[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:
(pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by pop-preprocessor-directive-token

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro to eliminate the repetitive pattern:
(pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)

This looks like a call to a function `pop-preprocessor-directive-token` with arguments `token-list` and `:|_Pragma|`.
The user says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by pop-preprocessor-directive-token". Wait, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)". And then "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by pop-preprocessor-directive-token". This is slightly confusing. Maybe they want a macro that expands to this call, or maybe they want a macro that replaces this pattern with something else? Or maybe they want a macro named `pop-preprocessor-directive-token` that takes `token-list` as an argument and automatically adds `:|_Pragma|`? Or maybe they want a macro that handles `_Pragma` directives specifically.

Let's re-read carefully: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)"
Usually, when people ask to eliminate a repetitive pattern like `(foo bar :baz)`, they want a macro `(foo bar)` that expands to `(foo bar :baz)`, or a macro `(with-foo (bar) ...)` etc.
Given the pattern, it's likely they want a macro that takes just `token-list` and expands to `(pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)`.
Let's name the macro `pop-pragma-token` or `pop-preprocessor-directive-token` (shadowing the function) or `pop-pragma-directive`. I'll stick to a simple name like `pop-pragma-token` or just define a macro that matches the pattern. Actually, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)". I will define a macro `pop-pragma-token` that takes `token-list` and expands to the full call. Or maybe they want a macro `pop-preprocessor-directive-token` that defaults to `:|_Pragma|`? In Common Lisp, you can't easily have a macro/function with optional args that defaults to a symbol like that without changing the signature, but a macro can certainly do it.

Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by pop-preprocessor-directive-token". This might be a typo or auto-generated text. I'll assume they want a macro that expands to that call. I'll name it `pop-pragma-token` for clarity, or maybe `pop-directive-token` with an optional type argument defaulting to `:|_Pragma|`. But the simplest is a macro that takes `token-list` and expands to the exact pattern.

Let's think about what `pop-preprocessor-directive-token` does. It probably pops a token from `token-list` if it matches the directive type. The repetitive part is `:|_Pragma|`. So a macro `(pop-pragma-token token-list)` -> `(pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)` makes sense.

Alternatively, maybe they want a macro that *is* `pop-preprocessor-directive-token` but with a default argument? In CL, macros don't have default arguments in the same way functions do, but you can simulate it:
`(defmacro pop-preprocessor-directive-token ((token-list) &optional (type :|_Pragma|)) ...)` but that's weird syntax.
Better: `(defmacro pop-pragma-token (token-list) '(pop-preprocessor-directive-token ,token-list :|_Pragma|))`

Let's consider if they want a macro that expands `(pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list)` to `(pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)`. That's possible but shadows the function. I'll stick to a distinct name or just explain it. Actually, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (pop-preprocessor-directive-token token-list :|_Pragma|)". I will define `pop-pragma-token`.

Wait, maybe the user wants a macro that handles the `_Pragma` parsing logic entirely? No, "eliminates this repetitive pattern" strongly implies a shorthand macro.

Let's draft:
</think>
(defmacro pop-preprocessor-directive-token (token-list directive-name &key (errorp t))
  "Pops the next token in TOKEN-LIST ignoring `+whitespace-marker+'"
  (with-gensyms (head_)
    `(let ((,head_
             (check-and-pop-pp-directive-token-1 ,token-list ,directive-name ,errorp)))
       (if (eq +whitespace-marker+ ,head_)
           (check-and-pop-pp-directive-token-1 ,token-list ,directive-name ,errorp)
           ,head_))))


[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:
(multi-line-mode-p flags)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by multi-line-mode-p

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `multi-line-mode-p` that takes a single argument `flags`.
The prompt is extremely vague about what the transformation should do. It says "Macro call that should be transformed by multi-line-mode-p".
Usually, `*-p` predicates in Lisp return true or false.
A macro named `multi-line-mode-p` suggests it checks if a "multi-line mode" is active based on some flags.
Since I don't have the specific business logic, I must infer a reasonable default behavior or provide a generic structure.
However, looking at the pattern `(multi-line-mode-p flags)`, it looks like a function call.
If it's a macro, maybe it expands into a bit test? Or a check against a global variable?
Without specific requirements, I will assume `flags` is an integer or a list, and the macro needs to check for a specific bit or condition.
Let's assume `flags` is an integer and we want to check a specific bit, or perhaps the macro is just a wrapper around a function call to allow for future expansion or optimization.
Actually, a common pattern for `*-p` macros is to check a global state or a property list.
Let's assume `flags` is a bitvector and we want to check if the "multi-line" bit is set.
Or, perhaps `flags` is a symbol and we check a property.
Given the lack of context, I will create a macro that checks if a specific bit is set in `flags`, or simply expands to a function call if `flags` is a constant, or handles the evaluation.
Actually, the most robust "macro" for a predicate is often just a wrapper that ensures the argument is evaluated once if it's complex, or it performs a bit-test.
Let's assume the standard convention: `flags` contains a bit for multi-line mode. Let's say bit 0.
Or, I can define it to check if `flags` is a list containing `:multi-line`.
Let's go with a bit-test approach as it's common for "flags".
However, to be safe and generic, I will write the macro to check if the `:multi-line` keyword is present in `flags` (if `flags` is a list) or if a specific bit is set.
Let's assume `flags` is an integer.
Wait, if I just write a macro that expands to a function call, it's not very useful.
Let's assume the user wants to check if a specific bit is set. I'll use `logbitp`.
But which bit? I'll assume the first bit (0) for demonstration, or make it configurable? No, the signature is fixed.
Let's consider the possibility that `flags` is a symbol representing a state.
Let's try to interpret "multi-line-mode-p" as a check for a specific condition in `flags`.
I will implement it as checking if the `:multi-line` keyword is in `flags` if `flags` is a list, or checking a bit if it's an integer.
Actually, simpler: Just check if `flags` has a specific property.
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: `flags` is a bitfield.
I will use `logbitp` with a hardcoded bit index, say 0, or perhaps check against a constant `+multi-line-flag+`.
To make it useful, I'll define a constant `+multi-line-flag+` and use `logbitp`.
Wait, the prompt asks for the macro *form*.
I will provide a macro that expands to a `logbitp` check, assuming `flags` is an integer.
If `flags` is not an integer, this might break.
Let's assume `flags` is a list of keywords. `(member :multi-line flags)`.
This is safer for Lisp code.
Let's go with `(member :multi-line flags)`.
Wait, `member` evaluates `flags` once. A macro doesn't save evaluation here unless `flags` is a complex form that we want to evaluate once? `member` already does that.
Maybe `flags` is a global variable?
Let's provide a macro that checks for the presence of `:multi-line` in `flags`.
This seems the most idiomatic for "flags" in Lisp when not dealing with C-style bitfields.
However, `logbitp` is also common.
I'll provide a macro that checks for `:multi-line` in `flags`.
Step 1: Define the macro `multi-line-mode-p`.
Step 2: Take `flags`.
Step 3: Expand to `(member :multi-line flags)`.
This handles lists.
If `flags` is an integer, `member` will fail.
Let's assume `flags`
</think>
(defmacro multi-line-mode-p (flags)
  "Accessor macro to extract the second flag out of a three-element flag list."
  `(second ,flags))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(do+ (options :name outer-loop) (do+ (options :name inner-loop) (do+ (terminate outer-loop 3))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `do+` that transforms a specific pattern of nested loops into a `do` loop or similar construct.
Looking at the example:
`(do+ (options :name outer-loop) (do+ (options :name inner-loop) (do+ (terminate outer-loop 3))))`

This looks like a DSL for defining loops with options and termination conditions.
The pattern suggests:
1. `do+` takes a list of options and a body.
2. The body can contain other `do+` calls or termination calls.
3. `terminate` seems to specify when to exit a named loop.

Let's assume the goal is to transform this into a standard `do` loop or a `loop` macro equivalent, or perhaps just expand it into a structure that handles named exits.
Since the prompt asks for a `defmacro` form that transforms code like this, I need to define `do+`.

Pattern matching:
`do+` is called with `(options ...)` and a body.
The body might contain `do+` or `terminate`.

Let's hypothesize the expansion:
If `do+` is just a wrapper for `do` or `loop`, we might want to bind the loop name to a tag or a closure.
However, Common Lisp `do` doesn't support named exits in the same way `loop` does, unless we use `go` and tags, or `block` and `return-from`.
Given `terminate outer-loop`, it implies `outer-loop` is a symbol bound to a block or tag.

Let's try to map `do+` to a `block` or `tagbody` structure.
If `do+` defines a loop, maybe it expands to a `do` loop where the name is a `block` name.
`(do+ (options :name foo) body)` -> `(block foo (do ... body ...))`?
But `do` needs iteration variables. The example doesn't show iteration variables, just options.
Maybe `do+` is a meta-macro that collects options and generates a `do` form.

Let's look at the structure again:
`(do+ (options :name outer-loop) ...)`
This looks like `options` is a keyword list or a specific option form.
If I just write a macro that matches this syntax, I can use `destructuring-bind` or pattern matching.

Let's assume the transformation is to expand `do+` into a `do` loop with a `block` for the name, and `terminate` into `return-from`.
If `terminate` is a macro, it would be `(return-from name condition)`.
But `do+` is the one being defined here.

Let's try a simple expansion:
`do+` takes `(options ...)` and `&body body`.
It expands to `(block name (do () (nil) ,@body))`? No, `do` needs termination.
Maybe `do+` is just a syntactic sugar for `loop` or `do`.

Let's consider the possibility that `do+` is a macro that parses the options and builds a `do` form.
If the user provides `(options :name outer-loop)`, the macro should extract `outer-loop`.
Then the body is processed.
If the body contains `terminate`, it should be expanded to `return-from`.

Let's write a macro that:
1. Extracts the name from options.
2. Wraps the body in a `block` with that name.
3. Expands `terminate` calls inside the body to `return-from`.

Wait, `terminate` is likely another macro or just a form handled by `do+`.
If `terminate` is just a form `(terminate name value)`, `do+` can walk the body and replace it? Or `terminate` is a separate macro.
The prompt asks for `defmacro` for `do+`.

Let's assume `terminate` is handled by `do+` via `let` binding or similar, or `do+` expands to a structure where `terminate` makes sense.
Actually, if `terminate` is a macro, `do+` doesn't need to know about it, unless `do+` defines the environment.
But `return-from` requires the block to be visible.

Let's try this structure:
`(defmacro do+ ((options &key name) &body body)`
  `(block ,name ,@body))`

This is too simple. The example has nested `do+`.
`(do+ (options :name outer) (do+ (options :name inner) (terminate outer 3)))`
If `outer` is a block, `terminate outer 3` -> `(return-from
</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:
(define-test dependency (false (sleep 1)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-test` that transforms a specific form.
The input form is: `(define-test dependency (false (sleep 1)))`.
The user hasn't explicitly stated what the output should be, but the prompt says "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by define-test". This implies I need to infer the standard pattern for a `define-test` macro in Common Lisp, likely from a testing framework context.

Usually, `define-test` macros in CL (like in `prove`, `fiveam`, `stest`, etc.) define a function that runs the test code and checks assertions.
The structure `(define-test name body...)` usually expands to:
</think>
(defmacro define-test (name &body arguments-and-body)
  (destructuring-bind (nparent name) (if (listp name) name (list NIL name))
    (form-fiddle:with-body-options (body options parent home (test-class 'test) (compile-at :compile-time) defun) arguments-and-body
      (let ((body (remove 'define-test body :key (lambda (a) (when (listp a) (car a))) :test #'eql))
            (defs (remove 'define-test body :key (lambda (a) (when (listp a) (car a))) :test-not #'eql))
            (home-form (or home `(find-package ,(package-name *package*)))))
        (when (and parent nparent)
          (error "Cannot specify parent through name and through a keyword argument at the same time!"))
        `(let ((*package* (find-package ,(package-name *package*)))) ; Make sure package stays consistent throughout initialisation.
           (setf (find-test ',name ,home-form)
                 (ensure-test ',test-class
                              :name ',name
                              :home ,home-form
                              :tests (list ,@(loop for form in body
                                                   collect (ecase compile-at
                                                             (:compile-time `(lambda () ,form))
                                                             (:execute `(lambda () (call-compile ',form))))))
                              :parent ',(or parent nparent)
                              ,@(loop for option in options
                                      collect `',option)))
           ,@(loop for (def subname . body) in defs
                   collect `(,def (,name ,subname)
                              :home ,home
                              ,@body))
           ,@(when defun
               `((defun ,(if (stringp name) (read-symbol name) name) (&rest test-args)
                   (apply #'test (find-test ',name ,home-form) test-args))))
           ',name)))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(defgenerator islice (generator stop-or-start &optional (stop nil has-stop-p) step) "Emits a subrange of generator. If only stop-or-start is set, islice will emit up to it and stop. If both stop-or-start and stop are set, islice will emit the stretch between stop and start. If step is set, then islice will emit every step-th item between start and stop. If stop is set to nil, then islice will continue through the source generator until it terminates. Eg: (islice (list->generator '(a b c d e f g)) 2) -> A B (islice (list->generator '(a b c d e f g)) 2 4) -> C D (islice (list->generator '(a b c d e f g)) 2 nil) -> C D E F G (islice (list->generator '(a b c d e f g)) 0 nil 2) -> A C E G" (let ((start (if has-stop-p stop-or-start nil)) (stop (or stop (unless has-stop-p stop-or-start))) (step (or step 1))) (when start (consume start generator)) (if stop (dotimes (i (floor (/ (- stop (or start 0)) step))) (let ((data (take step generator :fail-if-short nil))) (unless data (return)) (yield (car data)))) (loop do (let ((data (take step generator :fail-if-short nil))) (unless data (return)) (yield (car data)))))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
This is an interesting request. The user wants me to create a `defgenerator` macro that transforms a specific pattern of code into a proper generator definition.

Looking at the example code, it appears to be defining a generator function called `islice` that:
1. Takes a generator and some parameters (stop-or-start, stop, step)
2. Has documentation
3. Uses `yield` to emit values
4. Uses helper functions like `consume`, `take`, etc.

The pattern seems to be:
</think>
(defmacro defgenerator (name arguments &body body)
  (multiple-value-bind (remaining-forms declarations doc-string)
      (alexandria:parse-body body :documentation t)
    `(defun ,name ,arguments
       ,doc-string
       ,@declarations
       (with-yield
	 ,@remaining-forms))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(defclause (appending expr &optional into var at (place 'end)) "Append into a list" (return-collection-code :variable var :expression expr :start-operation 'append :end-operation '(subst (var expr) (copy-list expr)) :place place :one-element nil))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
This user prompt is asking me to generate a `defmacro` form that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The pattern is:
`(defclause (appending expr &optional into var at (place 'end)) "Append into a list" (return-collection-code :variable var :expression expr :start-operation 'append :end-operation '(subst (var expr) (copy-list expr)) :place place :one-element nil))`

Wait, looking at the pattern, it seems like `defclause` is being used to define a macro or a function clause. The inner form is `(return-collection-code ...)`.
The user wants a `defmacro` that transforms code like this.
Wait, `defclause` is likely a macro that defines a clause for some other macro, or perhaps it's defining a macro itself.
Let's analyze the structure:
`(defclause (name lambda-list) docstring body...)`
This looks like a macro definition helper.
The user wants a `defmacro` that expands `(defclause ...)` into something else.
What does `defclause` usually do? In some libraries (like `cl-who` or `closer-mop` or `iterate`?), `defclause` might define a clause for a macro.
But the prompt says: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: (defclause (appending expr &optional into var at (place 'end)) "Append into a list" (return-collection-code ...))"
Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defclause.

Wait, the prompt might be asking for a macro named `defclause` that expands into a `defmacro` or `defun` or something similar.
Or maybe it's asking for a macro that defines a macro clause.
Let's look at the arguments:
`(defclause (appending expr &optional into var at (place 'end)) "Append into a list" (return-collection-code ...))`
This looks exactly like a `defmacro` call, but with `defclause` instead of `defmacro`.
So `defclause` is probably a macro that defines a macro, but maybe it registers it in a specific namespace or handles something specific.
Actually, `defclause` is often used in `iterate` or `cl-ppcre` or similar macro-driven DSLs to define clauses for a larger macro.
But without more context, I'll assume `defclause` is meant to define a macro that matches a pattern, or perhaps it's just a wrapper around `defmacro`.
Wait, the prompt says: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defclause". This is a bit ambiguous.
Maybe the user wants a macro `defclause` that expands to `(defmacro appending (expr &optional into var at (place 'end)) "Append into a list" (return-collection-code ...))`?
Or maybe `defclause` is supposed to generate a `defmacro` form?
Let's assume the simplest interpretation: `defclause` is a macro that defines a macro.
`(defmacro defclause ((name &rest args) doc &body body) '(defmacro ,name ,args ,doc ,@body))`
But wait, `defclause` might be from a specific library. In `cl-who`, `defclause` isn't standard. In `iterate`, clauses are defined differently.
Actually, this looks like it might be from `cl-indent` or `cl-macro` or something.
Wait! The prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defclause". This might mean the user wants a macro that *matches* this pattern and transforms it.
Or maybe the user wants a macro named `defclause` that expands into a `defmacro`.
Let's look at the structure again:
`(defclause (appending expr &optional into var at (place 'end)) "Append into a list" (return-collection-code ...))`
If I write:
</think>
(defmacro defclause (clause-template &body body)
  (define-clause 'defun clause-template body nil))


[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:
(defcell a 0)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `defcell` that takes a name and an initial value.
Looking at the name `defcell`, it likely defines a "cell" or a variable with a specific behavior, possibly related to cells in a spreadsheet or a reactive system, or simply a macro that defines a variable with a getter/setter or a specific structure.
However, without more context, `defcell` is most likely a simple variable definition macro, perhaps wrapping `defvar` or `defparameter`, or creating a structure/class instance.
Given the simplicity `(defcell a 0)`, it's probably defining a variable `a` with value `0`.
Let's consider common patterns for `defcell`:
1. It might define a variable and a setter/getter.
2. It might define a slot in a structure.
3. It might be a simple alias for `defparameter` or `defvar`.
4. In some contexts (like reactive programming or spreadsheets), a "cell" holds a value and notifies listeners.
Since the prompt is minimal, I will assume it's a macro that defines a variable with a name and initial value, possibly using `defparameter` or creating a simple structure.
But wait, `defcell` is often used in Lisp libraries for defining cells in a grid or spreadsheet-like system, or in AI/logic programming.
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: a macro that defines a variable. Or perhaps it creates a closure/cell object.
Actually, in many Lisp contexts, `defcell` might just be a custom `defparameter` or `defvar`.
Let's look at the pattern: `(defcell a 0)`. It matches `(defcell name value)`.
I will write a macro that expands to `(defparameter name value)` or similar.
But to be more "macro expert", I should consider hygiene and standard definition patterns.
Maybe it's meant to define a variable and a function to access it? Or a structure?
Given the lack of context, I'll assume it's a simple definition macro. I'll make it expand to `defparameter` for dynamic variables, or `defvar` for special variables. `defparameter` is usually safer for initial values that should be set even if already bound.
Wait, could it be from a specific library? `defcell` is used in `cl-react` or similar reactive systems. But without that context, a simple `defparameter` expansion is reasonable.
Alternatively, it might create a closure that holds the value: `#(lambda () val)`.
Let's think about typical macro exercises. Often, `defcell` is used to define a variable with a getter and setter, or a structure slot.
I will write a macro that defines a variable using `defparameter` and maybe a getter function, or just `defparameter`.
Actually, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by defcell". It's asking me to write the `defmacro` for `defcell`.
I'll go with a simple `defparameter` expansion, but I'll add a check for the name being a symbol.
Structure:
</think>
(defmacro defcell (name value-form &environment env)
  "Define a global cell identified by NAME.

This macro defines a cell identified by NAME with its value computed
by VALUE-FORM. The value of the cell can be referenced by the symbol
NAME following the DEFCELL form.

If VALUE-FORM is a constant, by CONSTANTP, a mutable cell is defined
which can have its value set directly using SETF or SETQ on the symbol
NAME.

If VALUE-FORM is not a constant a computed cell is created. A computed
cell may reference one or more argument cells in VALUE-FORM or a
function called during the evaluation of VALUE-FORM.  When the values
of any of the argument cells change, the value of the computed cell is
recomputed by evaluating VALUE-FORM again. The referenced argument
cells are determined automatically when the VALUE-FORM is evaluated.

This macro creates a cell definition that is visible globally to all
forms unless it is lexically shadowed by a definition with the same
NAME using CELL-LET. Note that despite being visible globally, the
cell definition is still lexically scoped and not dynamically scoped
like global variables defined with DEFVAR or DEFPARAMETER."

  (if (constantp value-form env)
      `(define-mutable-cell% ,name ,value-form)
      `(define-computed-cell% ,name ,value-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]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(ok nil "This supposed to be failed")

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by ok

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `ok` that takes a condition (or test) and a message.
The example provided is `(ok nil "This supposed to be failed")`.
This looks like an assertion or a test helper.
Usually, such a macro checks the first argument. If it's true, it returns true. If it's false, it signals an error or prints the message.
However, the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern". The pattern is likely just calling a function or macro with `nil` and a message.
Wait, looking at the example `(ok nil "This supposed to be failed")`, it seems `ok` is intended to be a test assertion.
If the first argument is falsy, it should probably signal an error with the message.
Or perhaps it's just a wrapper around `assert` or `error`.
Let's assume the standard behavior for an `ok` macro in testing:
`(ok condition message)`
If `condition` is true, return `t` (or the condition value).
If `condition` is false, signal an error using `message`.

The prompt asks to eliminate a repetitive pattern. The pattern is `(ok nil "message")`.
Maybe the repetitive pattern is actually something like:
`(if (not condition) (error "message") t)`
And the user wants `(ok condition "message")` to expand to that.

Let's look at the specific example: `(ok nil "This supposed to be failed")`.
This implies `ok` takes two arguments: `test` and `msg`.
If `test` is false, it should fail.

Let's refine the implementation.
1.  **Pattern**: `(ok test msg)`
2.  **Constructs**: `if`, `error` (or `cerror`, `simple-error`), `format`.
3.  **Quasiquote**: We need to generate code.
4.  **Variable capture**: `test` and `msg` are evaluated in the call site context. We need to ensure `test` is evaluated once.
5.  **Structure**:
    ```lisp
    (defmacro ok (test msg)
      ...)
    ```

If `test` is false, we want to signal an error.
Standard Lisp `assert` is `(assert test &rest args)`.
Maybe `ok` is just a wrapper around `assert`?
`(assert test nil msg)` ?
But `assert` takes a format string and arguments. The example has a string literal.
So `(ok nil "msg")` -> `(assert nil nil "msg")`?
Or maybe `(if test t (error msg))`.

Let's assume the user wants a specific behavior where `ok` checks the first argument.
If the first argument is `nil`, it errors out with the second argument.

Implementation details:
-   `defmacro ok (condition message)`
-   Expansion: `(if ,condition (values) (error ,message))`
    -   Wait, `ok` usually returns true on success. `(values)` returns no values.
    -   Maybe `(if ,condition t (error ,message))`.
    -   Or maybe it's meant to be used in a test framework where `ok` returns `t` on pass.

Let's stick to the simplest interpretation:
If `condition` is true, return `t`.
If `condition` is false, signal an error with `message`.

Code structure:
</think>
(defmacro ok (test &optional desc)
  (with-gensyms (duration result)
    (once-only (test desc)
      `(with-catching-errors (:expected T :description ,desc)
         (with-duration ((,duration ,result) ,test)
           (test ,result t ,desc
                 :duration ,duration
                 :test-fn (lambda (x y)
                            (eq (not (null x)) y))
                 :got-form ,test))))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(with-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (log x)) (check-wcs-math-result))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by with-wcs-math-error-handling

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `with-wcs-math-error-handling` that wraps a mathematical expression (like `(log x)`) and handles potential errors (like domain errors or overflow in floating-point math).

Let's break down the requirements:
1.  **Macro Name**: `with-wcs-math-error-handling`
2.  **Arguments**:
    *   `ret`: A variable name to bind the result of the computation.
    *   `form`: The mathematical expression to evaluate (e.g., `(log x)`).
    *   `body`: The code to execute if the math operation succeeds (e.g., `(check-wcs-math-result)`).
3.  **Behavior**:
    *   Evaluate `form`.
    *   Check if the result is valid (e.g., not NaN, not infinity, not signaling an error).
    *   If valid, bind it to `ret` and execute `body`.
    *   If invalid, handle the error (e.g., signal an error, return a specific value, or log a message).

Since this is Common Lisp, we can use `handler-case` or check floating-point conditions. However, the prompt implies a specific pattern:
`(with-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (log x)) (check-wcs-math-result))`

This looks like a `let` binding combined with error handling.
A robust way to handle math errors in CL is to check for `float-domain-error`, `float-invalid-operation`, or check if the result is `NaN`/`Infinity`.

Let's assume a standard approach:
1.  Bind the result of `form` to a temporary variable.
2.  Check if the result is valid.
3.  If valid, bind it to `ret` and run `body`.
4.  If not valid, signal an error or return nil.

However, the prompt asks for a macro that *transforms* the code. It doesn't specify the exact error handling logic, but implies a wrapper.
Let's assume the macro should:
1.  Take the result of `form`.
2.  Bind it to `ret`.
3.  Execute `body`.
4.  Wrap this in a `handler-case` to catch math errors.

Wait, looking at the pattern `(with-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (log x)) (check-wcs-math-result))`, it resembles `let` but with error handling.
Maybe it's simpler: just wrap the evaluation of `form` and the execution of `body` in a `handler-case`.

Let's refine the macro structure:
</think>
(defmacro with-wcs-math-error-handling
    ((var-or-var-list
      (function x &optional (y nil y-supplied-p))
      &rest keyargs
      &key underflow-value)
     &body body)
  (declare (ignorable underflow-value))
  (let ((x_ (gensym)) (y_ (gensym)) (args_ (gensym))
        (var-list (ensure-list var-or-var-list)))
    `(let* ((,x_ ,x)
            (,y_ ,y)
            (,args_ (list ,x_ ,@(if y-supplied-p `(,y_)))))
       (declare (ignorable ,y_)
                (type list ,args_)
                (dynamic-extent ,args_))
       (catch 'return-from-with-wcs-math-error-handling
         (multiple-value-bind ,var-list
             (call-with-wcs-math-error-handler ',function ,args_
                                               ,@keyargs)
           (flet ((check-wcs-math-result
                      (&optional (ret ,(first var-list))
                                 (arg-list ,args_))
                    (check-wcs-math-result ret arg-list)))
             ,@body))))))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-simple-definition-resolver macro macro-function)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-simple-definition-resolver`.
The macro takes two arguments: `macro` and `macro-function`.
The user mentions a "Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-simple-definition-resolver".
This implies the macro should generate code that sets up a resolver for a macro.
In Common Lisp, macros are defined using `defmacro`.
However, the term "definition-resolver" suggests this might be related to a specific library or framework (like ASDF, or a specific macro system), or it's a custom pattern the user wants to implement.
Without specific context on what "simple-definition-resolver" means in a standard library, I should infer the likely intent based on the name and arguments.
"Define simple definition resolver" likely means:
1.  Define a macro named `macro`.
2.  The macro's body should call `macro-function`.
3.  Or, it might be setting up a function that acts as the macro function.

Let's look at the arguments: `(define-simple-definition-resolver macro macro-function)`.
If `macro` is the name of the macro being defined, and `macro-function` is the function that implements the macro expansion.
A standard `defmacro` looks like:
</think>
(defmacro define-simple-definition-resolver (class lookup-function &body body)
  (let ((package (gensym "PACKAGE")))
    `(define-definition-resolver ,class (,class ,package)
       (when (ignore-errors ,(if body
                                 `(let ((,(first lookup-function) ,class))
                                    ,@body)
                                 `(,lookup-function ,class)))
         (list (make-instance ',class :designator ,class :package ,package))))))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(*> #'any #'eof)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `*>` (or perhaps just a macro that handles the pattern `(*> #'any #'eof)`).
Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by *>".
The pattern is `(*> #'any #'eof)`.
This looks like a macro that takes two arguments.
What could `*>` stand for? Maybe "compose"? Or "pipe"? Or "then"?
In some Lisp libraries, `*>` might be a threading macro or a composition macro.
However, the prompt is quite specific: "Given this code pattern: `(*> #'any #'eof)`. Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by *>".
This is a bit ambiguous. It might be asking for a macro that expands `(*> #'any #'eof)` into something specific.
Maybe it's from a specific library? `cl-ppcre`? No.
Maybe it's `cl-who`? No.
Maybe it's `alexandria`? No.
Let's think about typical macro patterns. `*>` could be a macro for function composition, like `(compose #'any #'eof)`.
Or it could be a macro for piping: `(any (eof))`? But `any` and `eof` are functions.
Wait, `any` and `eof` might be specific functions in some context.
Actually, `*>` is sometimes used in `cl-syntax` or similar packages for piping.
But the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by *>". This phrasing is weird. Maybe it means "Write a macro named `*>` that transforms calls like `(*> #'any #'eof)`".
Let's assume `*>` is a macro for function composition or piping.
Given `(*> #'any #'eof)`, it could expand to `(compose #'any #'eof)` or `(lambda (&rest args) (funcall #'any (apply #'eof args)))`.
Alternatively, `*>` might be from `cl-ppcre` or `cl-unicode`? Unlikely.
Maybe it's from `lispbuilder`?
Let's search my knowledge for `*>` macro in Common Lisp.
In `cl-ppcre`, there is `ppcre:regex-optimize`, not `*>`.
In `alexandria`, there is `compose`.
In `cl-syntax`, there is `|` or `>>`.
Wait, `*>` is used in `cl-who`? No.
Maybe it's from `cl-json`?
Actually, `*>` is a common name for "pipe" in some Lisps, but usually it's `->` or `>>`.
Let's reconsider the prompt: "Macro call that should be transformed by *>". This might be a template prompt where the user forgot to specify the exact transformation.
But I must provide a `defmacro`. I will assume `*>` is a macro for function composition, similar to `compose` but with right-to-left or left-to-right application.
Given `(*> #'any #'eof)`, if it's composition, it might expand to `(lambda (&rest args) (funcall #'any (apply #'eof args)))`.
Or maybe it's from `cl-ppcre`'s `ppcre:scan`? No.
Wait! `*>` is used in `cl-ppcre` for something? No.
How about `cl-unicode`?
Let's think of `cl-ppcre`'s `ppcre:regex-optimize`.
Actually, `*>` is used in `cl-ppcre` for character classes? No.
Maybe it's from `cl-ppcre`'s `ppcre:all-matches`?
Wait, `any` and `eof` are standard CL functions? `eof` is a condition. `any` is a function.
`(*> #'any #'eof)` might be a test case for a macro that handles function composition or piping.
I will write a macro `*>` that composes functions. Since it's a macro, it might just expand to `(alexandria:compose #'any #'eof)` or generate a lambda.
But the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by *>". This is likely a fill-in-the-blank or specific transformation request.
Given the ambiguity, I will define `*>` as a macro that expands to a composed function using `lambda` and `funcall`, or perhaps it's a threading macro.
Let's assume it's a simple composition macro: `(defmacro *> (&rest fns) ...)`
Wait, `*>` might be from `cl-ppcre`? No.
How about `cl-ppcre`'s `ppcre:regex-optimize`?
Actually, `*>
</think>
(defmacro *> (parser &rest parsers)
  "Combination of parsers yielding the result of the rightmost one."
  (let ((offset (gensym "*>-OFFSET")))
    `(lambda (,offset)
       ,(reduce (lambda (i p)
                  (let ((res  (gensym "*>-RES"))
                        (next (gensym "*>-NEXT")))
                    `(multiple-value-bind (,res ,next) ,i
                       (if (ok? ,res)
                           (funcall ,p ,next)
                           (fail ,next)))))
                parsers
                :initial-value `(funcall ,parser ,offset)))))


[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:
(defsynonym while :while)

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

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

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
   - **Input Pattern:** `(defsynonym while :while)`
   - **Goal:** Create a `defmacro` named `defsynonym` that transforms this pattern into appropriate Common Lisp code.
   - **Implicit Meaning:** `defsynonym` likely creates a macro synonym. The first argument is the new name (`while`), and the second argument is the existing macro/function name (`:while`). Wait, `:while` is a keyword. In Common Lisp, `defmacro` expects a symbol, not a keyword, but keywords are symbols. However, typically synonyms are for macros or functions. Let's assume it's for creating a macro that just expands to the target form, or it sets up a macrolet/flet, or uses `defmacro` to create a wrapper. Actually, a common pattern for macro synonyms is:
     ```lisp
     (defmacro while (&rest args)
       `(while ,@args)) ;; Wait, that would shadow itself
     ```
     Actually, if the target is `:while`, maybe it's meant to be `(while ...)` expands to `(:while ...)`? That doesn't make sense. Let's reconsider.
     Maybe `defsynonym` is meant to create a macro that expands to the target macro/function call. For example:
     `(defsynonym my-while while)` -> `(defmacro my-while (&rest args) \`(while ,@args))`
     But the example is `(defsynonym while :while)`. This suggests `while` is the new name, `:while` is the old name. Wait, `:while` is a keyword. Maybe it's just an example, and the second argument is the target symbol.
     Let's think about standard macro synonym implementations. A common one is:
     ```lisp
     (defmacro defsynonym (new-name old-name)
       `(defmacro ,new-name (&rest args)
          `(,old-name ,@args)))
     ```
     But this has a problem: if `old-name` is a macro, backquote will just insert it as a symbol, which is fine. But if `old-name` is a function, it will still work at expansion time? Actually, macros expand to forms that are evaluated later. So `(,old-name ,@args)` will call/expand `old-name` at runtime/compile-time depending on context.
     Wait, there's a better way: use `macrolet` or `defmacro` with `&whole`? No.
     Actually, a very common and robust way to define a macro synonym in CL is:
     ```lisp
     (defmacro defsynonym (new-name old-name)
       `(defmacro ,new-name (&rest args)
          `(,old-name ,@args)))
     ```
     But this doesn't handle `&key`, `&optional`, etc. correctly if the original macro has them. However, for a simple synonym, `&rest` is usually fine, or we can use `&body` if it's a macro. But `&rest` is safer for generic synonyms.
     Wait, another approach: `(defmacro ,new-name (&rest args) \`(,old-name ,@args))` works, but if `old-name` is a macro, the backquote will just produce the symbol. When the expanded form is compiled, the compiler will see `(old-name ...)` and expand it. That's correct.
     However, there's a subtle issue: if `old-name` is a macro, using backquote might not preserve macro expansion properly if the macro expects special syntax. But generally, it's fine.
     Actually, a more robust pattern for macro synonyms is:
     ```lisp
     (defmacro defsynonym (new-name old-name)
       `(defmacro ,new-name (&rest args)
          `(,old-name ,@args)))
     ```
     But wait, the prompt says: `(defsynonym while :while)`. This is likely from a specific library or just a made-up example. I'll stick to the standard approach.
     Let's consider variable capture. `args` is local to the generated macro. `old-name` is unquoted properly. `new-name` is unquoted. No capture issues.
     Could also use `&body` instead of `&rest` for macros, but `&rest` is safer for functions too. I'll use `&rest`.
     Actually, a common idiom is:
     ```lisp
     (defmacro defsynonym (new-name old-name)
       `(defmacro ,new-name (&rest args)
          `(,old-name ,@args)))
     ```
</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:
(mvlet* (x) x)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by mvlet*

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `mvlet*` that handles the pattern `(mvlet* (x) x)`.
This looks like a multi-value let binding macro. `mvlet` typically binds multiple values returned by a form to variables.
The pattern `(mvlet* (x) x)` implies binding the multiple values of the form `x` to the variable `x` (or maybe a list of variables?), and then the body is `x`. Wait, the syntax is usually `(mvlet ((var1 var2 ...) form) body...)`.
Here the call is `(mvlet* (x) x)`. This looks like `(mvlet* bindings body)`.
If `bindings` is `(x)`, maybe it means binding one variable `x` to the multiple values of some form? But where is the form?
Ah, maybe the syntax is `(mvlet* (var form) body)`? Or `(mvlet* ((var) form) body)`?
Let's assume the standard `mvlet` syntax is `(mvlet ((var1 var2 ...) form) body...)`.
But the example is `(mvlet* (x) x)`. This could mean `(mvlet* ((x) form) body)` but abbreviated?
Wait, `mvlet*` might be a macro that takes a list of bindings, where each binding is `(var form)`, and expands to nested `mvlet`s. Like `let*` but for multiple values.
So `(mvlet* ((x form1) (y form2)) body)` expands to `(mvlet ((x) form1) (mvlet ((y) form2) body))`.
But the example is `(mvlet* (x) x)`. This is strange. Maybe it's `(mvlet* ((x) form) body)` but the user wrote `(mvlet* (x) x)` as a minimal example? Or maybe `(mvlet* vars form body)`?
Actually, `mvlet` in some libraries (like Alexandria) is `(mvlet ((var ...) form) body)`.
If it's `mvlet*`, it's likely a chained version.
Let's look at the exact call: `(mvlet* (x) x)`.
If the syntax is `(mvlet* bindings body)`, and `bindings` is a list of `(var form)` pairs.
But `(x)` is just one symbol. Maybe it means `(x x)`? Or maybe the syntax is `(mvlet* (var form) body)`?
Wait, could it be `(mvlet* ((x) x) x)`? No.
Let's reconsider: maybe the macro is supposed to handle multiple values assignment sequentially.
`(mvlet* ((x (values 1 2)) (y (values 3 4))) (+ x y))`
But the prompt says: `(mvlet* (x) x)`. This might be a typo in the prompt, or it means `(mvlet* ((x) form) body)` where `form` is missing?
Actually, in some Lisp dialects or libraries, `mvlet` or `multiple-value-bind` is used.
Maybe the user means `(mvlet* ((x) (some-form)) body)` but gave a shorthand?
Or perhaps `(mvlet* vars form &body body)`? Like `(mvlet* (x y) (values 1 2) (+ x y))`.
If `(mvlet* (x) x)` is the call, it matches `(mvlet* vars form &body body)` where `vars` is `(x)`, `form` is `x`, and body is empty? That doesn't make sense.
Wait! Maybe it's `(mvlet* ((x) form) body)` but the user wrote `(mvlet* (x) x)` meaning binding `x` to the result of `x`? That's recursive/weird.
Let's think of `mvlet*` as a macro that takes a list of bindings, each binding is `(var form)`, and expands to nested `multiple-value-bind`.
Example: `(mvlet* ((a (foo)) (b (bar))) (+ a b))` -> `(multiple-value-bind (a) (foo) (multiple-value-bind (b) (bar) (+ a b)))`.
If the call is `(mvlet* (x) x)`, maybe it's `(mvlet* ((x) x) )`? Or maybe the syntax is `(mvlet* (var form) body...)`?
Actually, a common pattern for `mvlet*` is:
`(defmacro mvlet* (bindings &body body) ...)`
Where `bindings` is a list of `(var form)` or `((var) form)`.
Given the prompt `(mvlet* (x)
</think>
(defmacro mvlet* ((&rest bindings) &body body &environment env)
  "Expand a series of nested `multiple-value-bind' forms.

`mvlet*' is similar in intent to Scheme’s `let-values', but with a
different and less parenthesis-intensive syntax. Each binding is a
list of

    (var var*... expr)

A simple example should suffice to show both the implementation and
the motivation:

    (defun uptime (seconds)
      (mvlet* ((minutes seconds (truncate seconds 60))
               (hours minutes (truncate minutes 60))
               (days hours (truncate hours 24)))
        (declare ((integer 0 *) days hours minutes seconds))
        (fmt \"~d day~:p, ~d hour~:p, ~d minute~:p, ~d second~:p\"
             days hours minutes seconds)))

Note that declarations work just like `let*'."
  (cond ((null bindings)
         `(locally ,@body))
        ((every #'simple-binding-p bindings)
         `(let* ,bindings ,@body))
        (t (multiple-value-bind (body decls)
               (parse-body body)
             (let* ((bindings (canonicalize-bindings bindings))
                    (mvbinds (member-if-not #'simple-binding-p bindings))
                    (simple-binds (ldiff bindings mvbinds)))
               (if simple-binds
                   (multiple-value-bind (local other)
                       (partition-declarations (mapcar #'car simple-binds) decls env)
                     `(let* ,simple-binds
                        ,@local
                        (mvlet* ,mvbinds
                          ,@other
                          ,@body)))
                   (let* ((vars (butlast (car bindings)))
                          (expr (lastcar (car bindings))))
                     (multiple-value-bind (local other)
                         (partition-declarations vars decls env)
                       `(multiple-value-bind ,vars
                            ,expr
                          ,@local
                          (mvlet* ,(cdr bindings)
                            ,@other
                            ,@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:
(sif (car x) (setf it :yes!) (setf it :oops))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by sif

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `sif` that handles a specific pattern.
Looking at the example: `(sif (car x) (setf it :yes!) (setf it :oops))`
This looks like a shorthand for `if` but with a specific variable binding or perhaps a shorthand for setting a variable `it`.
Wait, `sif` might stand for "set if" or "symbolic if".
Let's analyze the arguments:
1. `(car x)`: Test condition.
2. `(setf it :yes!)`: Then clause.
3. `(setf it :oops)`: Else clause.

It seems `sif` is a macro that expands into an `if` form, but maybe it binds `it`? Or maybe `it` is just a variable used in the example.
Actually, `sif` is a known macro in some Lisp dialects or libraries, often standing for "symbol if" or similar, but here it might just be a custom macro.
Let's assume `sif` is meant to be a shorthand for `if` where the then and else clauses are executed, but perhaps it's just a direct expansion to `if`.
Wait, another possibility: `sif` stands for "set if". It could expand to `(if test (setf var val1) (setf var val2))` but the example has `(setf it :yes!)` as the second argument.
Maybe `sif` is just an alias for `if`? Or maybe it's `(if test then else)`.
Let's look at the structure: `(sif test then else)`.
If it's just `if`, why call it `sif`? Maybe `sif` stands for "short if" or "smart if".
Another common Lisp macro is `when`/`unless`, but this has three arguments.
Could it be from a specific library? `sif` in CL-PPCRE? No.
Maybe it's from `alexandria`? No.
Maybe it's a macro that evaluates the test, and if true, evaluates the first form, else the second. That's exactly `if`.
But why `sif`? Perhaps it's "set it if"? Like `(sif test val1 val2)` expands to `(setf it (if test val1 val2))`? But the example has `(setf it :yes!)` as the second argument, not a value.
Wait, the example is: `(sif (car x) (setf it :yes!) (setf it :oops))`
If `sif` just expands to `if`, it would be `(if (car x) (setf it :yes!) (setf it :oops))`. That makes perfect sense. Maybe `sif` is just a shorthand for `if` to save typing, or maybe it's from a specific style guide.
Alternatively, `sif` could be "short-circuit if" but Lisp `if` is already short-circuit.
Let's consider that `sif` might be a macro that binds `it` to the result of the test? No.
Given the prompt "Macro call that should be transformed by sif", it's likely a simple macro that expands to `if`.
But wait! There's a known macro `sif` in some contexts that stands for "symbol if" or "string if", but here it's likely just a custom macro for the exercise.
Let's assume `sif` is simply a synonym for `if`, or perhaps it's meant to be `(if test then else)`.
Wait, could it be from the `cl-who` or `html-template` libraries? No.
Could it be `setf-if`? If it were `setf-if`, it would take `(sif var test val1 val2)`. But the example has `(setf it ...)` inside.
I will assume `sif` is a macro that expands to `if`. It's a common exercise to write a macro that just wraps `if` or handles a specific pattern.
Actually, `sif` might stand for "smart if" or "short if".
Let's just write a macro that expands `(sif test then else)` to `(if test then else)`.
But wait, the prompt says "handle this code pattern". It might be that `sif` is supposed to evaluate the test once, bind it to a variable, and then use it? No, `if` does that.
Maybe `sif` is from a specific book or tutorial. In "Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation", there's no `sif`.
In "Practical Common Lisp", no.
Maybe it
</think>
(defmacro sif (test then &optional else)
  "Like IF, except binds the test form to IT (via SYMBOL-MACROLET) for
the scope of the then and else expressions. IT can be set with SETF"
  `(symbolic if ,test ,then ,else))


[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-path-instruction-pair curve-to "C" (control-x1 control-y1 control-x2 control-y2 x y))

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by define-path-instruction-pair

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `define-path-instruction-pair` that expands a call like:
`(define-path-instruction-pair curve-to "C" (control-x1 control-y1 control-x2 control-x2 y))`
Wait, the example says: `(define-path-instruction-pair curve-to "C" (control-x1 control-y1 control-x2 control-y2 x y))`

Let's analyze the pattern:
Name: `curve-to`
Command string: `"C"`
Parameters: `(control-x1 control-y1 control-x2 control-y2 x y)`

What does this macro likely do? It probably defines a function or a special form for generating SVG path commands, or maybe it's for a graphics library. Given the name `define-path-instruction-pair`, it might define two functions: one for absolute coordinates and one for relative coordinates, or it defines a function that returns a string/command pair.
Actually, in many SVG path libraries in Lisp, path instructions are often defined as functions that return a cons pair or a list, or maybe they define a reader macro.
Let's think about typical SVG path macros. Often, you want to generate strings like `"C 10 20 30 40 50 60"`.
Or maybe it defines a function `curve-to` that takes those arguments and returns a path segment.

Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by define-path-instruction-pair". It doesn't specify exactly what the expansion should be, but asks me to write the macro that addresses this pattern. I should probably make reasonable assumptions or ask for clarification, but as an AI, I should provide a plausible implementation.
Let's look at the structure: `(define-path-instruction-pair name command-string (param*))`
It likely defines two functions: one for absolute (uppercase command) and one for relative (lowercase command), or maybe it just defines one function that formats the string.
Actually, "pair" might refer to defining both the function and its reverse, or maybe it defines a function and an accessor.
Another possibility: It's from a specific library. `define-path-instruction-pair` sounds like it could be from `cl-svg` or similar.
Wait, if it's `curve-to`, maybe it defines `curve-to` and `relative-curve-to`? Or `curve-to` and `move-to`? No.
Let's think about standard Lisp macro patterns for this. It probably defines a function `curve-to` that takes the parameters and returns a string or a list representing the path command.
Given the parameters `(control-x1 control-y1 control-x2 control-y2 x y)`, it's 6 arguments. SVG `C` command takes 6 numbers.
Maybe it defines a function that returns a formatted string: `(format nil "C ~A ~A ~A ~A ~A ~A" control-x1 control-y1 control-x2 control-y2 x y)`.
But the macro name says `pair`. Maybe it returns a cons pair: `("C" . (list of args))`? Or maybe it defines two functions: one for absolute and one for relative? In SVG, `C` is absolute, `c` is relative. So `define-path-instruction-pair` might define both `curve-to` (for `C`) and `relative-curve-to` (for `c`), or maybe `curve-to` and `curve-to-rel`.
Actually, a common pattern in Lisp graphics libraries is to define functions that return path segments. The "pair" might refer to defining the command string and the argument list, or defining both the function and a reader macro.

Let's reconsider: maybe it's from `path` or `svg` library. I'll assume it defines a function that takes the arguments and returns a cons of the command string and the arguments, or a formatted string.
Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by define-path-instruction-pair". It might just want a macro that expands to a `defun` or `defmacro`.
Given the lack of specific expansion requirements, I will design a macro that:
1. Takes `name`, `command`, and `args`.
2. Defines a function `name` that takes `args` and returns a path instruction structure (e.g., a list or string).
3. Handles quasiquote/unquote properly.
4. Avoids variable capture (though here variables are just parameters, so it's straightforward).

Actually, a very common pattern for this in Lisp is:
</think>
(defmacro define-path-instruction-pair (name instruction (&rest args))
  (let ((draw-relative (intern (concatenate 'string (string name) "-R"))))
    `(progn
       (defun ,name (,@args)
         (format-instruction ,instruction ,@args))
       (defun ,draw-relative (,@args)
         (format-instruction ,(string-downcase instruction) ,@args)))))


[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-bug with-fresh-env-scope-missing-env () () "with-fresh-env-scope expects a code object & an environment to be returned from it's body. However there was no environment returned.")

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that eliminates the repetitive pattern in `define-bug`.
The pattern is:
`(define-bug NAME () () "DESCRIPTION")`
where NAME is a symbol like `with-fresh-env-scope-missing-env`.
The macro should probably be called `define-bug` or something similar, but the user says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define-bug ...)" which implies `define-bug` is the macro being called, or maybe they want a macro that expands to this? Or maybe they want to redefine `define-bug` to be simpler?
Wait, the prompt says: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define-bug with-fresh-env-scope-missing-env () () "with-fresh-env-scope expects...")"
This looks like a call to `define-bug`. The repetitive pattern is `() ()`.
So maybe the macro should be `(define-bug NAME "DESCRIPTION")` and it expands to `(define-bug NAME () () "DESCRIPTION")`.
Or maybe `define-bug` is already a macro, and they want a wrapper macro?
Let's assume the user wants a macro `define-bug` that takes just the name and description, and fills in the empty lists.
Wait, `define-bug` is likely a function or macro from a specific library (maybe `ironclad` or `cl-bug` or similar). The pattern `() ()` probably stands for parameters and local variables or something.
If I define a macro `define-bug` that takes `(name description)` and expands to `(define-bug name () () description)`, that would eliminate the `() ()` repetition.
But wait, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define-bug with-fresh-env-scope-missing-env () () "...")".
It might be that `define-bug` is the macro they want me to define.
Let's define `define-bug` as:
`(defmacro define-bug (name &optional (params '()) (locals '()) doc) ...)`
But the example has `() ()` explicitly. So maybe the macro is just a shorthand.
Actually, many bug reporting macros in Lisp take `(name &rest args)`.
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: The user wants a macro that takes `(name doc)` and expands to `(define-bug name () () doc)`. But that would shadow `define-bug`. Maybe they want `define-simple-bug`? Or maybe they just want `define-bug` to be redefined.
Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by define-bug". This is a bit confusing. It might be from a code review or a specific project.
Let's assume the macro is named `define-bug` and it should accept `(name doc)` and expand to the full form. Or maybe the macro is named `defbug`.
Actually, looking at the pattern `(define-bug NAME () () "DOC")`, the `() ()` are likely for `:parameters` and `:local-variables` or similar. If they are always empty, a macro can omit them.
I will define a macro `define-bug` that takes `(name &optional doc)` and expands to `(define-bug name () () doc)`. But to avoid infinite recursion if `define-bug` is already defined, I'll assume they want a new macro, or I'll just define `define-bug` as requested.
Wait, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define-bug ...)".
I'll define `define-bug` such that it handles the case where the two lists are omitted.
Actually, a common pattern in such macros is:
`(defmacro define-bug (name &key (params '()) (locals '()) (doc "")) ...)`
But the example shows positional arguments: `(define-bug name () () doc)`.
I'll write a macro that takes `(name &optional (doc ""))` and expands to `(define-bug name () () doc)`. To avoid name collision, I'll call it `define-simple-bug` or just stick to `define-bug` as requested. The prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define-bug ...)", so I will define `define-bug`.

Let's think about variable capture: `name` is a symbol, `doc` is a string. No variables to capture.
Quasiquote/unquote: straightforward.
Structure:
</think>
(defmacro define-bug (name (&key (error-type 'varjo-error) (prefix "Varjo Bug"))
                            (&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]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(define-custom-var (:string-scope *string-scope-variables*) nil "A list of symbols naming dynamic variables which should be re-bound in the scope of every JSON String.")

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `define-custom-var` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The pattern is:
`(define-custom-var (:string-scope *string-scope-variables*) nil "A list of symbols naming dynamic variables which should be re-bound in the scope of every JSON String.")`

Let's analyze the arguments:
1. `(:string-scope *string-scope-variables*)` - This looks like a list containing a keyword `:string-scope` and a variable name `*string-scope-variables*`.
2. `nil` - This is the initial value.
3. `"A list of symbols..."` - This is the documentation string.

Wait, the prompt says: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var"
It seems like the user wants a macro that defines a custom variable, possibly a dynamic variable, with some metadata or scope binding behavior.
The example shows `:string-scope` and a variable `*string-scope-variables*`. This variable likely holds a list of symbols that need to be rebound in string scopes.

Let's think about what `define-custom-var` should do.
It probably needs to:
1. Define the variable `*string-scope-variables*` using `defvar` or `defparameter`.
2. Possibly register it in some system that handles string scope rebinding.
3. Handle the documentation string.

Since I don't have the full context of the system, I will create a macro that:
1. Destructures the first argument to extract the scope type (`:string-scope`) and the variable name.
2. Defines the variable with `defvar`.
3. Possibly adds it to a registry or performs some side-effect based on the scope type.
4. Returns the variable name.

Let's assume the macro signature is:
`(define-custom-var (scope-type var-name) initial-value &optional doc-string)`

Wait, the example has `nil` as the initial value. In `defvar`, the initial value is optional. If it's `nil`, it might just mean no initial value, or it might be explicitly `nil`.
I'll handle it as `(defvar var-name initial-value doc-string)`.

To make it robust, I'll use `let` to destructure the first argument, or just pattern match in the macro lambda list if possible, but standard CL macros don't support destructuring in lambda lists directly without `destructuring-bind` or similar. I'll just use `first`, `second`, etc., or `destructuring-bind` inside the macro body. Actually, using `destructuring-bind` is cleaner.

Wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-custom-var". This might imply that the macro should just expand to something specific.
Let's assume it expands to:
</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:
(define-simple-type-map special-operator :special-operator)

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-simple-type-map

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `define-simple-type-map` that takes two arguments: a type name (symbol) and a type specifier (symbol or keyword).
The example given is `(define-simple-type-map special-operator :special-operator)`.

Let's think about what this macro should do. It likely defines a type mapping for a simple type. In Common Lisp, `deftype` is used to define new types. However, the name `define-simple-type-map` suggests it might be setting up a mapping between a type name and a type specifier, possibly for a specific system or library.

Without more context, I'll assume it's meant to define a type using `deftype` that expands to the given type specifier. Or perhaps it's setting up a mapping in a hash table or association list for type dispatch. Given the name "simple-type-map", it might be part of a type system where simple types are mapped to their representations.

Let's consider a common pattern: defining a type that maps to a specific type specifier. For example:
`(deftype special-operator () 'special-operator)` or `(deftype special-operator () ':special-operator)`

But the macro takes two arguments: the type name and the type specifier. So it could be:
`(deftype name () specifier)`

However, the example uses `:special-operator` as the specifier, which is a keyword. So the macro should probably expand to something like:
`(deftype special-operator () :special-operator)`

But wait, `deftype` expects a type specifier, not necessarily a keyword. Keywords are valid type specifiers in some contexts, but typically `deftype` expands to a type specifier that is evaluated at macroexpand time or compile time.

Let's think about a more general approach. The macro could define a type using `deftype`, and also set up some mapping. But without more context, I'll stick to the simplest interpretation: define a type that maps to the given specifier.

Actually, looking at the pattern, it might be from a specific library or codebase. The name `define-simple-type-map` suggests it's defining a mapping for simple types. Perhaps it's creating an entry in a type map hash table or similar.

Given the limited information, I'll design a macro that:
1. Defines a type using `deftype` that expands to the specifier.
2. Possibly sets up a mapping in a global variable or hash table.

But to keep it simple and match the pattern, I'll assume it's just a `deftype` wrapper. However, the macro name includes "map", so it might be setting up a mapping. Let's consider that it might be defining a type and also registering it in a type map.

Without more context, I'll provide a macro that defines the type and also sets up a simple mapping in a global association list or hash table. But since the user didn't specify, I'll stick to the most straightforward interpretation: a `deftype` that maps the name to the specifier.

Wait, the pattern is `(define-simple-type-map name specifier)`. This could expand to:
`(deftype name () specifier)`

But `deftype` requires the specifier to be a type specifier, which is evaluated at macroexpand time. So if `specifier` is a symbol like `:special-operator`, it should work.

Let's write the macro:
</think>
(defmacro define-simple-type-map (class type)
  `(defmethod type ((,class ,class))
     ',type))


[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-component-testers (a b #'pathname-version) (and (null a) (null b)) (components-are-member '(:wild :newest :unspecific)) (and (integerp a) (integerp b) (= a b)))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by with-component-testers

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro `with-component-testers` that eliminates a repetitive pattern.
Looking at the example:
`(with-component-testers (a b #'pathname-version) (and (null a) (null b)) (components-are-member '(:wild :newest :unspecific)) (and (integerp a) (integerp b) (= a b)))`

Wait, the example shows a macro call. Let's analyze the pattern:
It seems to be testing two values `a` and `b` obtained from applying a function (like `#'pathname-version`) to some implicit arguments? Or maybe `a` and `b` are the results of applying the function to two implicit paths?
Actually, this looks like it's from ASDF or a similar build system, testing pathnames or components.
`with-component-testers` probably takes a function, and then several clauses. Each clause is a test and a body? Or maybe it's a `cond`-like structure?
Wait, the example has:
`(with-component-testers (a b #'pathname-version)`
  `(and (null a) (null b))`
  `(components-are-member '(:wild :newest :unspecific))`
  `(and (integerp a) (integerp b) (= a b)))`

This looks like a series of conditions. If any condition is true, it returns true? Or maybe it's defining a function or a predicate?
Actually, it might be from `asdf/defsystem.lisp` or similar.
Let's search mentally for "with-component-testers" or similar patterns in Common Lisp.
It resembles `ecase` or `cond` but tailored for component testing.
Wait, the pattern `(a b #'pathname-version)` suggests binding `a` and `b` to the results of calling `pathname-version` on two implicit variables, probably `x` and `y` or `path1` and `path2`.
But the macro call itself doesn't show the variables it's applied to. Maybe it's used inside another macro that provides `x` and `y`? Or maybe `with-component-testers` is meant to be used like:
`(with-component-testers ((a b) #'pathname-version) ...)`? No, the example has `(a b #'pathname-version)`.

Let's think about what this macro is supposed to do. It likely expands into a `cond` or a series of `if`s, or maybe it's defining a predicate function.
Actually, this looks exactly like a macro from `asdf` or `uiop` for comparing pathnames/components.
In ASDF, there's `component-same-type-p` or similar.
Wait, the prompt says: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:"
It gives one example call. I need to infer the pattern.
The pattern seems to be:
`(with-component-testers (var1 var2 accessor-fn) test1 test2 ...)`
But how does it bind `var1` and `var2`? Probably to `(accessor-fn x)` and `(accessor-fn y)` where `x` and `y` are free variables in the surrounding context, or maybe the macro is used inside a `let` or `flet`.
Alternatively, maybe `with-component-testers` is a macro that takes an accessor and a series of clauses, and expands to a `cond` that binds the variables for each clause? No, that would be inefficient.
More likely, it expands to:
`(let ((a (funcall accessor x)) (b (funcall accessor y))) (cond (test1) (test2) ...))`
But where do `x` and `y` come from? Maybe they are implicit, or maybe the macro is meant to be used inside a larger macro that provides them. Or maybe the first argument is actually `(a b #'pathname-version x y)`? The example doesn't show `x` and `y`.
Wait, maybe it's from `asdf/component.lisp`? There is `component-same-type-p` which uses `with-component-testers`.
Actually, in ASDF, `with-component-testers` is defined as:
`(defmacro with-component-testers ((a b accessor) &body clauses) ...)`
And it expands to something like:
`(let ((a (funcall accessor x)) (b (funcall accessor y))) (or ,@clauses))`
But `x` and `y` are probably provided by the surrounding context, or maybe the macro expects them as additional arguments? The example only shows `(a b #'pathname-version)`.
Let's assume `x` and `y` are free variables in the context where this macro is used. Or perhaps the macro is meant to be used like:
</think>
(defmacro with-component-testers ((a b key) &body body)
  (let ((k (gensym)))
    `(let* ((,k ,key)
            (,a (funcall ,k ,a))
            (,b (funcall ,k ,b)))
       (labels ((components-are (test)
                  (and (funcall test ,a) (funcall test ,b)))
                (components-are-member (values)
                  (and (member ,a values :test #'eql)
                       (member ,b values :test #'eql)
                       (eql ,a ,b)))
                (components-are-string= ()
                  (and (stringp ,a) (stringp ,b) (string= ,a ,b)))
                (components-are-every (test)
                  (and (consp ,a)
                       (consp ,b)
                       (every test ,a ,b))))
         (declare (ignorable #'components-are #'components-are-member
                             #'components-are-string= #'components-are-every))
         (if (or ,@body)
             (values t ,a ,b)
             nil)))))


[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-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (tan x)) (check-wcs-math-result))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-wcs-math-error-handling

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-wcs-math-error-handling`.
The input form is `(with-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (tan x)) (check-wcs-math-result))`.
Wait, the prompt says "Before code: ... What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-wcs-math-error-handling".
Actually, the prompt says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: (with-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (tan x)) (check-wcs-math-result))".
This implies the macro `with-wcs-math-error-handling` takes a binding `(ret (tan x))` and a body `(check-wcs-math-result)`.
It likely computes `(tan x)`, stores it in `ret`, and checks for math errors (like domain errors or floating-point exceptions), then executes the body.
Common Lisp has `handler-case` or `ignore-errors` or specific floating-point condition handling (`float-invalid-operation`, `float-overflow`, `float-underflow`, `float-inexact`).
Given the name `with-wcs-math-error-handling` and `check-wcs-math-result`, it seems like a custom library macro.
Usually, such a macro would:
1. Evaluate the expression `(tan x)`.
2. Bind the result to `ret`.
3. Check if the result is valid (NaN, infinity, or signalled conditions).
4. If an error occurs or result is invalid, handle it (maybe return a default or signal a custom error).
5. Execute the body with `ret` bound.

However, since I don't know the exact semantics of `check-wcs-math-result`, I should probably implement a standard pattern for math error handling in CL, or just wrap the computation in a `handler-case` for math errors and bind the result.
Wait, "check-wcs-math-result" is in the body. So the macro might just evaluate the form, bind it to the variable, and maybe set up a handler around the body? Or maybe the macro expands to a `let` with a `handler-case` around the computation?
Let's assume the macro expands to something like:
`(let ((ret (handler-case (tan x) (error (e) ...)))) (check-wcs-math-result))`
Or perhaps it catches floating-point conditions.
Actually, a common pattern for `with-math-error-handling` is to catch `float-invalid-operation` etc., and maybe return a specific value or signal a custom condition.
But since the prompt is vague about the exact error handling behavior, I will create a reasonable implementation that:
1. Binds the variable to the result of the expression.
2. Wraps the expression evaluation in a `handler-case` for math-related conditions (`float-invalid-operation`, `float-overflow`, `float-underflow`, `error`).
3. Provides a default value or signals a custom condition if an error occurs.
4. Executes the body.

Wait, the prompt says "Before code: (with-wcs-math-error-handling (ret (tan x)) (check-wcs-math-result))". This is the macro call.
I need to write the `defmacro`.
Let's stick to a simple, robust pattern:
</think>
(defmacro with-wcs-math-error-handling
    ((var-or-var-list
      (function x &optional (y nil y-supplied-p))
      &rest keyargs
      &key underflow-value)
     &body body)
  (declare (ignorable underflow-value))
  (let ((x_ (gensym)) (y_ (gensym)) (args_ (gensym))
        (var-list (ensure-list var-or-var-list)))
    `(let* ((,x_ ,x)
            (,y_ ,y)
            (,args_ (list ,x_ ,@(if y-supplied-p `(,y_)))))
       (declare (ignorable ,y_)
                (type list ,args_)
                (dynamic-extent ,args_))
       (catch 'return-from-with-wcs-math-error-handling
         (multiple-value-bind ,var-list
             (call-with-wcs-math-error-handler ',function ,args_
                                               ,@keyargs)
           (flet ((check-wcs-math-result
                      (&optional (ret ,(first var-list))
                                 (arg-list ,args_))
                    (check-wcs-math-result ret arg-list)))
             ,@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:
(let1 x 1 (list y z))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by let1

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `let1` that transforms a specific form.
The input form is: `(let1 x 1 (list y z))`
This looks like a shorthand for `let` where only one variable is being bound.
Standard `let` syntax is: `(let ((var1 val1) (var2 val2) ...) body...)`
So, `(let1 x 1 (list y z))` should probably expand to `(let ((x 1)) (list y z))`.

Let's analyze the components:
1. Macro name: `let1`
2. Arguments in the macro call: `x`, `1`, and `(list y z)`.
   - `x` is the variable name.
   - `1` is the initialization form.
   - `(list y z)` is the body (which can be multiple forms, but here it's one).

So the macro definition should look like:
`(defmacro let1 (var init &body body) ...)`

Wait, `let` allows multiple body forms. `let1` should probably support that too.
So `&body body` is appropriate.

The expansion should be:
`(let ((,var ,init)) ,@body)`

Let's check variable capture concerns.
`var` is a symbol, used as a binding name. It's safe.
`init` and `body` are forms, spliced in. No gensym needed unless we were introducing new bindings, but here we are just wrapping the user's var in a list.
So `(let ((,var ,init)) ,@body)` is correct.

Wait, is there any special case? `let` requires the bindings to be a list of pairs.
`(let ((x 1)) ...)` is correct.

Let's write the macro.
</think>
(defmacro let1 (var expr &body body)
  "Bind VAR, immutably, to EXPR and evaluate BODY.

This may be pronounced with equal propriety as \"let-one\" or
\"let-once\"."
  `(let ((,var ,expr))
     (with-read-only-vars (,var)
       ,@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:
(with-temp (input-file :tmpdir d :template "XXXXXX.prolog" :debug (<= 1 *debug-prolog*)) (with-open-file (s input-file :direction :output :if-does-not-exist :error) (dolist (r rules) (print-rule s r))) (run-command-with-debug-print `(,*xsb* "--nobanner" "--quietload" "--noprompt" "-e" ,(format nil "consult('~a')." input-file) ,@args) :input input :output output :error error))

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

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

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Goal:** Create a Common Lisp macro named `with-temp`.
    *   **Input Example:**
        ```lisp
        (with-temp (input-file :tmpdir d :template "XXXXXX.prolog" :debug (<= 1 *debug-prolog*))
          (with-open-file (s input-file :direction :output :if-does-not-exist :error)
            (dolist (r rules) (print-rule s r)))
          (run-command-with-debug-print `(,*xsb* "--nobanner" "--quietload" "--noprompt" "-e" ,(format nil "consult('~a')." input-file) ,@args)
            :input input :output output :error error))
        ```
    *   **Task:** Identify the pattern, determine necessary constructs, handle quasiquoting, avoid variable capture, and write the `defmacro`.

2.  **Deconstruct the Input Pattern:**
    *   The macro call looks like: `(with-temp (binding-forms) body...)`.
    *   The `binding-forms` list contains:
        *   `input-file`: The variable name to bind the temporary file path to.
        *   `:tmpdir d`: Keyword argument specifying the directory.
        *   `:template "XXXXXX.prolog"`: Keyword argument specifying the filename template.
        *   `:debug (<= 1 *debug-prolog*)`: Keyword argument specifying a debug condition (presumably to decide whether to delete the file or keep it for inspection).
    *   The `body` follows the binding forms.

3.  **Determine the Semantics (What does `with-temp` do?):**
    *   It needs to create a temporary file.
    *   It binds the path of that file to the variable provided (`input-file`).
    *   It executes the body.
    *   *Crucial Step:* After the body executes, it probably needs to clean up (delete the file), *unless* the `:debug` condition is true.

4.  **Identify Necessary Lisp Constructs:**
    *   `make-pathname`: To construct the pathname from directory and name.
    *   `truename`: To get the real path (often needed for file operations).
    *   `progv` or `let`: To bind the variable. Since the variable name is specified by the user, a `let` binding is the standard approach for macros like `with-open-file`.
    *   `unwind-protect` or `ignore-errors`: To ensure cleanup happens even if the body signals an error.
    *   `delete-file`: To remove the temp file.
    *   `probe-file`: To check if the file exists before deleting (to avoid errors if creation failed).

5.  **Drafting the Macro Structure:**

    *   *Signature:* `(defmacro with-temp ((var &key tmpdir template debug) &body body)`
        *   Wait, the example shows `(input-file :tmpdir d ...)`. This looks like a destructuring list or a specific list structure.
        *   Let's treat the first argument as a list: `(var &rest options)`.

    *   *Expansion Logic:*
        1.  Evaluate `tmpdir` (default to `*default-pathname-defaults*` or similar if not provided).
        2.  Evaluate `template` (default to "XXXXXX").
        3.  Construct the pathname.
        4.  Bind `var` to this pathname.
        5.  Execute `body`.
        6.  Cleanup logic: If `debug` is false, delete the file.

    *   *Refining the Cleanup:*
        *   We need to ensure the file is deleted even if the body crashes. `unwind-protect` is perfect here.
        *   We need to handle the case where the file might not have been created yet (though usually `with-temp` implies creation). Let's assume the macro *creates* the file or just provides the name. Looking at the example: `(with-open-file (s input-file ...))`. This implies `input-file` is just a name/path, and the *body* is responsible for opening/creating it. The macro just provides the unique name.

6.  **Addressing Variable Capture:**
    *   The macro binds `input-file`. If the user uses `input-file` in the body, it works.
    *   Internal helper variables (like the generated path) should be `gensym`ed to avoid conflicts, though since we are returning a `let` form binding the
</think>
(defmacro with-temp ((var &key directory template (tmpdir "/tmp/") debug) &body body)
  "Create a temporary file, then remove the file by unwind-protect.
Most arguments are analogous to mktemp.
When DIRECTORY is non-nil, creates a directory instead.
DEBUG is a form.
When evaluated to non-nil, it does not remove the directory so that you can investigate what happened inside the directory.
It may be evaluated multiple times."
  (with-gensyms (command)
    `(let ((,var (uiop:run-program
                  (let ((,command (format nil "mktemp --tmpdir='~a' ~@[-d~*~] ~@[~a~]"
                                          ,tmpdir ,directory ,template)))
                    (when ,debug
                      (format *error-output* "~&; ~a~%" ,command))
                    ,command)
                  :output '(:string :stripped t))))
       (unwind-protect
            (progn ,@body)
         (if ,debug
             (format *error-output* "~&; not removing ~a for debugging~%" ,var)
             (uiop:run-program (format nil "rm -rf ~a" (namestring ,var)) :ignore-error-status t))))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(define-op (:like infix-op))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-op

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

1.  **Analyze User Input:**
   - **Input Pattern:** `(define-op (:like infix-op))`
   - **Goal:** Generate a `defmacro` form that transforms this pattern.
   - **Context:** The user wants a macro named `define-op` that takes a specific pattern `(:like infix-op)` and transforms it into something else. The exact transformation isn't specified, but I need to infer a reasonable one or create a generic template that matches the pattern and shows how to expand it. Since the prompt says "transforms code like this", I'll assume it's defining an infix operator or a custom operator definition system. I'll make a reasonable assumption: `(:like infix-op)` defines a macro that behaves like an infix operator, perhaps generating a macro that parses infix syntax, or maybe it's just a placeholder for generating a function/macro definition. I'll keep it general but functional, focusing on the macro expansion pattern.
   Actually, looking at common Lisp patterns, `(:like infix-op)` might be part of a DSL for defining operators. I'll assume the macro should expand to something like `(defmacro infix-op (args) ...)` or generate a reader macro, but since it's a `defmacro`, I'll stick to generating a macro definition.
   Wait, the prompt is very open: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: `(define-op (:like infix-op))`". I need to decide what the expansion should be. A common pattern for `define-op` is to define a macro that captures infix syntax. For simplicity, I'll make it expand to a `defmacro` that takes two arguments (left and right) and calls a generated function, or perhaps it just defines a macro that rewrites infix to prefix.
   Actually, I'll keep it abstract but correct: The macro `define-op` takes a list `(:like name)`. It will generate a macro definition for `name` that expects two operands and expands to a prefix form. Or maybe it's simpler: just show how to match the pattern and generate a standard macro definition.
   Let's think about what `(:like infix-op)` typically means in Lisp libraries. It's often used in operator definition systems (like `defop` in some libraries). I'll assume it expands to a macro that takes two arguments and wraps them in a call to a generated function, or perhaps it's just a placeholder. I'll make a reasonable expansion: `(defmacro infix-op (left right) \`(call-op ,left ,right))` or similar. But to be safe and educational, I'll make the expansion generate a macro that rewrites infix to prefix, and I'll explain the assumptions.
   Actually, the prompt might be from a specific context (like a textbook or exercise). I'll stick to a clear, idiomatic Common Lisp macro that matches `(:like name)` and expands to a `defmacro` for `name`. I'll use `gensym` to avoid capture, handle the pattern matching explicitly, and show quasiquote/unquote properly.

2.  **Pattern Recognition:**
   - Input: `(define-op (:like infix-op))`
   - Structure: `(define-op (keyword name))`
   - We need to match `(:like name)` where `name` is a symbol.
   - We'll use `destructuring-bind` or pattern matching in the macro parameters.

   Macro parameters: `((type name))` where we check `(eq type :like)`.

3.  **Lisp Constructs Needed:**
   - `defmacro`
   - `destructuring-bind` or direct list destructuring in `defmacro` lambda list
   - `check-type` or `assert` for validation
   - `defmacro` inside expansion (or `defun` depending on intent, but macro is fine)
   - `gensym` for hygiene if needed
   - Backquote/comma for template expansion

4.  **Quasiquote/Unquote Handling:**
   - We'll use backquote to generate the expansion.
   - Need to unquote the `name` symbol and any generated helper names.
   - Example: `` `(defmacro ,name (left right) `(,name-prefix ,left ,right)) ``

5.  **Variable Capture Concerns:**
   - Since we're defining a macro, we need to be careful with the generated macro's parameters.
   - If the expansion defines a macro that takes `left` and `right`, those are macro parameters, not runtime variables, so capture isn't an issue there.
   - If we generate helper functions, we should `gensym` them.
   - I'll keep it simple: generate a macro that directly expands to a prefix call, using `gensym` for any internal state if needed, but probably unnecessary for
</think>
(defmacro define-op ((op-name struct-type &key sql-op-name include-slots (package (find-package '#:sxql/operator))) &body body)
  (check-type op-name symbol)
  (let ((struct-name (intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name op-name) #.(string :-op)) package)))
    `(defstruct (,struct-name (:include ,struct-type
                               (name ,(or sql-op-name
                                          (with-output-to-string (s)
                                            (loop for c across (symbol-name op-name)
                                                  if (char= c #\-)
                                                    do (write-char #\Space s)
                                                  else
                                                    do (write-char c s)))))
                               ,@include-slots)
                              (:constructor ,(intern (concatenate 'string
                                                                  #.(string :make-)
                                                                  (symbol-name op-name)
                                                                  #.(string :-op))
                                                     package)
                                  ,(ecase struct-type
                                     ((unary-op
                                       unary-splicing-op
                                       unary-postfix-op) '(var))
                                     ((infix-op
                                       infix-splicing-op
                                       infix-list-op) '(left right))
                                     (conjunctive-op '(&rest expressions)))))
       ,@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:
(with-output-to-file (file-stream pathname :if-exists if-exists :if-does-not-exist if-does-not-exist :external-format external-format) (write-sequence string file-stream))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that mimics the behavior of `with-output-to-file`.
The example provided is:
`(with-output-to-file (file-stream pathname :if-exists if-exists :if-does-not-exist if-does-not-exist :external-format external-format) (write-sequence string file-stream))`

This looks exactly like the standard CLHS definition of `with-output-to-file`.
The user asks to "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this".
Usually, when asked to generate a macro for a standard CL function, the intent is to reimplement it or show how it expands.

Standard `with-output-to-file` expansion usually involves `let`, `open`, `unwind-protect`, and `close`.

Let's break down the arguments:
1. `declaration`: `(file-stream pathname :if-exists ... :if-does-not-exist ... :external-format ...)`
   - `file-stream`: The symbol to bind.
   - `pathname`: The form evaluating to the pathname.
   - Keywords and values for `open`.
2. `body`: The forms to execute.

The expansion logic:
1. Bind the variable `file-stream` to the result of `(open pathname ...)`.
2. Ensure the stream is closed if there's an error or normal exit (using `unwind-protect`).
3. Execute the body.

Structure:
`(let ((file-stream (open pathname :if-exists ... ...)))`
  `(unwind-protect`
    `(progn ,@body)`
    `(close file-stream)))`

Wait, `with-output-to-file` might return the value of the last form in the body, or `nil` if the stream wasn't opened (though `open` usually signals an error if it can't open, unless specific flags are used, but `with-output-to-file` generally relies on `open` to handle the file existence logic). Actually, `open` returns `nil` if `:if-does-not-exist` is `nil` and the file doesn't exist. In that case, the variable is bound to `nil`. The body might execute with `nil` as the stream, or the macro might check.
However, the standard implementation usually just binds the result of `open`. If `open` returns `nil`, the variable is `nil`. The body executes. `unwind-protect` closes it if it's not `nil`.

Let's refine the argument destructuring.
The first argument is a list.
`(destructure-bind (var pathname &rest open-args) declaration ...)`
Or just use `car`, `cadr`, `cddr`.
Since I am writing a `defmacro`, I can use `destructuring-bind` inside the macro or just pattern match with `let`.
Given the prompt asks for "Think step by step... then provide the defmacro", I will use standard list accessors or `destructuring-bind` if allowed in the macro body (it is).

Let's assume the standard signature:
`(with-output-to-file (declaration &body body))`
Where `declaration` is `(var form &rest args)`.

Step 1: Parse `declaration`.
`var` = `(car declaration)`
`form` = `(cadr declaration)`
`args` = `(cddr declaration)`

Step 2: Construct the expansion.
- Call `open` with `form` and `args`.
- Bind `var` to the result.
- Wrap body in `unwind-protect` to `close` `var`.

Edge case: `close` should only be called if the stream is not `nil`.
`(when ,var (close ,var))` inside the unwind-protect cleanup.

Let's write the macro.
</think>
(defmacro with-output-to-file ((stream-name file-name &rest args
                                            &key (direction nil direction-p)
                                            &allow-other-keys)
			       &body body)
  "Evaluate BODY with STREAM-NAME to an output stream on the file
FILE-NAME. ARGS is sent as is to the call to OPEN except EXTERNAL-FORMAT,
which is only sent to WITH-OPEN-FILE when it's not NIL."
  (declare (ignore direction))
  (when direction-p
    (error "Can't specify :DIRECTION for WITH-OUTPUT-TO-FILE."))
  `(with-open-file* (,stream-name ,file-name :direction :output ,@args)
     ,@body))