[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:
(is-true nil)

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by is-true

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `is-true`.
The example provided is `(is-true nil)`.
The prompt asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by is-true".
This implies I need to define the macro `is-true`.
However, the prompt is slightly ambiguous about *what* the transformation should be.
Usually, `is-true` suggests a predicate check.
If the input is `(is-true nil)`, and it's a macro, it likely expands to something that evaluates the form and checks if it is true.
Common patterns for `is-true` might be:
1. `(if form t nil)`
2. `(if form (values t) (values nil))`
3. Or perhaps it's a testing macro, like `(assert form)`.

However, looking at the context of "Before code" and "What needs to change", it seems like a code transformation task.
If the input is `(is-true nil)`, and `nil` is the form to be checked.
If I assume the goal is to check if the form evaluates to true.
A simple expansion could be `(if nil t nil)`.
Or maybe it's a boolean conversion.

Let's look at the "Before code" again: `(is-true nil)`.
If this is a macro, `nil` is the argument.
If the intention is to transform `(is-true form)` into code that checks if `form` is true.
Maybe it expands to `(if form t nil)`.
Or maybe it's a specific DSL where `is-true` is a test assertion.
Without specific output requirements, I will assume the standard interpretation: a macro that checks if a form is true, perhaps returning a boolean or signaling an error if false (like a test).
But "is-true" sounds like a boolean operator.
Let's assume the simplest case: `(is-true form)` expands to `(if form t nil)`.
Wait, if `form` is `nil`, `(if nil t nil)` returns `nil`.
If `form` is `t`, `(if t t nil)` returns `t`.
This seems redundant.

Let's reconsider. Maybe the user wants a macro that *asserts* truth?
Or maybe the user wants to invert it?
Let's look at the prompt structure again.
"Before code: (is-true nil)"
"What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by is-true"
This phrasing is a bit odd. It sounds like the user is giving me the *input* to the macro and asking me to define the macro that handles this pattern.
But what is the *output*?
Usually, in these types of prompts, there's an implicit expectation of a standard behavior or a specific transformation mentioned in previous context (which I don't have).
However, often `is-true` is associated with testing frameworks (like `is` in Elixir or similar).
Or it could be a simple boolean check.

Let's assume the user wants a macro that expands `(is-true form)` to a check.
If I have to guess the transformation, `(is-true form)` -> `(if form t nil)` is the safest bet for a "truthiness" check.
Alternatively, maybe it's `(boolean form)`.

Let's try to interpret "What needs to change" as the user asking me to provide the macro definition that *performs* the transformation on the call `(is-true nil)`.
So I need to write `defmacro is-true`.
The argument is `form`.
The expansion should evaluate `form` and return a boolean indicating if it's true.
`(if form t nil)` works.
Or maybe `(values (not (null form)))`.

Let's think about variable capture.
If `form` is a variable, `(if form t nil)` is fine.
If `form` has side effects, `(if form t nil)` evaluates it once.
This seems robust.

Let's refine the thought.
Pattern: `(is-true form)`
Constructs: `if`
Quasiquote: `(if ,form t nil)`
Capture: `form` is evaluated, no gensym needed unless the macro introduces new bindings, which it doesn't here.
Structure: `(defmacro is-true (form) ...)`

Wait, is there a more specific transformation implied?
Maybe `(is-true nil)` should become `nil`?
Maybe `(is-true t)` should become `t`?
Maybe it's a macro for a specific library?
Without more info, I will stick to the boolean check interpretation.
Actually, if the user provided "Before code: (is-true nil)", maybe they want
</think>
(defmacro is-true (condition &rest reason-args)
  "Like IS this check generates a pass if CONDITION returns true
  and a failure if CONDITION returns false. Unlike IS this check
  does not inspect CONDITION to determine how to report the
  failure."
  `(if ,condition
       (add-result 'test-passed :test-expr ',condition)
       (process-failure ',condition
                        ,@(or reason-args
                              `("~S did not return a true value" ',condition)))))


[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:
(once-only* args (let ((else `(error 'match-error :values (list ,@args) :patterns ',(mapcar #'car clauses)))) (compile-match args clauses else)))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by once-only*

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `once-only*` that eliminates a repetitive pattern.
The pattern is:
`(once-only* args (let ((else `(error 'match-error :values (list ,@args) :patterns ',(mapcar #'car clauses)))) (compile-match args clauses else)))`

This looks like a macro that takes a list of arguments (`args`) and a body.
The body contains a `let` binding for `else`, which constructs an error form using `args` and `clauses`.
Wait, `clauses` is not bound in the `let`. It must be a free variable in the macro expansion context, or perhaps `args` is a list of symbols?
Let's look at the pattern again.
`(once-only* args body)`
The expansion should probably generate unique symbols for each element in `args` to avoid multiple evaluation, or perhaps `args` is a single variable?
Actually, `once-only` usually takes a list of variable names and a body, and expands to a `let` binding those variables to gensyms, evaluating them once, then expanding the body with the gensyms replaced by the original variables.
But here, the pattern is specific:
`(once-only* args (let ((else ...)) (compile-match args clauses else)))`
Wait, `args` is likely a list of symbols representing the arguments to a macro.
The standard `once-only` macro looks like:
`(once-only (x y) (list x x y))` -> `(let ((g1 x) (g2 y)) (list g1 g1 g2))`

Here, the user gives a specific pattern to eliminate.
Maybe `once-only*` is meant to bind `args` to gensyms, and also handle `clauses`? Or maybe `args` is a list of symbols, and we need to generate gensyms for them.
Actually, the pattern shows `args` being used in backquote: `(list ,@args)`. If `args` is a list of symbols, `,@args` splices them. If we replace `args` with gensyms, `,@` won't work as expected unless `args` is a single variable holding a list, or `args` is a list of variables.
Wait, `(list ,@args)` suggests `args` is a list of forms. If `args` is `(a b c)`, then `(list ,@args)` becomes `(list a b c)`.
If we use `once-only`, we'd replace `a`, `b`, `c` with gensyms. But `args` itself is a list.
Maybe `once-only*` takes a list of variable names `args`, and the body. It expands to:
`(let ((g1 (car args)) ...) ...)`? No.

Let's reconsider the standard `once-only` macro definition.
</think>
(defmacro once-only* (symbol &body body)
  (with-unique-names (form var vars bindings)
    `(let (,vars ,bindings)
       (dolist (,form ,symbol)
         (if (symbolp ,form)
             (push ,form ,vars)
             (let ((,var (gensym "VAR")))
               (push ,var ,vars)
               (push (list ,var ,form) ,bindings))))
       (setq ,vars (nreverse ,vars)
             ,bindings (nreverse ,bindings))
       (if ,bindings
           `(let ,,bindings
              ;(declare (ignorable ,@(mapcar #'car ,bindings)))
              ,(let ((,symbol ,vars))
                 ,@body))
           (progn ,@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:
(deferror "23503" foreign-key-violation integrity-violation)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by deferror

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `deferror`.
The macro should take three arguments:
1. A string representing an error code (e.g., "23503").
2. A symbol representing the specific error type (e.g., `foreign-key-violation`).
3. A symbol representing a parent error type (e.g., `integrity-violation`).

The goal is to define a new condition type in Common Lisp.
In Common Lisp, condition types are usually defined using `define-condition`.
`define-condition` allows specifying the name, superclasses, and slots.

Here's the step-by-step thinking process:

1.  **Pattern Matching**: The macro call is `(deferror "23503" foreign-key-violation integrity-violation)`.
    *   Arg 1: `code` -> "23503"
    *   Arg 2: `name` -> `foreign-key-violation`
    *   Arg 3: `parent` -> `integrity-violation`

2.  **Constructs Needed**:
    *   `define-condition` is the standard way to define conditions.
    *   We need to generate a `define-condition` form.
    *   It's often useful to store the error code in a slot, so we can retrieve it later. Let's add a slot named `code` (or `error-code`) to store the string.
    *   The `name` argument becomes the name of the condition class.
    *   The `parent` argument becomes the superclass.
    *   We might want to initialize the `code` slot automatically.

3.  **Quasiquote/Unquote**:
    *   We need to generate code.
    *   The structure will look like:
        ```lisp
        (define-condition ,name
            (,parent)
            ((code :initform ,code :reader error-code)))
        ```
    *   Wait, `define-condition` takes a list of superclasses. So `(,parent)` needs to be `(list ,parent)` or just `,(list ,parent)`? actually, standard syntax is `(define-condition name (superclass ...) ((slot ...)))`.
    *   So: `(define-condition ,name (,parent) ((code :initform ,code :accessor error-code)))`.
    *   Using `accessor` is generally better than `reader` if we might want to set it, but for error codes, `reader` is safer. Let's stick to `reader` or just `initform` if we assume it's constant per instance? Actually, usually error codes are specific to the type, but sometimes you might want to pass a specific code. Let's make it a slot.
    *   Let's refine the slot definition. `(code :initarg :code :initform nil :reader error-code)`.
    *   However, the macro call provides a default code. So `:initform` should be the provided string.

4.  **Variable Capture**:
    *   `name` and `parent` are symbols provided by the user. They should be treated as names, not values to be evaluated at macro expansion time (except for the code string, which is a literal).
    *   `code` is a string literal in the example.
    *   We need to ensure that if the user passes a variable for `code`, it gets evaluated at runtime (instance creation time) or expansion time? Usually, error codes are constants. Let's assume the first argument is a literal or a form to be evaluated to produce the default value.
    *   `name` and `parent` must be quoted implicitly by `define-condition` structure, but since we are unquoting them into the `define-condition` form, they are treated as symbols. This is correct.

5.  **Structure**:
    ```lisp
    (defmacro deferror (code name parent)
      `(define-condition ,name
         (,parent)
         ((code :initform ,code :reader error-code))))
    ```
    Wait, `define-condition` syntax for superclasses is a list. If `parent` is a symbol, `(,parent)` works.
    What if the user wants multiple parents? The prompt implies a single parent pattern.
    Let's stick to the pattern provided.

    Let's check the arguments again.
    `(deferror "23503" foreign-key-violation integrity-violation)`

    Generated code:
    ```lisp
    (define-condition foreign-key-violation
      (integrity-violation)
      ((code :initform "23503" :reader error-code)))
    ```

    This looks solid. It defines a condition
</think>
(defmacro deferror (code typename &optional (superclass 'database-error))
  `(progn (define-condition ,typename (,superclass) ())
          (setf (gethash ,code *error-table*) ',typename)))


[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:
(deferror "23505" unique-violation integrity-violation)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `deferror` that defines a new error condition.
The example call is `(deferror "23505" unique-violation integrity-violation)`.
This looks like it's defining an error with a code "23505", a name `unique-violation`, and a superclass `integrity-violation`.

Let's analyze the pattern:
1. `deferror` takes three arguments: an error code (string), a symbol for the error name, and a superclass (symbol).
2. It should define a new condition class using `define-condition`.
3. The condition should probably have a slot for the error code, or just store it.
4. It should inherit from the superclass (and `error` implicitly if not specified, but here `integrity-violation` is given).
5. It might also want to print the error code nicely.

Let's design the macro:
</think>
(defmacro deferror (code typename &optional (superclass 'database-error))
  `(progn (define-condition ,typename (,superclass) ())
          (setf (gethash ,code *error-table*) ',typename)))


[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-custom-var (:end-of-object *end-of-object-handler*))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-custom-var`.
The input form is `(define-custom-var (:end-of-object *end-of-object-handler*))`.
The goal is to define a variable, likely with some metadata or specific behavior associated with the keyword `:end-of-object`.
However, the prompt asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var". This implies I need to write the macro that performs a transformation on this specific syntax.
Usually, `define-custom-var` suggests defining a variable with some custom properties.
Let's assume the standard behavior for such a macro is to define the variable and perhaps register it or set a property.
Since the prompt is open-ended about the exact transformation, I will create a reasonable implementation that:
1.  Defines the variable using `defvar` or `defparameter`.
2.  Associates the keyword `:end-of-object` with the variable.
3.  Perhaps sets a default value or property.

Let's stick to a simple transformation:
Input: `(define-custom-var (:keyword var-name))`
Output: A form that defines `var-name` and perhaps stores `:keyword` in its property list or just defines it.
A common pattern for this kind of macro is to use `defvar` and maybe `setf`.

Let's refine the "What needs to change" part. The user asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var". This is slightly ambiguous. It likely means "Write the macro `define-custom-var` that transforms the call `(define-custom-var (:end-of-object *end-of-object-handler*))` into some expanded code."

I will write a macro that:
1.  Deconstructs the input into `key` and `var`.
2.  Generates a `defvar` form for `var`.
3.  Generates a form to associate `key` with `var`, perhaps using `setf` on a property list or just a comment, but usually, in these exercises, it's about structure.
Let's assume it defines the variable and sets a property.

Step 1: Pattern matching.
`(define-custom-var (,key ,var))`

Step 2: Lisp constructs.
`defvar`, `setf`, `symbol-plist`? Or maybe just `defvar`.
Let's make it define the variable and print a message or set a property.
Actually, a very common pattern for "custom var" macros is to define the variable and register it in a specific registry.
Let's assume a simple expansion: `(defvar ,var nil)` and maybe `(setf (get ,var ',key) t)`.

Step 3: Quasiquote.
`` `(defvar ,var nil) ``

Step 4: Variable capture.
The variable name is provided by the user, so it's safe. The key is a keyword, safe.
We need to ensure `var` is a symbol.

Step 5: Structure.
</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]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(c? (when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value))))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by c?

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `c?` (or similar, based on the example).
Looking at the example: `(c? (when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value))))`.
This looks like a macro that wraps a form.
The name `c?` suggests a conditional or a check.
However, without more context on what `c?` is supposed to do, I have to infer from the structure or common patterns.
Usually, macros like this might be for:
1.  Conditional execution: "Check if X, then do Y".
2.  Null checks: "If X is not null, do Y".
3.  A specific DSL syntax.

Let's look at the example again: `(c? (when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value))))`.
The body is `(when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value)))`.
The `when` form already implies a condition.
Maybe `c?` is a macro that adds a specific wrapper, perhaps for logging, or for handling errors, or maybe it's a typo in the user's prompt and they just want a macro that expands to its body?
Or maybe `c?` stands for "call if"?
Let's assume the user wants a macro that takes a body and wraps it in a specific way.
Given the lack of specific transformation logic in the prompt ("Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by c?"), I need to make a reasonable assumption about the transformation.

Common patterns for such macros in Lisp:
-   `when` is already there.
-   Maybe it's about capturing the value?
-   Maybe it's about `progn`?
-   Maybe it's a macro that checks if the form is a `when` and optimizes it?

Let's look at the variable `^value`. This looks like a slot accessor or a specific syntax.
Let's assume the macro `c?` is meant to be a "conditional call" or similar.
However, since I must generate a `defmacro`, and the prompt is vague on the *transformation*, I should probably define a macro that simply expands to the form provided, or perhaps wraps it in a `block` or `tags` context, or maybe it's a macro that handles the `^value` syntax?
Wait, if `^value` is a syntax error in standard Lisp, maybe the macro handles that?
But `^value` is inside a `funcall` call.

Let's reconsider the prompt: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this... Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by c?".
This implies I need to write the definition of `c?`.
If I don't know the exact semantics, I should provide a generic structure that allows for transformation, or perhaps the user implies that `c?` is a macro that takes a form and does something specific like checking for nil?
Actually, looking at `(kv-collector self)`, this returns a function.
Maybe `c?` is "call if exists"?
If so, the expansion might be: `(when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value)))`.
But the input *is* `(c? (when ...))`.
So the input is `(c? <form>)`.
If `c?` is "call if", maybe the input is meant to be `(c? (kv-collector self) ^value)`?
But the example shows `(c? (when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value))))`.
This suggests the user wants to wrap an existing `when` block.

Let's assume the macro `c?` is a placeholder for a transformation that the user wants me to implement based on a pattern I might infer, OR the user wants me to write a macro that matches this pattern and performs a specific transformation (like optimizing the double call to `kv-collector`).
Ah, `(kv-collector self)` is called twice.
Maybe `c?` is a macro that optimizes repeated calls?
Or maybe `c?` is a macro that ensures the form is executed in a specific context?

Let's look at the "Pattern to recognize" part.
The pattern is `(c? <body>)`.
The body is `(when (kv-collector self) (funcall (kv-collector self) (^value)))`.
A common optimization here is to bind the result of `(kv-collector self)` to a variable.
So the transformation could be:
`(let ((collector (kv-collector self))) (when collector (funcall collector (^value))))`.

Let's try
</think>
(defmacro c? (&body body)
  `(make-c-dependent
    :code ',body
    :value-state :unevaluated
    :rule (c-lambda ,@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:
(do+ (for x (in '(1 3 5 7 9))) (for k (from 10 :to 0)) (initially (format t "initially k = ~S~%" k)) (for m (to 100 :by 5)) (initially (format t "another init form~%")) (with (y 42) z) (stop-when (eql x 7)) (counting loops) (finally (format t "finally k = ~S~%" k)) (accumulating-to w) (accumulating-to p :initially 0 :by #'+ :finally #'-) (returning (list 'x x 'y y 'z z 'k k 'm m 'w w 'p p 'loops loops 'max-length max-length 'longest-list longest-list)) (finally (format t "another final form~%")) (finding max-x (maximizing x)) (for list (in '((1 2) (3) (4 5 6) (7 8) (9)))) (finding max-length (maximizing (length list) :saving list :in longest-list)) (let ((foo "look ma, body is nested!")) (declare (ignore foo)) (format t "~%loop no. ~A~%" loops) (format t "before collect, x ~A y ~A z ~A k ~A m ~A w ~A ~% list ~A max-length ~A longest-list ~A ~%" x y z k m w list max-length longest-list) (collect x :into w) (collect x :into p) (format t "after collect, x ~A y ~A z ~A k ~A m ~A w ~A ~% list ~A max-length ~A longest-list ~A ~%" x y z k m w list max-length longest-list)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro `do+` that transforms a complex loop-like syntax into something that Common Lisp can execute.
The syntax resembles Common Lisp's `loop` macro but with some specific keywords and structures.
Let's analyze the components of the `do+` macro call:
1. `(for x (in '(1 3 5 7 9)))` -> iterates `x` over the list.
2. `(for k (from 10 :to 0))` -> iterates `k` from 10 down to 0.
3. `(initially (format t "initially k = ~S~%" k))` -> initial form. Note: `k` is used here, but `k` is defined in the previous `for` clause. In standard `loop`, `initially` forms are evaluated before the loop starts, so `k` wouldn't be bound yet unless it's a `loop` specific behavior where `initially` can see variables? Actually, in CL `loop`, `initially` forms are evaluated before the first iteration. Variables introduced by `for`/`with` are not yet bound. But here it says `initially k = ...`. Maybe it's just a form to be executed initially. I will treat `initially` forms as code to run before the loop body.
4. `(for m (to 100 :by 5))` -> iterates `m` from 0 to 100 by 5.
5. `(initially (format t "another init form~%"))` -> another initial form.
6. `(with (y 42) z)` -> binds `y` to 42, `z` is uninitialized? Or maybe `(with y 42 z)` means `y` is 42, `z` is local? The syntax `(with (y 42) z)` is a bit odd. Maybe it means `y` is bound to 42, and `z` is a local variable. I'll assume it creates bindings: `y` = 42, `z` = nil (or unbound). Let's stick to standard `let` bindings: `((y 42) (z nil))`.
7. `(stop-when (eql x 7))` -> loop termination condition.
8. `(counting loops)` -> counts iterations into variable `loops`.
9. `(finally (format t "finally k = ~S~%" k))` -> final form.
10. `(accumulating-to w)` -> collects into `w`.
11. `(accumulating-to p :initially 0 :by #'+ :finally #'-)` -> accumulates into `p` with initial 0, combine with `+`, final transform `-`.
12. `(returning (list ...))` -> return value.
13. `(finally (format t "another final form~%"))` -> another final form.
14. `(finding max-x (maximizing x))` -> finds max of `x` into `max-x`.
15. `(for list (in '((1 2) (3) (4 5 6) (7 8) (9))))` -> iterates `list` over a list.
16. `(finding max-length (maximizing (length list) :saving list :in longest-list))` -> finds max length, saves corresponding list in `longest-list`, result in `max-length`.
17. Body: `(let ((foo "look ma, body is nested!")) ...)` -> the rest is the loop body.

This is essentially a custom loop macro. Implementing a full `loop` macro is huge. But the prompt asks for a macro that transforms this specific call. I can write a macro that parses these clauses and generates a `do` or `loop` or `block` + `tagbody` structure.
Given the complexity, it's better to generate a `do` loop or use CL's `loop` macro internally, or generate explicit binding and iteration code.
Actually, the prompt says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation." It implies I should write a macro `do+` that handles these clauses.
I will design `do+` to parse the clauses sequentially.
Clauses can be:
- `for` <var> `in` <list>
- `for` <var> `from` <start> `:to` <end>
- `for` <var> `to` <end> `:by` <step>
- `initially` <form>
- `with` <bindings>
- `stop-when` <test>
- `counting`
</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]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defsynonym next-iteration :next-iteration)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defsynonym`.
The example usage is `(defsynonym next-iteration :next-iteration)`.
This looks like it's creating a synonym for a variable or a symbol.
In Common Lisp, `defvar` or `defparameter` can create a variable.
However, `defsynonym` usually implies creating a synonym for a variable, often used in the context of dynamic variables or special variables.
Wait, `defsynonym` is not a standard CL macro. It might be a custom macro.
Looking at the form `(defsynonym next-iteration :next-iteration)`, it seems to define `next-iteration` as a synonym for the variable named `:next-iteration`? Or maybe it's defining a synonym for a symbol?
Actually, in some contexts (like Emacs Lisp or specific CL libraries), `defsynonym` might just be an alias for `defvar` or `defparameter`, or it might be creating a synonym variable using `symbol-value` or `setf`.
But wait, in Common Lisp, there's `defvar` and `defparameter`. There's also `defconstant`.
Perhaps `defsynonym` is meant to create a synonym for a special variable? Or maybe it's just a simple macro that expands to `(defvar next-iteration (symbol-value ':next-iteration))`? That doesn't make much sense.
Let's think about typical uses. Sometimes `defsynonym` is used to create an alias for a function or variable.
Actually, in some CL codebases, `defsynonym` might just expand to `(defparameter next-iteration :next-iteration)` or `(defvar next-iteration :next-iteration)`.
Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym". It gives one example: `(defsynonym next-iteration :next-iteration)`.
Could it be that `defsynonym` is meant to define a synonym for a variable, such that `next-iteration` refers to the same storage as `:next-iteration`? But `:next-iteration` is a keyword, which is a constant. You can't make a synonym for a constant in the same way.
Maybe it's simpler: `(defmacro defsynonym (name value) `(defparameter ,name ,value))`?
Or perhaps it's from a specific library? The prompt doesn't specify.
Let's reconsider: "defsynonym" might be a macro that defines a variable that is a synonym for another variable. In CL, you can't really have true synonyms for variables except through `symbol-value` and `setf`, or by using `defvar` with the same value.
Wait, maybe it's just `(defvar ,name ,value)`?
Actually, in some contexts, `defsynonym` is used to create a synonym for a function or macro. But the example uses a keyword.
Let's look at the exact wording: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: (defsynonym next-iteration :next-iteration) What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym"
This is a bit ambiguous. It might just want a macro that expands to `(defparameter next-iteration :next-iteration)` or `(defvar next-iteration :next-iteration)`.
Given it's a simple transformation request, I'll assume it wants to define a variable. `defparameter` is safer for initialization. Or maybe `defvar`.
Actually, `defsynonym` is sometimes used in Clozure CL or other implementations to define a synonym for a special variable. But without more context, I'll stick to a simple expansion: `(defparameter ,name ,value)` or `(defvar ,name ,value)`.
Wait, could it be `(defalias ,name ,value)`? No, that's for functions.
Let's think about `defsynonym` in the context of `defparameter` vs `defvar`. `defvar` doesn't reinitialize if already bound. `defparameter` does.
I'll go with `(defparameter ,name ,value)` as it's a common pattern for defining variables with initial values.
But wait, the name "defsynonym" strongly suggests creating a synonym. In CL, synonyms are often created using `defparameter` or `defvar` pointing to the same object.
Another possibility: it's from a specific codebase like `defsynonym` in `alexandria`? No.
Maybe it's just a simple macro that expands to `(defvar ,name ,value)`.
Let's consider the possibility that it's meant to create a synonym for a variable name, like `(defsynonym old-name new-name)` -> `(defparameter old-name (symbol-value 'new-name))
</think>
(defmacro defsynonym (symbol synonym)
  "Set SYNONYM for a SYMBOL. "
  `(eval-always
     (setf (get ',symbol 'synonym) ',synonym)))


[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:
(do+ (for s (symbols-in :doplus-tests :internal)) (for l (maximizing (length (symbol-name s)) :saving s :in symbol-with-longest-name)) (returning symbol-with-longest-name))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by do+

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `do+` that handles a specific pattern of iteration and maximization.
The pattern is:
`(do+ (for s (symbols-in :doplus-tests :internal)) (for l (maximizing (length (symbol-name s)) :saving s :in symbol-with-longest-name)) (returning symbol-with-longest-name))`

Wait, the user provides a specific example call, but usually, a macro should handle a general pattern.
Let's analyze the example call:
`(do+ (for s (symbols-in :doplus-tests :internal)) (for l (maximizing (length (symbol-name s)) :saving s :in symbol-with-longest-name)) (returning symbol-with-longest-name))`

This looks like a DSL for loops.
It has clauses:
- `(for s (symbols-in ...))` -> iterates `s` over a sequence of symbols.
- `(for l (maximizing ... :saving s :in symbol-with-longest-name))` -> finds the maximum value, saves the associated `s` into `symbol-with-longest-name`.
- `(returning ...)` -> returns the result.

Actually, this looks very similar to the `do` macro from Alexandria or some other library, but specifically tailored or just a custom DSL.
Let's break down the semantics:
1. `symbols-in` probably expands to `(symbol-package ...)` or `(do-symbols ...)` or similar. But since it's a macro, I can just treat `(symbols-in pkg)` as a macro that expands to something like `(loop for s being the external-in pkg collect s)` or just assume it's a function/macro that returns a list/sequence. Actually, `alexandria:symbol-package`? No, `symbols-in` might be a custom function or macro. I will assume it's a form that evaluates to a sequence of symbols, or I can just leave it as is and iterate over it. Wait, `symbols-in` might be a macro that expands to `(loop for s being the symbols in :doplus-tests :internal collect s)`. But for the `do+` macro, I can just treat the iterator specification as a form that produces a sequence, or I can support `loop` constructs.
Actually, the prompt says "handle this code pattern". I should write a macro that parses this specific DSL syntax and expands it into standard Common Lisp (likely using `loop` or `let`/`dolist`).

Let's assume the general syntax for `do+`:
`(do+ clause* (returning result-form))`
Clauses can be:
- `(for var (iterator-form))`
- `(for var (maximizing key-form :saving save-var :in max-var))`
- maybe others, but I'll stick to these two for now.

Wait, `maximizing` is interesting. It iterates over the previous sequence, computes `key-form` for each element, keeps track of the maximum, and binds `max-var` to the `save-var` value corresponding to the maximum key.
This is essentially a fold/reduce or a loop with tracking.

Let's design the macro to expand into a `loop` or nested `dolist`/`let`.
Since it's a macro, I can generate code that:
1. Expands `(symbols-in ...)` into a sequence or just use it as a form.
2. For the `maximizing` clause, it needs to iterate over the sequence from the previous `for`, compute lengths, track max, and bind `symbol-with-longest-name`.
3. Finally, return `symbol-with-longest-name`.

Actually, a simpler approach: `do+` can just expand into a `loop` construct if possible, or I can manually generate `let` bindings and `dolist`.
But `maximizing` implies state tracking.
Let's generate code using `loop` for simplicity, or just standard CL.
Wait, `loop` has `maximize` but not exactly with `:saving`.
I can implement the expansion manually.

Let's define the macro structure:
</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]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(with-hamt dict (:test test :hash hash :table table) (flet ((%insert (table key value) (%dict-insert table key value (funcall hash key) 0 test))) (make-instance 'hash-dict :test test :hash hash :table (labels ((f (table args) (if args (let ((key (car args)) (value (cadr args))) (f (%insert table key value) (cddr args))) table))) (f table args)))))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by with-hamt

[Assistant]
<think>
Here's a thinking process that leads to the suggested macro:

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Goal:** Define a macro `with-hamt` to eliminate a specific repetitive pattern in Common Lisp.
    *   **Pattern:**
        ```lisp
        (with-hamt dict (:test test :hash hash :table table)
          (flet ((%insert (table key value)
                   (%dict-insert table key value (funcall hash key) 0 test)))
            (make-instance 'hash-dict
                           :test test
                           :hash hash
                           :table (labels ((f (table args)
                                             (if args
                                                 (let ((key (car args))
                                                       (value (cadr args)))
                                                   (f (%insert table key value) (cddr args)))
                                                 table)))
                                    (f table args)))))
        ```
    *   **Context:** The user wants a macro that expands into this specific structure. The macro takes a name (`dict`), a list of keywords (`:test`, `:hash`, `:table`) bound to variables, and a body (which seems to be implicit or perhaps the `args` part is meant to be passed in, though the prompt implies the *whole* block is the pattern to be eliminated).
    *   **Wait, looking closer at the prompt:** The prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (with-hamt ...)". This implies the *code shown* is the *expansion* or the *target* code, and the user wants a macro that generates it. OR, the user is showing the *call* they want to write, and the code block is what they currently have to write manually.
    *   *Interpretation A:* The code block is the "before" (manual code), and `with-hamt` is the "after" (macro).
    *   *Interpretation B:* The code block is the expansion of `with-hamt`.
    *   *Re-reading carefully:* "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(with-hamt dict (:test test :hash hash :table table) ...)`".
    *   Actually, usually, when people ask to "eliminate a pattern", they show the *verbose* code and want a macro. But here, the syntax `(with-hamt dict ...)` looks like a macro call itself.
    *   Let's look at the structure inside the parenthesis.
        `(with-hamt dict (:test test :hash hash :table table) (flet ... (make-instance ...)))`
    *   If `with-hamt` is the macro, what is its signature?
        `(with-hamt name (bindings...) body...)`?
    *   The code inside looks like it constructs a `hash-dict` instance using a HAMT (Hash Array Mapped Trie) logic (implied by `%dict-insert` and `labels` recursion).
    *   Let's assume the user wants a macro `with-hamt` that takes:
        1.  `dict`: A symbol (name of the dict? or maybe just a label?).
        2.  `(:test test :hash hash :table table)`: A list of keyword-value pairs.
        3.  `args`: The arguments to insert? Wait, the code has `(f table args)`. `args` is not defined in the snippet. It must be a variable provided by the caller.
    *   Let's re-read the prompt's code block again.
        `(with-hamt dict (:test test :hash hash :table table) (flet ... (make-instance ... (labels ... (f table args)))))`
    *   It looks like `with-hamt` is being *called* in the example. But the example *is* the repetitive pattern.
    *   *Hypothesis:* The user has written a helper function/macro `with-hamt` that expands into the huge block. But the prompt asks to "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern".
    *   *Alternative Hypothesis:* The user is showing the *expansion* they want, and the macro call is something simpler.
    *   *Most likely Hypothesis:* The user is showing the *current* code (which uses a macro `with-hamt` perhaps, or maybe `with-hamt` is the name they *want* to use, but the syntax shown is the expansion?).
    *   Let's look at the syntax: `(with-hamt dict (:test test :hash hash :table table) (flet ...))`.
    *   If `with-hamt` is the macro, the body is `(flet ...)`.
    *   But `args` is free in
</think>
(defmacro with-hamt (hamt (&key test hash table) &body body)
  "Accessing HAMT slots"
  `(with-accessors ((,test hamt-test)
                    (,hash hamt-hash)
                    (,table hamt-table))
       ,hamt
     ,@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:
(with-additional-indent (reporter stream "× ") (let ((description (possible-report-description report)) (duration (slot-value report 'duration))) (when description (format/indent reporter stream description)) (when duration (format stream " ") (print-duration stream duration (slot-value report 'slow-threshold)))) (when (slot-value report 'description) (format/indent reporter stream (concatenate 'string "~&" (report-expected-line report)))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-additional-indent`.
The provided code snippet shows a usage of this macro:
`(with-additional-indent (reporter stream "× ") ...body...)`

From the context `(format/indent reporter stream ...)` and `(print-duration ...)`, it looks like this macro is used for formatting output, likely in a testing or reporting framework (like `fiveam` or similar, given `reporter`, `report`, `possible-report-description`).
The argument `"× "` suggests an extra indentation or prefix string to be added to the output.
The macro likely wraps the body in a context where `format/indent` or similar functions use this additional indentation.

Let's analyze the arguments: `(reporter stream "× ")`.
It takes three arguments: `reporter`, `stream`, and `indent-string` (or similar).
The body is the rest of the form.

Possible implementation strategies:
1.  **Lexical Binding/Let**: Bind a variable `*additional-indent*` (or similar) dynamically or lexically. If `format/indent` is a macro or function that checks this variable, it works.
2.  **Wrapper Function**: The macro might expand into a `let` that binds a variable, or it might just be syntactic sugar for a function that takes a body (like `with-output-to-string`).
3.  **State modification**: It might modify the `reporter` object to include this indent.

Looking at the usage `(format/indent reporter stream description)`, `format/indent` likely takes `reporter` and `stream`. If `with-additional-indent` is meant to affect `format/indent`, it probably sets a slot in `reporter` or binds a dynamic variable that `format/indent` checks.

However, without the definition of `format/indent` or the reporter class, I have to make reasonable assumptions based on standard patterns.
Pattern A: `with-additional-indent` binds a dynamic variable `*current-indent*` or similar.
Pattern B: `with-additional-indent` modifies the `reporter` state (e.g., `reporter-indent` slot) and restores it afterwards.
Pattern C: It's a simple wrapper that passes the indent to a function.

Let's look at the structure again:
`(with-additional-indent (reporter stream "× ") body...)`
This looks like a `with-` macro that establishes a context.
Common pattern:
</think>
(defmacro with-additional-indent ((reporter stream control-string &rest format-arguments) &body body)
  (declare (ignorable reporter stream control-string))
  (let* ((need-new-line (ppcre:scan "^~&" control-string))
         (string (apply #'format nil control-string format-arguments))
         (increment (length string)))
    `(with-slots (indent-space) reporter
       (let* ((first-line-indent (indent indent-space))
              (*additional-indent* ,(if need-new-line
                                        increment
                                        `(+ *additional-indent*
                                            ,increment))))
         (declare (ignorable first-line-indent))
         ,(if need-new-line
              `(progn (fresh-line stream)
                      (write-string first-line-indent ,stream)
                      ;; because we just started a new line, we
                      ;; should use format/indent to write string
                      ;; taking into account a main indentation level
                      (format/indent ,reporter ,stream ,string))
              ;; otherwise, just output our prefix
              `(write-string ,string ,stream))

         ,@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:
(peek-char*)

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by peek-char*

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `peek-char*`.
Looking at the pattern `(peek-char*)`, it seems like a call with no arguments.
Standard `peek-char` in Common Lisp takes optional arguments: `peek-char` -> `(peek-char &optional peek-char-designator stream errorp no-error-character)`.
If `peek-char*` is a macro, it likely simplifies the call or adds some default behavior.
Perhaps it's related to a specific library or a custom extension.
Without more context, I should assume it's a macro that expands to a standard `peek-char` call with some defaults, or perhaps it's a macro that handles a specific stream or buffer.
However, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by peek-char*". This implies I need to define the macro `peek-char*`.
Let's assume `peek-char*` is a macro that calls `peek-char` with some default arguments, maybe reading from a specific stream or handling errors differently.
Or maybe it's from a specific library like `cl-ppcre` or `flexi-streams`?
Actually, `peek-char*` is not a standard CL function.
Let's think about what a macro `peek-char*` might do.
Maybe it's a macro that expands to `(peek-char nil *standard-input*)` or something similar.
Or perhaps it's a macro that allows for a more concise syntax.
Given the lack of context, I will create a macro that expands to `(peek-char nil stream)` where `stream` defaults to `*standard-input*`, or maybe it's just a wrapper around `peek-char`.
Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by peek-char*". This is a bit ambiguous. It might mean that the user wants me to write a macro named `peek-char*` that transforms calls to it.
Let's assume the macro takes no arguments and expands to `(peek-char nil *standard-input*)`.
Or maybe it's a macro that handles the `peek-char` call with a specific error handling.
Let's consider the possibility that `peek-char*` is a macro from a specific library. A quick mental search suggests it might be from `cl-who` or `html-template` or similar, but I'm not sure.
Actually, in some contexts, `*` suffix indicates a macro version or a stricter version.
Let's just define a simple macro that expands to `(peek-char nil *standard-input*)` if called with no arguments, or perhaps it takes a stream argument.
The pattern given is `(peek-char*)`. This suggests a call with no arguments.
I will define `peek-char*` as a macro that expands to `(peek-char nil *standard-input*)`.
But wait, `peek-char` returns the character or `no-error-character` if none available.
Maybe `peek-char*` is meant to be used in a specific context.
Let's think about variable capture. If it's a macro, it should be hygienic if it introduces variables, but here it's just expanding to a function call.
I'll write a macro that takes an optional stream argument, defaulting to `*standard-input*`.
Actually, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by peek-char*". This might mean that the user wants a macro that transforms `(peek-char*)` into something else.
Let's assume the macro is defined as:
`(defmacro peek-char* () '(peek-char nil *standard-input*))`
But that's too trivial.
Maybe it's from a specific codebase. I'll stick to a reasonable implementation.
I'll explain the reasoning:
1. Pattern: `(peek-char*)` is a macro call with no arguments.
2. Constructs: `defmacro`, `peek-char`, `*standard-input*`.
3. Quasiquote: Not strictly needed if just returning a list, but I'll use it for clarity if needed.
4. Variable capture: None, as it's a simple expansion.
5. Structure: Standard `defmacro`.

Wait, maybe `peek-char*` is a macro that expands to `(peek-char t stream)` or something? `peek-char`'s first argument is `peek-char-designator`. If it's `t`, it skips whitespace. If `nil`, it doesn't.
Maybe `peek-char*` is a macro that peeks a character and handles the error case by returning `nil`?
I'll go with a simple expansion to `(peek-char nil *standard-input*)`.
But to be more robust, I'll allow an optional stream argument.
`(defmacro peek-char* (&optional (stream '*standard-input*)) '(peek-char nil ,stream))`
Actually, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by peek-char*". This is the user's description of the pattern.
I
</think>
(defmacro peek-char* ()
  "Convenience macro because we always peek at the same string with
the same arguments."
  `(peek-char nil *stream* t nil 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]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(failure NIL)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by fail

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `fail` (implied by the problem description "Macro call that should be transformed by fail") that handles the pattern `(failure NIL)`.
Wait, the prompt says:
"Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(failure NIL)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by fail"

This is a bit ambiguous. It seems like the user wants a macro named `fail` that expands `(fail ...)` or maybe the macro is named `failure`?
Let's re-read carefully: "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (failure NIL). Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by fail"
It likely means the macro is called `fail`, and it handles a pattern like `(fail NIL)` or `(failure NIL)`? Or maybe the macro is named `failure`?
Actually, it says "Macro call that should be transformed by fail". This implies the macro name is `fail`.
But the pattern given is `(failure NIL)`. Maybe the macro is named `failure`? Or maybe the user made a typo and meant `(fail NIL)`?
Let's assume the macro name is `fail` and the pattern is `(fail NIL)`. Or maybe the macro is named `failure`.
Given "transformed by fail", I'll name the macro `fail`.
What does `(failure NIL)` or `(fail NIL)` usually mean in Lisp? It often means returning nil to indicate failure, or signaling an error, or returning a specific failure indicator.
In many Lisp libraries, a macro like `fail` might expand to `(return-from some-function nil)` or just `nil`.
But the prompt is very brief. "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (failure NIL)".
Maybe it's from a specific context? Like a test framework or a specific library?
"failure NIL" might be a typo for `(fail nil)`.
Let's think about common patterns. Sometimes `fail` is used in testing to signal a test failure.
Or maybe it's about handling a specific syntax where `NIL` is passed to indicate a default failure.
Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by fail". This strongly suggests the macro is named `fail`.
And the pattern is `(failure NIL)`. Maybe the user meant `(fail NIL)`? I will assume the macro is named `fail` and handles `(fail nil)`.
What should it expand to? Usually, `nil` in Lisp is false, so `(fail nil)` might just expand to `nil`. Or maybe it expands to `(error 'failure)`?
Given the ambiguity, I'll create a macro `fail` that takes an optional argument or just expands to `nil` when called with `nil`, or perhaps it's a macro that signals a condition.
Actually, a common pattern in some Lisp codebases is `(fail)` or `(fail nil)` to indicate failure and return nil.
Let's look at the exact wording: "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (failure NIL). Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by fail"
This looks like a prompt from a coding challenge or a specific exercise. "failure NIL" might be the exact form. Maybe the macro is named `failure`? "transformed by fail" -> maybe the macro is `fail` and it transforms `(fail NIL)`?
I will write a macro named `fail` that matches `(fail nil)` and expands to `nil`. Or maybe it's `(defmacro fail ((or (eql nil) t)) ...)`? No.
Let's assume the macro is simply `(defmacro fail (&optional (msg nil)) (if msg (error 'failure :msg msg) nil))`? Too complex.
Maybe it's just `(defmacro fail (&rest args) nil)`?
Wait, "failure NIL" might be a specific form from a library like `clozure` or `sbcl` debug? Unlikely.
Let's reconsider: "Macro call that should be transformed by fail". This implies the macro name is `fail`. The pattern is `(failure NIL)`. Maybe the user meant `(fail NIL)`? I'll assume `(fail nil)`.
I'll write a macro `fail` that expands to `nil`. To be safe, I'll make it handle `(fail nil)` or just `(fail)`.
Actually, in many contexts, `fail` is used to return `nil` from a function to indicate failure. So `(defmacro fail () 'nil)` or `(defmacro fail (&optional (x nil)) 'nil)`.
But the prompt says "handle this code pattern: (failure NIL)". Maybe the macro is named `failure`? "transformed by fail" might mean the macro is called `fail`, and it transforms calls to `failure`? That doesn't make sense.
</think>
(defmacro fail (form &optional (type 'error) description &rest format-args)
  `(eval-in-context
    *context*
    (make-instance 'comparison-result
                   :expression '(fail ,form ,type)
                   :value-form '(capture-error ,form)
                   :body (lambda () (capture-error ,form ,(maybe-unquote type)))
                   :expected ',(maybe-unquote type)
                   :comparison 'typep
                   ,@(when description
                       `(:description (format NIL ,description ,@format-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:
(modf place new-value)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `modf` that transforms a call `(modf place new-value)` into something else.
Wait, the prompt says "Before code: (modf place new-value)". And "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by modf". This is a bit ambiguous.
Usually, `modf` in C splits a number into integer and fractional parts. But in Lisp, there's no standard `modf`.
Maybe the user wants a macro that modifies a place? Like `setf`? Or maybe it's supposed to be `push`? Or `incf`?
Wait, "modf" might stand for "modify"? Or maybe it's a typo for `mod`? Or maybe it's just a placeholder name for a macro that the user wants me to define.
Let's re-read carefully: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: (modf place new-value) What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by modf"
This looks like a prompt from a code generation dataset where the user gives a "before" and asks for a macro that transforms it. But it doesn't specify the "after" code.
Wait, maybe `modf` is supposed to be like `setf` but with some modification? Or maybe it's `decf`/`incf`?
Actually, `modf` in some contexts (like Emacs Lisp or specific Lisp dialects) might be a macro for modifying a place. But in Common Lisp, `setf` is the standard.
Could it be that the user wants a macro that expands `(modf place new-value)` into `(setf place new-value)`? That seems too trivial.
Maybe `modf` stands for "modify function"? Or "mode form"?
Let's think about typical macro exercises. Sometimes `modf` is used as an alias for `setf` in some old Lisp books, or it's a macro that takes a place and a form to compute the new value, but evaluates the form in a specific environment.
Wait, the prompt says: "Before code: (modf place new-value)". It might be from a specific source. "modf" could be "modify".
Actually, in some Lisp contexts, `modf` is a macro that expands to `(setf place new-value)`. But why would they ask for it?
Maybe it's from a specific textbook or exercise. "modf" might stand for "modification form".
Let's consider that the user might have meant `setf` but wrote `modf`. Or maybe `modf` is supposed to be like `incf` but takes a new value? No.
Wait! In Common Lisp, there is no `modf`. But there is `MOD` (modulo).
Could it be that the user wants a macro that transforms `(modf place new-value)` into `(setf place new-value)`? That's plausible for a simple macro exercise.
Alternatively, maybe `modf` is supposed to be like `push` or `pop`? No.
Let's search my training data for "modf place new-value macro". It might be from "On Lisp" or "Practical Common Lisp".
Actually, in some Lisp implementations or older dialects, `modf` was used. But in CL, `setf` is standard.
Wait, the prompt says: "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by modf". This is poorly phrased. It probably means: "Write a macro `modf` that transforms `(modf place new-value)` into `(setf place new-value)`." Or maybe it's supposed to expand to something else.
Let's think about `defsetf`. `defsetf` is used to define setters.
Maybe the user wants a macro that acts like `setf` but with a different name? That's trivial: `(defmacro modf (place new-value) '(setf ,place ,new-value))`. But that doesn't handle multiple places or complex places properly. `setf` is special. You can't just quasiquote it easily for complex places without using `setf`'s expansion machinery.
Actually, `setf` is a macro that handles multiple places. If `modf` is just a synonym for `setf`, it should probably just call `setf`.
But wait! There's a known macro in some Lisp codebases called `modf` that stands for "modify". It might just be `(defmacro modf (place value) \`(setf ,place ,value))`.
Let's reconsider the prompt: "Before code: (modf place new-value)". "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by modf". This sounds like a fill-in-the
</think>
(defmacro modf (place value &rest more &environment env)
  "Make a new object \(which may use some of the old object) such that PLACE
evaluates to VALUE.

MORE should have the form...

MORE : NIL
     | (TEMPORARY-BINDING ANOTHER-MODF-PLACE ANOTHER-VALUE . MORE)

Use it to specify a temporary binding for the new object created which will be
used in the subsequence MODF-PLACE NEW-VALUE pairs until the end of the MODF
form."
  (if more
      (destructuring-bind (next-symbol next-place next-value &rest next-more) more
        `(let ((,next-symbol ,(modf-expand value place nil env)))
           (modf ,next-place ,next-value ,@next-more)))
      (modf-expand value place nil 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]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(do-matches (match-start match-end regex target-string (nreverse result-list) :start start :end end) (push match-start result-list) (push match-end result-list))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to create a Common Lisp macro named `do-matches`.
Looking at the "Before code" example:
`(do-matches (match-start match-end regex target-string (nreverse result-list) :start start :end end) (push match-start result-list) (push match-end result-list))`

This looks like a loop-like macro that iterates over regex matches.
Let's analyze the arguments:
1. `(match-start match-end regex target-string (nreverse result-list) :start start :end end)`
   - `match-start` and `match-end` are iteration variables (like `i` and `j` in a loop).
   - `regex` is the compiled regex (or string pattern).
   - `target-string` is the string to search in.
   - `(nreverse result-list)` seems to be a final action or return expression? Or maybe it's the `:result` clause? Wait, `do-matches` isn't a standard CL macro. It's likely a custom macro the user wants to implement, possibly mimicking `loop` or `do` with regex matching.
   - `:start start` and `:end end` are keywords for options.

Actually, this looks very similar to how `cl-ppcre:do-matches` or `cl-ppcre:scan` works, but the syntax is slightly different. `cl-ppcre` has `do-matches` which takes `(match-start match-end regex string)` and a body.
Wait, let's look at the structure: `(do-matches (var1 var2 regex string [result-form] [key args]) body...)`
Actually, `cl-ppcre`'s `do-matches` signature is:
`(do-matches (match-start match-end regex string &optional result-form) &body body)`
But the example has `:start` and `:end` keywords. This suggests it's a custom macro or from a specific library.
Let's assume the user wants a macro that expands into a `do` or `loop` construct that uses regex matching.
Since I don't have the exact library specification, I will design a macro that:
1. Binds `match-start` and `match-end`.
2. Iterates over matches of `regex` in `target-string`.
3. Supports `:start` and `:end` for substring matching.
4. Executes the body for each match.
5. Returns the result of the final form (or `nil`).

How to implement regex matching in CL? Usually via `cl-ppcre:scan` or `cl-ppcre:do-matches`. If I'm writing a macro from scratch, I should probably assume `cl-ppcre` is available, or use a generic `scan` function. But the prompt says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation." It implies I should write the macro definition that expands the given call into standard CL code.

Let's assume the macro should expand into a `do` loop that calls a hypothetical or standard regex scanner. Or maybe it's meant to expand into `cl-ppcre:do-matches`? No, the user asks to create the macro.
Let's design it to use `cl-ppcre:scan` or similar, or just use a generic `scan` function. Actually, `cl-ppcre:do-matches` is the standard way. But if I'm writing `do-matches`, maybe it's meant to be a wrapper around `cl-ppcre:scan`.
Wait, the example has `(nreverse result-list)` as the 5th element in the binding list. In `cl-ppcre:do-matches`, the 5th argument is the result form.
So: `(do-matches (start end regex string result-form &key start end) &body body)`
Actually, the keywords `:start` and `:end` in the example are `:start start :end end`. Note the variable names clash with the keywords. I'll use different names for the keyword values, like `:start-pos` and `:end-pos`, or just handle them carefully.

Let's parse the binding list:
`(match-start match-end regex target-string (nreverse result-list) :start start :end end)`
This is a list. The macro will receive it as a whole or via destructuring.
I'll define:
`(defmacro do-matches ((match-start match-end regex target-string &optional result-form &rest options) &body body)`
Then parse `options` for `:start` and `:end`.

How to iterate?
We can use a `do` loop:
`(do ((pos start-pos (match-end)))`
  `((>= pos end-pos) result-form)`
</think>
(defmacro do-matches ((match-start match-end regex
                                   target-string
                                   &optional result-form
                                   &key start end)
                      &body body)
  "Iterates over TARGET-STRING and tries to match REGEX as often as
possible evaluating BODY with MATCH-START and MATCH-END bound to the
start/end positions of each match in turn.  After the last match,
returns RESULT-FORM if provided or NIL otherwise.  An implicit block
named NIL surrounds DO-MATCHES; RETURN may be used to terminate the
loop immediately.  If REGEX matches an empty string the scan is
continued one position behind this match.  BODY may start with
declarations."
  ;; this is a simplified form of DO-SCANS - we just provide two dummy
  ;; vars and ignore them
  (with-unique-names (reg-starts reg-ends)
    `(do-scans (,match-start ,match-end
                ,reg-starts ,reg-ends
                ,regex ,target-string
                ,result-form
                :start ,start :end ,end)
      ,@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]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(c-assert self)

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by c-assert

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `c-assert`.
The input pattern is `(c-assert self)`, where `self` is a condition or expression to be tested.
The goal is to transform this into code that asserts the condition.
In Common Lisp, assertions are typically done using `assert` or by signaling an error if a condition is false.
The `assert` function in CL takes a form and an optional stream to print to, and optionally format arguments.
However, a common idiom for "assert" in a macro context (especially if looking for C-style asserts or simple debugging) is to check the form and signal an error if it's nil.

Let's look at the pattern: `(c-assert self)`.
It seems `self` is the expression to evaluate.
If `self` is false (nil), we should signal an error.
If `self` is true, we should return `nil` (or the value of `self`, usually `nil` for assertions).

Standard `assert` signature: `(assert form &optional stream format-control &rest format-arguments)`.
If the macro is meant to be a simple wrapper, it might just expand to `(assert self)`.
However, usually, when people define a specific macro like `c-assert`, they might want to include the source code of the expression in the error message, or handle it in a specific way (like C's `assert`).
C's `assert` aborts the program if the condition is false. In Lisp, this maps to signaling an error (like `program-error` or `error`).

Let's assume the simplest useful transformation:
Check if `self` is true. If not, signal an error.
To make it useful, the error message should probably contain the expression `self`.

Pattern: `(c-assert test-form)`
Expansion: `(unless test-form (error "Assertion failed: ~S" test-form))`
Wait, if I unquote `test-form` inside the error string, it gets evaluated twice? No, `test-form` is code.
If I do `(unless ,test-form (error "Assertion failed: ~S" ',test-form))`, the first part evaluates it. If it's false, the second part quotes it for display.
Actually, `assert` does this automatically.
Let's stick to the user's specific pattern `(c-assert self)`.
The user calls the argument `self`. I should probably use a generic name like `form` in the macro definition, but the user's example uses `self`.
The prompt asks to recognize the pattern `(c-assert self)`.
So the macro lambda list should be `(form)` or `(self)`. Let's use `(form)` for clarity, but the user's example uses `self`. I will treat `self` as the placeholder for the argument.

Step 1: Pattern matching.
The macro takes one argument, the condition.
Step 2: Lisp constructs.
`unless` or `if`.
`error` or `cerror` or `assert`.
Step 3: Quasiquote.
Need to quote the form for the error message so it's readable.
Step 4: Variable capture.
No binding of variables is happening, so no `gensym` needed unless we were binding something.
Step 5: Structure.

Let's refine the expansion.
If I just use `(assert self)`, that's valid CL.
But if `c-assert` implies a specific behavior (like printing to standard error or aborting), I should implement that logic.
Since the prompt is generic ("transforms code like this"), a robust implementation that signals an error with the expression text is best.

Macro: `c-assert`
Argument: `form`
Expansion:
</think>
(defmacro c-assert (assertion &optional places fmt$ &rest fmt-args)
  (declare (ignorable assertion places fmt$ fmt-args))
   #+(or)`(progn)
  `(unless *stop*
     (unless ,assertion
       ,(if fmt$
            `(c-break ,fmt$ ,@fmt-args)
          `(c-break "failed assertion: ~a" ',assertion)))))


[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-cruft %unassociate-name-from-readtable (name readtable) "Remove the association between NAME and READTABLE" #+ :allegro (let ((n (readtable-name-for-allegro name))) (assert (eq readtable (excl:named-readtable n))) (setf (excl:named-readtable n) nil)) #+ :common-lisp (progn (assert (eq readtable (gethash name *named-readtables*))) (remhash name *named-readtables*)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants me to write a macro called `define-cruft` that can handle the provided code pattern.
Let's analyze the pattern:
</think>
(defmacro define-cruft (name lambda-list &body (docstring . alternatives))
  (assert (typep docstring 'string) (docstring) "Docstring missing!")
  (assert (not (null alternatives)))
  `(progn
     (declaim (inline ,name))
     (defun ,name ,lambda-list ,docstring ,(first alternatives))))


[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:
(assert-values ("assert fresh initialization") (foo 'nothing) (foo+1 'nothing) (bar 'nothing) (bar-1 'nothing))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by assert-values

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `assert-values`.
The example call is: `(assert-values ("assert fresh initialization") (foo 'nothing) (foo+1 'nothing) (bar 'nothing) (bar-1 'nothing))`

Let's analyze the structure:
- First argument: a string, likely a message or description. `("assert fresh initialization")`
- Subsequent arguments: forms to evaluate and assert. `(foo 'nothing)`, `(foo+1 'nothing)`, etc.

What should `assert-values` do?
Usually, such a macro expands into a series of `assert` or `check` forms, or perhaps it's meant to be used in a testing framework.
Given the name `assert-values`, it probably asserts that each of the subsequent forms evaluates to `nil` or some specific value, or maybe it just prints/checks them.
Wait, looking at the pattern `(foo 'nothing)`, it seems like these are function calls.
Often, `assert` in Lisp checks if a condition is true.
Maybe it expands to:
`(progn (assert (foo 'nothing) nil "assert fresh initialization") ...)`?
Or maybe it's from a specific library? The prompt doesn't specify the exact semantics, just "handle this code pattern".
I should design a macro that takes a message and a list of forms, and expands into a series of assertions or checks.
A common pattern for this is:
`(defmacro assert-values (message &rest forms) ...)`
It could expand to:
`(progn ,@(loop for form in forms collect `(assert ,form nil ,message)))`
Or maybe it checks equality? `assert-values` might imply asserting that values are equal to something, but the example just has forms.
Maybe it's simpler: just evaluate them and assert they are true, or print them.
Let's assume it's a testing macro that asserts each form is true, using the message for all, or maybe each form is a predicate.
Actually, `assert` in CL takes `(assert condition &optional control-string &rest control-arguments)`.
So `(assert (foo 'nothing) nil "assert fresh initialization")` makes sense.

Wait, the prompt says: `assert-values ("assert fresh initialization") (foo 'nothing) ...`
Maybe it's meant to expand to a `progn` of `assert` calls.
Let's consider variable capture: we need to generate unique variables if we need to bind results, but if we just use `assert`, we don't need extra variables.
If we want to avoid evaluating the message multiple times or handle it properly:
`(defmacro assert-values (message &rest forms)
  `(progn ,@(loop for form in forms
                  collect `(assert ,form nil ,message))))`

But maybe `assert-values` is supposed to check that the values are `nil`? Or maybe it's from a specific codebase? The prompt is generic.
I will write a macro that expands to a `progn` containing `assert` forms for each provided form, using the provided message. To be safe and idiomatic, I'll use `loop` or `mapcar` in the macro expansion.

Let's refine:
</think>
(defmacro assert-values ((desc) &body objects-and-values)
  `(progn
     (trc ,desc)
     ,@(loop for (obj val) in objects-and-values
	    collect `(assert (eql (value ,obj) ,val)))))


[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-error invalid-v-defun-template () (func-name template) "Template passed to v-def-glsl-template-fun must be a format string: ~a~%~a~%" func-name template)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by define-error

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `define-error` that simplifies the definition of custom error conditions in Common Lisp.
The example provided is:
`(define-error invalid-v-defun-template () (func-name template) "Template passed to v-def-glsl-template-fun must be a format string: ~a~%~a~%" func-name template)`

This looks like it should expand into a `define-condition` form and possibly a function to signal it, or just the `define-condition` with a custom `:report` method.
Standard `define-condition` looks like:
`(define-condition invalid-v-defun-template (simple-error) ((func-name :initarg :func-name) (template :initarg :template)) (:report (lambda (condition stream) (format stream "Template passed to v-def-glsl-template-fun must be a format string: ~a~%~a~%" (slot-value condition 'func-name) (slot-value condition 'template)))))`

However, the user's syntax is:
`(define-error name superclass-list slot-names format-string format-args)`
Wait, the example has `()` for superclass list? Or maybe `()` means no superclasses? Or maybe it's `(simple-error)`?
Let's assume the standard pattern for error definitions:
`(define-error condition-name superclasses slots format-string args...)`
Actually, `define-error` in some libraries (like `cl-who` or similar) might just define a condition that inherits from `error` or `simple-error`.
Let's stick to a general expansion that creates a condition inheriting from `simple-error` (or `error` if no superclasses provided, but `simple-error` is better for formatted messages).
The slots are `(func-name template)`.
The format string is `"Template passed to v-def-glsl-template-fun must be a format string: ~a~%~a~%"`.
The format args are `func-name template`. These args refer to the slot names.

So the macro needs to:
1. Define the condition with `define-condition`.
2. Set up slots with `:initarg` and `:accessor` (optional, but good practice).
3. Provide a `:report` method that uses the format string and accesses the slots.

Structure of `define-error`:
`(defmacro define-error (name superclasses slots format-string &rest format-args) ...)`
Wait, the example has `()` as the second argument. So `superclasses` is a list.
`slots` is a list of symbols.
`format-string` is a string.
`format-args` are symbols that match the slots.

Expansion:
</think>
(defmacro define-error (name (&key (error-type 'varjo-error) (prefix "Varjo"))
                            (&rest args) error-string &body body)
  `(defcondition ,name (:error-type ,error-type :prefix ,prefix) ,args
       ,error-string ,@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:
(defsynonym first-time-p :first-time-p)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defsynonym` that takes two arguments: a symbol (the synonym name) and a keyword (or symbol) representing the target variable.
The example provided is `(defsynonym first-time-p :first-time-p)`.
This looks like it should define a synonym special variable. In Common Lisp, `defvar` or `defparameter` can be used to create synonym special variables by using the `:synonym` option, but that's not standard CL. Wait, standard CL has `defvar` and `defparameter`, but synonym special variables are typically created with `defvar` by binding the symbol to another symbol? No, that's not quite right.

Actually, in Common Lisp, a synonym special variable is defined by `defvar` or `defparameter` where the init-form is a symbol, and the system treats it as a synonym. But wait, standard CL does not have a built-in `defsynonym`. However, some implementations (like SBCL, CCL, etc.) might have it, or it's a user-defined macro.
Wait, the standard way to define a synonym special variable in CL is:
`(defvar foo bar)` where `bar` is a symbol. But this is not portable or standard.
Actually, the standard way is to use `defvar` with a symbol as the init form, but the standard says if the init form is a symbol, it's not automatically a synonym. You have to use `make-symbol` or something? No.
Let's check the CLHS. Synonym special variables are defined by `defvar` or `defparameter` when the init form is a symbol. But it's implementation-dependent? No, CLHS says: "If the init-form is a symbol, it is not automatically a synonym." Wait, actually, in CL, synonym special variables are created by `defvar` or `defparameter` only if the implementation supports it, or via `symbol-value` manipulation.
Actually, the standard way to define a synonym in CL is:
`(defvar foo 'bar)`? No.
Wait, many Lisp systems provide `defsynonym` as a macro. It typically expands to:
`(defvar name (symbol-value target))`? No, that's a copy.
A synonym special variable shares the storage of another symbol. In CL, you can create one by:
`(defvar foo bar)` where `bar` is a symbol, but this is not standard.
Actually, the standard way is to use `defparameter` or `defvar` with a symbol, but it's not guaranteed.
However, a common macro `defsynonym` expands to:
`(defvar name ,target)`? Or maybe it uses `let` or `progv`? No.
Wait, in CL, you can define a synonym by:
`(defvar foo bar)` is not standard. The standard way is to use `defvar` with a symbol, but many implementations support it. Alternatively, you can use `setf symbol-value` but that's for dynamic binding.
Actually, the most portable way to define a synonym special variable in CL is:
`(defvar name ,target)` is often accepted, but strictly speaking, CL doesn't have a standard `defsynonym`. However, the prompt asks for a macro to handle this pattern. It's likely from a specific codebase or tutorial.
Let's think about what `defsynonym` should expand to. It probably expands to a `defvar` or `defparameter` that creates a synonym. In many Lisps, `(defvar foo bar)` creates a synonym if `bar` is a symbol. But to be safe, it might expand to:
`(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) (defvar ,name ,target))`?
Or maybe it uses `make-symbol`? No.
Actually, a common definition for `defsynonym` is:
</think>
(defmacro defsynonym (symbol synonym)
  "Set SYNONYM for a SYMBOL. "
  `(eval-always
     (setf (get ',symbol 'synonym) ',synonym)))


[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:
(make-instance* 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a)))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by make-instance*

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro to simplify the pattern:
`(make-instance* 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a)))`

Let's analyze the pattern:
- `make-instance*` is called with a class name (quoted).
- It takes keyword arguments like `:c c`, `:b b`.
- It can take conditional arguments like `(when something (list :a a))`.
- The goal is to eliminate repetition, probably by allowing a more concise syntax.

Wait, `make-instance*` is not a standard Common Lisp function. It might be from a specific library, or maybe it's just a placeholder. Actually, `make-instance` is standard. `make-instance*` might be from Alexandria or similar, or maybe it's just a custom function. But the pattern suggests it accepts spliced lists or conditional forms for initargs.

Actually, a common pattern in Common Lisp for this is using `alexandria:make-instance` or similar, but the user specifically mentions `make-instance*`. Wait, maybe it's from `cl-who` or `cl-json`? Or maybe it's just a hypothetical.
Actually, `make-instance*` is not standard. I'll assume it's a function that accepts initargs and possibly spliced lists. But the pattern `(when something (list :a a))` suggests that the function expects a list of initargs that can be conditionally included.

A common macro for this is `make-instance` with conditional initargs, or `alexandria:make-instance` which doesn't do this.
Wait, there's a well-known macro pattern for this: `with-slots`? No.
Maybe the user wants a macro like `make-instance` that allows `:when` or similar?
Or maybe the macro is supposed to be named `make-instance` or `make-instance*`? The prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (make-instance* 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a)))".

Let's think about what the macro should look like.
Maybe it's something like:
`(my-make-instance class :c c :b b :a (when something a))`
Or `(my-make-instance class :c c :b b :a a :when something)`?
Actually, a very common pattern is to allow values to be forms that evaluate to `nil` to skip the keyword, or use a specific syntax like `(:a a :when something)`.

Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by make-instance*". This might be from a specific exercise or library.
Actually, `make-instance*` is from `alexandria`? No.
Maybe it's from `cl-postgres` or `cl-json`?
Wait, `make-instance*` is a function in `cl-json`? No.
Let's search my knowledge for "make-instance* 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a))".
This looks like a pattern where `make-instance*` accepts a mix of initargs and forms that return lists of initargs.
A macro to simplify this could be:
`(make-instance class :c c :b b :a (when something a))` -> expands to the original.
Or maybe the macro is `make-instance` itself, redefined? No, we can't redefine standard functions easily, but we can define a macro named `make-instance` or `make-instance-cond`.

Actually, there's a known macro called `make-instance` in some libraries that supports conditional initargs. But the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern".
Let's design a macro named `make-instance*` (or maybe the user wants a macro that wraps `make-instance*`).
Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by make-instance*". This might mean the macro is named something else, or maybe the macro IS `make-instance*`.
Let's assume the macro is named `make-instance*` for simplicity, or `make-instance-cond`.
Actually, a very clean way to handle this is:
`(make-instance* class :c c :b b :a (when something a))`
Where if the value evaluates to `nil`, the keyword is omitted. But `make-instance` in CL doesn't work that way; you have to pass `nil` explicitly or not pass it.
Another common pattern is:
`(make-instance class :c c :b b :a a :when something)` -> but that's awkward.

Let's look at the exact pattern: `(make-instance* 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a)))`
This suggests `make-instance*` takes initargs and can take forms that evaluate to lists
</think>
(defmacro make-instance* (class &rest arguments)
  "Convenience macro on top of `make-instance'.

Conveniences:

- First argument can be a (possibly empty) list of shortcut symbols,
  which is automatically converted into a KEYWORD+SYMBOL pairs where
  - KEYWORD is the same as shortcut name, but interned as keyword.
  - And SYMBOL is the same as shortcut.

- The last argument can be an apply argument---arbitrary
  list-producing form, which will be used as the last argument
  to (apply #'make-instance ...) idiom.

Note that using a singular shortcut list of apply argument is an
ambiguous case that will be interpreted in favor of apply argument. To
force either of interpretations, provide shortcuts and apply arguments
explicitly:
(make-instance* 'class (a b c)) ;; BAD
(make-instance* 'class (a b c) nil) ;; GOOD
(make-instance* 'class (when t nil)) ;; BAD
(make-instance* 'class () (when t nil)) ;; GOOD

Otherwise, the behavior is equivalent to `make-instance'.

Examples:

Shortcut args:
\(make-instance* 'class (a b c))
=>
\(make-instance 'class :a a :b b :c c)

Last form converted into `apply' argument:
\(make-instance* 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a)))
=>
\(apply #'make-instance 'class :c c :b b (when something (list :a a)))

Shortcut arguments, regular arguments, and form for `apply':
\(make-instance* 'class (b c) :x x (when something (list :a a)))
=>
\(apply #'make-instance 'class :b b :c c :x x (when something (list :a a)))

Form for `apply' (notice the empty shortcuts---these are required for
unambiguous parsing):
\(make-instance* 'class () (when something (list :a a)))
=>
\(apply #'make-instance 'class (when something (list :a a)))

Regular `make-instance'-like use:
\(make-instance* 'class :a a-value :b b-value)
=>
\(make-instance 'class :a a-value :b b-value)"
  (when (and (= 1 (length arguments))
             (listp (first arguments)))
    (style-warn "Body of MAKE-INSTANCE* contains a single list-like form ~a.

If you meant APPLY args, add empty shortcuts list:
(make-instance* 'class () (apply-form))

If you meant shortcut list, add empty APPLY args:
(make-instance* 'class (shortcuts) nil)

Interpreting as APPLY args for now, but this behavior may change in
the future." arguments))
  (let* ((shortcuts-p (and (listp (first arguments))
                           (> (length arguments) 1)))
         (shortcuts (when shortcuts-p
                      (first arguments)))
         (arguments (if shortcuts-p
                        (rest arguments)
                        arguments))
         (last-appendable-form-p (oddp (length arguments)))
         (last-appendable-form (when last-appendable-form-p
                                 (first (last arguments))))
         (arguments (if last-appendable-form-p
                        (butlast arguments)
                        arguments)))
    `(,@(if last-appendable-form-p
            `(apply #'make-instance)
            `(make-instance))
      ,class
      ,@(loop for shortcut in shortcuts
              append (list (intern (symbol-name shortcut) :keyword)
                           shortcut))
      ,@arguments
      ,@(when last-appendable-form-p
          (list last-appendable-form)))))


[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:
(with-table-name nil (yield obj))

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-table-name

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to write a Common Lisp macro named `with-table-name`.
The example usage provided is `(with-table-name nil (yield obj))`.
This suggests `with-table-name` takes a table name (or nil) and a body.
The body contains `(yield obj)`.
This looks like a generator or coroutine context, or perhaps a database iteration context where `yield` is used to produce results.
However, without more context on what `yield` does or what `with-table-name` is supposed to achieve, I have to make reasonable assumptions based on common Lisp patterns.

Possibility 1: `with-table-name` sets a dynamic variable or lexical variable named `table-name` to the first argument, then executes the body.
Possibility 2: `with-table-name` is a macro that expands into a loop or a specific block structure where `yield` is meaningful.
Possibility 3: It's a specific macro for a library (like `cl-who`, `clsql`, or a custom generator library).

Given the prompt is "Macro call that should be transformed by with-table-name", and the pattern is `(with-table-name nil (yield obj))`, the most standard interpretation for a `with-*` macro is binding a variable.
Let's assume `with-table-name` binds a variable (let's call it `*table-name*` or just `table-name`) to the first argument (`nil` in the example) and executes the body.

However, `yield` is often used in generator macros. If `yield` is a macro itself, `with-table-name` might need to wrap the body in a specific way to make `yield` work, or simply provide a lexical binding.

Let's look at the arguments: `(with-table-name nil (yield obj))`.
Argument 1: `nil` (the table name).
Argument 2: `(yield obj)` (the body).

If I write a simple `let` binding:
</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]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(ematch0 args (nil nil) ((list* '&aux rest) args) ((list* (list name) rest) (list* (list name ''_) (process-keyword-args rest))) ((list* (list name default) rest) (list* (list name default) (process-keyword-args rest))) ((list* (list name default pred) rest) (list* (list name default pred) (process-keyword-args rest))) ((list* name rest) (list* (list name ''_) (process-keyword-args rest))))

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by ematch0

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants me to create a macro that implements the pattern matching behavior shown in the `ematch0` call.
Looking at the code:
</think>
(defmacro ematch0 (what &body clauses)
  `(match0 ,what
     ,@clauses
     (_ (error "level0 match error!"))))


[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:
(draw scene (:rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `draw` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The pattern is: `(draw scene (:rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")`
This looks like a macro that takes a scene, a shape specification (like `:rect` with properties), and some styling properties (`:fill`, `:stroke`).

Let's analyze the pattern:
`(draw scene shape-spec &rest properties)`
Where `shape-spec` is a list starting with a keyword like `:rect`, followed by alternating property names and values.
And `properties` are also alternating keyword-value pairs.

Wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by draw". It doesn't specify exactly what it should transform into. Usually, in such contexts (like a Lisp-based graphics library), it might transform into function calls to create shapes and apply styles, or it might just be a convenience macro.
Since no target language or specific transformation is given, I will assume it should transform into a series of function calls or a single call that constructs the shape.
Actually, a common pattern in Lisp macros for this kind of DSL is to transform it into something like:
`(add-shape scene (make-rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")`
Or maybe it's meant to be a template for a macro that handles keyword arguments.

Let's think about what a reasonable transformation would be. Often, these macros are used to simplify API calls.
Maybe it should expand to:
`(draw-into scene (create-rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")`

But without a specific target, I'll design it to collect the shape definition and the properties, and expand to a function call that takes the scene, the shape constructor call, and the properties.
Actually, a very common pattern for this in Lisp (like in `cl-graphics` or similar) is to just pass everything to a generic `draw` function, but the macro handles the parsing or grouping.
Wait, the prompt says "transforms code like this". It might be from a specific library or tutorial. "draw scene (:rect ...)" looks like it could be from a Lisp-based drawing DSL.
I will assume the macro should expand to a function call that constructs the shape and applies properties.
Let's define it to expand to:
`(draw-shape scene (make-shape :rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")`
Or maybe it's simpler: the macro just collects arguments and passes them to a function `draw`. But why use a macro then?
Perhaps the `:rect` form should be transformed into a cons list or a specific structure.
Actually, in many Lisp DSLs, `(:rect :x 30 ...)` is just a list that gets passed as-is, or it's transformed into a function call like `(rect :x 30 ...)`.
I'll write a macro that takes `scene`, `shape-spec`, and `&rest props`, and expands to `(draw scene (apply #'make-shape shape-spec) ,@props)`? No.

Let's look at the pattern carefully: `(draw scene (:rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")`
It's likely meant to expand to something like:
`(add-to-scene scene (make-rect :x 30 :y 30 :width 400 :height 150) :fill "rgb(230,230,230)" :stroke "black")`
Or maybe it's from `cl-canvas` or similar.
Actually, a very safe bet is to transform the shape specification list into a function call by replacing the keyword with a symbol, or just pass it as a list. But macros are often used to avoid quoting.
I will assume the intended expansion is to call a generic `draw` function with the shape constructed via `make-rect` (or similar), and pass the properties.
Alternatively, maybe it's just a macro that groups arguments
</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]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(-> :g (a) (put a))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `->` (thread-first macro).
The pattern provided is: `(-> :g (a) (put a))`.
This looks like a threading macro where the result of the first form is inserted into the second form, and so on.
However, the pattern `(-> :g (a) (put a))` is slightly unusual for standard threading macros. Usually, it's `(-> arg form1 form2 ...)`.
Here, `:g` is the initial value. `(a)` looks like a lambda list or a block, but in the context of threading, it might be a function call with no arguments? Or maybe the user implies a specific syntax where `(a)` is a form that takes the threaded value?
Let's look at standard `->` macros (like in Clojure or `cl-ppcre` or `alexandria`).
Standard `->` inserts the threaded value as the *first* argument after the function name.
If the pattern is `(-> :g (a) (put a))`, maybe `(a)` is a function call `a`? But `a` is a symbol.
If `a` is a variable, `(a)` calls `a` as a function.
If the user means `(-> :g a (put a))`, then `a` is inserted into `(put a)`, becoming `(put :g)`.
But the input has `(a)`.
Maybe the user is using a specific dialect or library syntax, or maybe they want a macro that handles a specific structure.
Let's assume the standard thread-first behavior: `(-> x form1 form2 ...)` transforms to `(form2 (form1 x))`.
If the input is `(-> :g (a) (put a))`, and we treat `(a)` as `form1` and `(put a)` as `form2`.
Transformation: `(put a ((a) :g))`? That seems weird. `(a)` takes `:g` as first arg?
Or maybe `(a)` is not a form but part of the syntax?
Let's reconsider the pattern. `(-> :g (a) (put a))`.
Could it be that `(a)` represents a placeholder? No, that's usually `_`.
Could it be that the user wants to thread into a list structure?
Let's look at the structure again. `:g` is the value. `(a)` is a form. `(put a)` is a form.
If we thread `:g` into `(a)`, we get `((a) :g)`.
Then thread that into `(put a)`, we get `(put a ((a) :g))`.
This seems plausible if `a` is a function that takes arguments.
However, often in Lisp macros, `(a)` might be a typo for `a`? Or maybe `a` is a macro?
Let's assume the standard thread-first logic is desired, but the user provided a specific example.
The macro should take the first argument as the initial value, and the rest as forms.
It should recursively wrap the forms.
`(-> x f1 f2 f3)` -> `(f3 (f2 (f1 x)))`.
Let's write a macro that does this.
We need to handle the base case (no forms) and the recursive case.
We must be careful with variable capture if we use `let` or `loop`, but for a simple transform, quasiquote is safer.
We need to generate code that evaluates forms in order.
Structure:
</think>
(defmacro -> (invariant &body args)
  "See flow:atomically"
  `(atomically ,invariant ,@args))