` inside a `when`.
Maybe the macro is `(defmacro when-make-node (var) ...)`?
Or maybe the macro is `(defmacro make-node-when (var) ...)`.
Let's assume the macro is `(defmacro make-node-when (var) ...)` which expands to `(when var (make-node var))`.
Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by when".
This might be a specific exercise from a Lisp book or course.
"Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (when name '(make-node name))"
Actually, the pattern `(when name '(make-node name))` is likely `(when name (make-node name))`.
If the macro is called `when-make-node`, it would take `name` and return `(when name (make-node name))`.
But maybe the macro is `when` itself? No.
Maybe the macro is `make-node-when`?
Let's consider the possibility that the macro is `(defmacro make-node-when (x) ...)`.
Or maybe `(defmacro when-make-node (x) ...)`.
Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by when". This might be a hint that the macro is named `when`? No.
Maybe the macro is `(defmacro when-make-node (var) ...)`.
Let's just define a macro that takes a variable and expands to `(when var (make-node var))`.
But what if `make-node` is a function that takes arguments?
The pattern is `(when name '(make-node name))`.
If we define `(defmacro make-node-when (var) ...)`, it expands to `(when var (make-node var))`.
But maybe the macro is `(defmacro when-make-node (var) ...)`.
Actually, the prompt might be from a specific context where the macro is called `when-make-node` or similar.
Let's assume the macro is `(defmacro make-node-when (var) ...)`.
Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by when". This is weird.
Maybe the macro is `(defmacro when-make-node (var) ...)`.
Let's just define a macro that takes a variable name and expands to `(when var (make-node var))`.
But to be safe, I'll define a macro called `when-make-node` that takes `var` and expands to `(when var (make-node var))`.
Wait, the prompt says `(when name '(make-node name))`. The backquote means it's a list.
Maybe the macro is `(defmacro make-node-when (var) ...)`.
I will define `(defmacro make-node-when (var) ...)`.
Actually, the prompt might be asking for a macro that generalizes this: `(
</think>
(defmacro when (test &body forms)
  `(if ,test
	   ,(cl:if (cadr forms)
			   `(progn ,@forms)
			   (car forms))))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(do+ (for x (across #())) (collect x))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by do+

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to create a Common Lisp macro named `do+`.
The input format is: `(do+ (for x (across #())) (collect x))`
This looks like a simplified iteration construct.
`for x (across ...)` suggests iterating over a sequence.
`collect x` suggests collecting the results into a list.

Let's analyze the structure:
`(do+ body ...)`
Inside `body`, there are clauses.
One clause is `(for var (across sequence))`.
Another clause is `(collect expr)`.

Wait, the example is `(do+ (for x (across #())) (collect x))`.
This implies `do+` takes multiple forms.
The first form defines the loop variable and the sequence.
The second form defines what to collect.

Generalizing:
`(do+ (for var (across seq)) (collect expr))`
Could be equivalent to:
`(loop for x across seq collect x)`
Or using `mapcar`:
`(mapcar (lambda (x) x) seq)`

Let's look at the structure again.
`(do+ ...)`
Arguments:
1. `(for x (across #()))`
2. `(collect x)`

If I write a macro `do+`, it needs to parse these arguments.
Argument 1: `(for var (across seq))`
Argument 2: `(collect expr))`

Maybe `do+` is a DSL for loops.
Let's assume the user wants a macro that transforms this specific syntax into standard Common Lisp loop or mapcar.
Since `across` is used, it's likely iterating over a vector or sequence.
`collect` implies returning a list.

Let's try to map this to `loop`.
`(loop for x across seq collect x)`

So the macro needs to:
1. Identify the `for` clause.
2. Identify the `collect` clause.
3. Generate the `loop` form.

Structure of `do+`:
`(do+ (for var (across seq)) (collect expr))`

Let's write the macro.
`(defmacro do+ (&rest clauses) ...)`

Inside the macro body:
Iterate through `clauses`.
If a clause starts with `for`, extract `var` and `seq`.
If a clause starts with `collect`, extract `expr`.

Wait, what if there are multiple clauses? The example only shows one `for` and one `collect`.
Let's stick to the example.
`(for x (across #()))` -> `var` is `x`, `seq` is `#()`.
`(collect x)` -> `expr` is `x`.

Result: `(loop for x across #() collect x)`

Let's refine the macro to be slightly more robust but simple.
`(defmacro do+ (&rest clauses)`
  `(let ((for-clause (find-if (lambda (c) (eq (first c) 'for)) clauses))`
        `(collect-clause (find-if (lambda (c) (eq (first c) 'collect)) clauses)))`
    `(if (and for-clause collect-clause)`
        `(let ((var (second for-clause))`
              `(seq (caadr (cddr for-clause)))` ... wait, `(across seq)` is the third element of `for-clause`?
        `(for x (across #()))`
        `first`: `for`
        `second`: `x`
        `third`: `(across #())`
        So `seq` is `(second (third for-clause))`.
        `(expr (second collect-clause))`
        `(list 'loop 'for var 'across seq 'collect expr))`
        `...`)))`

Let's check the structure of `(for x (across #()))`.
`car`: `for`
`cadr`: `x`
`caddr`: `(across #())`
`caaddr`: `across`
`cdaddr`: `(#())`
`cadaddr`: `#()`

So `seq` is `(second (third for-clause))`.
And `expr` is `(second collect-clause)`.

Let's write the macro.
I should handle the case where `across` might be missing or different, but for this specific transformation, I'll assume the structure holds.
Also, `do+` might be intended to support more clauses, but I'll focus on the requested transformation.

One detail: `across` in `loop` iterates over characters of a string or elements of a vector.
The example uses `#()`, which is a vector.
So
</think>
(defmacro do+ (&body body)
  "High-level, extensible iteration construct. Refer to the manual for syntax and semantics."
  `(do+/internal nil ,@body))


[System] You are an expert Common Lisp macro programmer. Think step by step before writing the macro. Always explain your reasoning in <think>...</think> tags, then provide the defmacro form.

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-path-instruction-pair quadratic-curve-to "Q" (control-x1 control-y1 x y))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-path-instruction-pair

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-path-instruction-pair`.
The example call is: `(define-path-instruction-pair quadratic-curve-to "Q" (control-x1 control-y1 x y))`.

Let's analyze the arguments:
1. `quadratic-curve-to`: likely the name of the function or instruction to be defined.
2. `"Q"`: likely a string identifier, maybe a command character or keyword for the instruction.
3. `(control-x1 control-y1 x y)`: a list of variables, likely the parameters for the function.

The name `define-path-instruction-pair` suggests defining a pair of functions or a single function that handles a path instruction.
Usually, in graphics or SVG path processing, instructions like "Q" (Quadratic Bezier) take parameters.
The macro likely expands into a function definition.
Let's assume it defines a function named `quadratic-curve-to` that takes the arguments `(control-x1 control-y1 x y)` and maybe stores the command "Q" somewhere, or returns a list/structure representing the instruction.

Since the prompt is open-ended about the exact expansion, I need to make reasonable assumptions or provide a generic structure that fits typical Lisp macro patterns for defining commands.
Common patterns:
1. Define a function that returns a list: `(cons 'Q (list control-x1 control-y1 x y))`
2. Define a function that returns a structure.
3. Define a function that performs an action.

Given "define-path-instruction-pair", maybe it defines two things? Or maybe "pair" refers to the coordinate pairs?
Actually, looking at the arguments: `(control-x1 control-y1 x y)` are 4 coordinates.
Maybe it defines a function that takes these args and returns a path segment.

Let's assume the macro expands to a `defun` that returns a list starting with the command string, followed by the arguments.
Or maybe it defines a reader macro? No, it's a `defmacro`.

Let's look at the structure: `(NAME COMMAND-SYMBOL ARGS...)`
Expansion:
</think>
(defmacro define-path-instruction-pair (name instruction (&rest args))
  (let ((draw-relative (intern (concatenate 'string (string name) "-R"))))
    `(progn
       (defun ,name (,@args)
         (format-instruction ,instruction ,@args))
       (defun ,draw-relative (,@args)
         (format-instruction ,(string-downcase instruction) ,@args)))))