[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:
(pmap #'1+ #'unsigned)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `pmap` that takes multiple functions and applies them in a pipeline or parallel manner?
Wait, `pmap` usually stands for "parallel map" or "pipeline map".
Looking at the arguments: `(pmap #'1+ #'unsigned)`.
This looks like it might be a pipeline macro, where the output of one function is the input to the next. Or maybe it maps over multiple lists? But there are no lists provided.
If it's a pipeline, it should probably return a composed function or execute on some implicit data?
Wait, if it's `(pmap #'1+ #'unsigned)`, it might be creating a lambda that takes an argument and applies `1+` then `unsigned`.
Or maybe it's from a specific library? `pmap` in CL-PPCRE or Alexandria is parallel map. But here there are no sequences.
Let's assume it's a "pipeline map" or "function composition" macro that generates a lambda.
Actually, `pmap` could be "pipe map".
Let's think about standard Lisp patterns. If I write `(pmap #'1+ #'unsigned)`, it might expand to `(lambda (x) (unsigned (1+ x)))`.
Wait, the order of arguments in a pipeline is usually left-to-right. So `1+` is applied first, then `unsigned`.
Let's consider another possibility: `pmap` stands for "partial map"? No.
Let's consider the user's prompt: "Macro call that should be transformed by pmap".
Maybe it's a macro to generate a function that maps over a sequence? But there's no sequence.
Perhaps it's a macro for "point-free" style or "pipeline".
Let's assume it expands to a lambda that composes the functions.
`(pmap #'1+ #'unsigned)` -> `(lambda (x) (unsigned (1+ x)))`.
Wait, `pmap` might be from a specific library like `cl-functional` or similar? Or maybe it's just a custom macro the user wants defined.
The prompt says: "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by pmap". This is slightly vague. I will define `pmap` to create a composed function (pipeline).
Another interpretation: `pmap` could be "parallel map" but without sequences, it doesn't make sense.
I'll go with function composition / pipeline.
Structure:
`(defmacro pmap (&rest functions) ...)`
It should return a lambda that takes one argument and applies the functions in order.
To avoid variable capture, use `gensym`.
Quasiquote/unquote: ``(lambda (,arg) ,(reduce #'(lambda (body func) `(,func ,body)) functions :initial-value arg))``
Wait, `reduce` might be overkill. I can just use `loop` or recursive expansion.
Let's use `loop`:
</think>
(defmacro pmap (f parser)
  "Similar to `fmap', but this transforms a parser into another one, altering
its inner result if it happened to be successful."
  `(lambda (offset)
     (fmap ,f (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]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(action (:after node-bind node) (multiple-value-bind (new-node new-changed?) (maybe-collapse-bind node) (when new-changed? (setf changed? t) new-node)))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by action

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that eliminates a repetitive pattern in Common Lisp code.
The pattern is:
</think>
(defmacro action ((when type &rest args) &body body)
  "Construct an action block, turning `body` into a lambda function
accepting `args` if `args` are provided. If there are no `args`, then
`body` is assumed to be a function object and is used directly with
`when` and `type` to create an `action` instance. Otherwise, the first
argument in `args` is declared to be a node of type `type`, and the
`args` and `body` are used to generate a lambda function."
  (check-type when keyword)
  (check-type type symbol)
  (assert (subtypep type 'node))
  (assert (or (not (endp args)) (= 1 (length body))))
  (if (endp args)
      `(make-action ',when ',type ,@body)
      `(make-action ',when ',type
                    (lambda (,@args)
                      (declare (type ,type ,(first args)))
                      ,@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:
(-> :g ((a (b))) (put a) (put b) (mt:open-latch latch))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `->` (thread-first macro) that transforms a specific pattern.
The input is: `(-> :g ((a (b))) (put a) (put b) (mt:open-latch latch))`
Wait, looking at the syntax, it resembles a threading macro but with a specific first argument `:g` and a list of arguments `((a (b)))`.
Actually, `->` is often the thread-first macro from `cl-ppcre` or `lisp-on-lines` or similar libraries, but here it seems to be a custom macro.
Let's analyze the structure: `(-> :g ((a (b))) (put a) (put b) (mt:open-latch latch))`
Usually, thread macros work like: `(-> arg form1 form2 ...)` expands to `(form2 (form1 arg))`.
But here the first argument is `:g`, and the second is `((a (b)))`. This looks like a specific DSL.
Maybe `:g` is a keyword indicating a generator or a specific type of pipeline?
Or perhaps `((a (b)))` is a list of bindings?
Wait, `(put a)` and `(put b)` look like forms that take an argument. If it's thread-first, `a` and `b` would be threaded through.
Let's assume `->` threads the result of the previous form into the first argument position of the next form.
But the first form is `((a (b)))`. That's a list. Maybe it's a setup form?
Actually, this looks like a macro from a specific library, possibly related to state machines or pipelines.
Let's reconsider: maybe `->` is just a standard thread-first macro, but the user provided a specific example.
Standard `->` expands `(-> x (+ 1) (* 2))` to `(* 2 (+ 1 x))`.
If we apply standard threading to `(-> :g ((a (b))) (put a) (put b) (mt:open-latch latch))`:
It would become `(mt:open-latch latch (put b (put a ((a (b))) :g)))`.
But `((a (b)))` is not a function call. It's a list. Maybe it's a macro that generates bindings?
Wait, the prompt says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation." It doesn't give the *after* code. It just says "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by ->".
This implies I need to infer the intended expansion or define a macro that handles this specific syntax.
Given the ambiguity, I will assume `->` is a thread-first macro that inserts the threaded value into the first argument position of each subsequent form. If a form is not a list, it's passed through.
But `((a (b)))` is a list. Threading into it would make it `(((a (b))) :g)`. That seems odd.
Maybe `((a (b)))` is actually a form that returns a value, and `:g` is the initial value.
Let's look at similar macros in Lisp. `cl-arrow` or `clojure.core/->`.
In Clojure, `->` threads the value into the first slot.
If I just implement a standard thread-first macro, it should work for most cases.
But the example has `:g` as the first argument. Maybe `:g` stands for "generator" or "graph"?
Actually, this looks like syntax from `lisp-on-lines` or `cl-who` or a DSL for building graphs/pipelines.
Wait! `(-> :g ((a (b))) ...)` might be from a specific library like `cl-json` or something? No.
Let's think about `stumpwm` or `cl-parens`? No.
Maybe it's from `cl-continuations` or `cl-cont`?
Actually, it closely resembles the syntax for `cl-ppcre`'s `scan`? No.
How about `cl-async` or `cl-concurrency`?
Let's look at the structure again: `(-> :g ((a (b))) (put a) (put b) (mt:open-latch latch))`
If `->` is a macro that builds a pipeline, maybe `:g` is a tag.
I will implement a standard thread-first macro `->` that handles this generically. The prompt asks to "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation." It's likely testing macro expansion mechanics.
I'll define `->` to thread the first argument into the subsequent forms.
Expansion logic:
`(-> arg form1 form2 ...)` => `(form2 (form
</think>
(defmacro -> (invariant &body args)
  "See flow:atomically"
  `(atomically ,invariant ,@args))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(when body `(make-block ,body))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `when` that transforms a form `(when body `(make-block ,body))` into something else. Wait, the prompt is slightly ambiguous. Let's re-read carefully: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: `(when body `(make-block ,body))` What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by when"

Actually, this looks like a prompt asking to define a macro `when` that takes a `body` and expands to a backquoted form `(make-block ,body)`. But `when` is already a standard CL macro. Maybe the user wants a custom macro, or maybe they just want the definition of `when` that produces that output? Or perhaps they want a macro that expands `(when body)` to `` `(make-block ,body) ``?

Let's assume the user wants a macro named `when` (or maybe `make-block-when` to avoid shadowing, but I'll stick to `when` as requested, or I'll just define it as requested).
Wait, the prompt says: "Before code: `(when body ``(make-block ,body))``" -> This syntax is weird. It probably means the macro call is `(when body)` and it should expand to ``(make-block ,body)``.
Or maybe the macro is supposed to be defined such that `(when body)` expands to ``(make-block ,body)``.

Let's think about standard macro definition:
</think>
(defmacro when (test &body forms)
  `(if ,test
	   ,(cl:if (cadr forms)
			   `(progn ,@forms)
			   (car forms))))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-value-binding on (var list &key (by NIL by-p)) (declare (type list list)) `(cond (,list ,(if by-p `(progn (update ,var ,list) (setf ,list (funcall ,by ,list))) `(progn (update ,var ,list) (setf ,list (cdr ,list))))) (T (end-for))))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-value-binding

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-value-binding` that takes an `on` keyword, a variable name, a list, and an optional `by` function with a supplied-p argument.
The macro should expand into a `cond` form.
Let's analyze the provided code pattern:
`(define-value-binding on (var list &key (by NIL by-p)) (declare (type list list)) \ `(cond (,list ,(if by-p \ `(progn (update ,var ,list) (setf ,list (funcall ,by ,list))) \ `(progn (update ,var ,list) (setf ,list (cdr ,list))))) \ (T (end-for))))`

Wait, the provided code looks like a mix of macro definition and usage, or maybe it's just a template.
Actually, the prompt says: "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (define-value-binding on (var list &key (by NIL by-p)) ...)"
It seems the user provided a rough sketch of what the macro should do, but it's formatted a bit weirdly.
Let's interpret it:
`define-value-binding` takes `on`, `var`, `list`, and an optional `by` function.
Wait, `on` is probably just a literal symbol in the macro call, like `(define-value-binding on x my-list)`.
The macro should expand to:
</think>
(defmacro define-value-binding (name (var &rest args) &body body)
  (let ((vars (lambda-fiddle:extract-lambda-vars (lambda-fiddle:remove-aux-part args))))
    (emit-binding-definition name var args body :extra-vars vars)))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(defsynonym :multiply :mult)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defsynonym`.
The macro takes two arguments: a keyword for the 'full' name (e.g., `:multiply`) and a keyword for the 'short' name (e.g., `:mult`).
The goal is to create a synonym, likely for a function or variable. Given the context of `:multiply` and `:mult`, it sounds like function synonyms or perhaps setting up a mapping.
However, usually, `defsynonym` in Lisp contexts might refer to `defsetf` or creating a function alias.
Let's assume the user wants to define a function `mult` that calls `multiply`, or perhaps define a variable synonym.
Actually, a common pattern for `defsynonym` in Lisp (like in some libraries) is to define a function with the short name that simply calls the function with the long name.
Or, it could be a macro that expands into a `defun`.

Let's look at the arguments: `:multiply` and `:mult`. These are keywords.
If I want to create a function `mult` that behaves like `multiply`, I need to convert keywords to symbols.
`(symbol-name :multiply)` -> "MULTIPLY".
`(intern "MULTIPLY")` -> `MULTIPLY`.

Let's assume the standard behavior: `(defsynonym :long :short)` should define a function `short` that calls `long`.
Or maybe it defines a variable.
Without specific context, defining a function alias is the most robust interpretation.
Let's refine: `(defsynonym :multiply :mult)` -> `(defun mult (&rest args) (apply #'multiply args))`.
This handles any number of arguments.

Wait, looking at the prompt "defsynonym", it might be from a specific library or a custom requirement.
If it's just a generic request, I should make it robust.
What if the user wants to define a synonym for a macro? `defmacro`?
What if the user wants to define a synonym for a special variable? `defvar`?

Let's stick to the function alias interpretation as it's the most common "synonym" use case in Lisp programming (aliasing functions).
The macro should:
1. Take two keywords.
2. Convert them to symbols.
3. Generate a `defun` that calls the original function.

Step 1: Input validation? Not strictly necessary for a macro, but good practice.
Step 2: Quasiquote.
Step 3: Variable capture. The generated function needs to accept arguments. `&rest` is safe.

Let's consider the structure.
`(defmacro defsynonym (long-name short-name) ...)`
Inside, we need to intern the symbols.
`(let ((long-sym (intern (symbol-name long-name))) (short-sym (intern (symbol-name short-name)))) ...)`
Then generate:
`(defun ,short-sym (&rest args) (apply #' ,long-sym args))`

Is there any other interpretation?
Maybe `defsynonym` is for defining a synonym class? Unlikely.
Maybe it's for defining a synonym in a package?
Let's assume the function alias. It's the most helpful default.

Wait, I should check if `defsynonym` is a standard CL function. It is not.
However, `defsetf` is.
Maybe the user wants to define a synonym for a variable?
`(defvar mult multiply)`?
If `multiply` is a variable, `mult` should refer to the same place.
But `:multiply` suggests a keyword, which is often used for function names in some DSLs or configuration.

Let's provide the function alias version. It's the most general "synonym" concept.
I will also add a check to ensure the symbols are valid.

One edge case: What if `long-name` is not defined? The macro will still generate code, but it will fail at runtime if called. That's acceptable for a macro.

Let's refine the code generation.
We need to handle the keywords.
`(symbol-name :multiply)` is `"MULTIPLY"`.
`(intern "MULTIPLY")` is `MULTIPLY`.

The macro:
</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:
(is (< less more))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by is

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `is`.
The macro should handle a specific pattern: `(is (< less more))`.
Looking at the pattern, it seems like `is` is a wrapper around some assertion or check.
The inner form is `(< less more)`.
This looks like a comparison.
The user mentions "Macro call that should be transformed by is".
Usually, `is` in testing frameworks (like 5am or similar) checks if a condition is true.
However, the prompt is a bit abstract. "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (is (< less more))".
Maybe the user wants `is` to expand into a block that checks the condition and reports success/failure?
Or maybe `is` is just a macro that evaluates the condition?
Let's assume `is` is a testing macro.
Pattern: `(is condition)`
The example is `(is (< less more))`.
So `is` takes a form.
If the form is true, do one thing. If false, do another.
But the prompt doesn't specify what to do.
Maybe the user just wants the macro definition that accepts this pattern?
"Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern".
Perhaps the user wants a macro that allows this syntax?
Or maybe `is` is meant to be a macro that asserts the condition?
Let's look at the "Problem" description: "Macro call that should be transformed by is".
This implies `is` is the macro.
The input is `(is (< less more))`.
The macro needs to match `(is ,test)`.
Then it needs to expand into something.
Since the behavior isn't specified, I should probably provide a generic assertion-like expansion.
For example, if the test fails, signal an error or print a message.
Or maybe just return the result?
If it's just a wrapper, `(defmacro is (test) test)` is trivial.
But usually, macros named `is` imply a truth check.
Let's assume the standard testing macro behavior: check if the form is true, if not, complain.
But without a specific requirement for the "complain" part, I should probably keep it simple or use a standard approach like `assert` or just returning the value.
However, often in these coding tasks, the user wants the macro to support the syntax, maybe allowing multiple arguments or specific destructuring?
The pattern is `(is (< less more))`.
This is `(is ,form)`.
Maybe the user wants to support `(is ,form ,message)`?
The prompt only shows one argument.
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: `is` is a macro that takes a condition.
Maybe it's meant to be a macro that ensures the condition is true?
Let's write a macro that evaluates the condition and if it's false, signals an error.
This is a common pattern for `is`.
Or maybe it's from a specific library?
The prompt is very brief.
"Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (is (< less more))"
Maybe the user wants to know how to write a macro that matches this?
The macro definition would be:
`(defmacro is (condition) ...)`
What should it expand to?
If I expand to `(unless ,condition (error ...))`, that's an assertion.
If I expand to `(values ,condition)`, that's just identity.
Given "Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by is", it sounds like `is` is the transformer.
I will provide a macro that acts as an assertion, as that's the most useful interpretation of "is".
I'll make it signal an error if the condition is false.
I should also handle the case where the user might want to pass a message, but the pattern doesn't show it.
I'll stick to the pattern provided.
The macro should be hygienic? Common Lisp macros are not hygienic by default, but I should be careful with variable capture if I introduce bindings.
If I just expand to `(unless ,condition ...)`, no new variables are introduced, so capture isn't an issue.
Wait, if I use `unless`, I need to quote the condition or evaluate it?
`(unless ,condition ...)` evaluates `condition`.
This is fine.
So the macro is:
`(defmacro is (condition) '(unless ,condition (error "Condition failed: ~S" ,condition)))`
Wait, if I quote the whole thing, `,condition` inside the quote needs to be unquoted.
Correct: `(unless ,condition (error ...))` inside a quasiquoted list.
Let's refine the expansion.
Maybe the user wants to return the result of the condition?
`(defmacro
</think>
(defmacro is (test &rest reason-args)
  "The DWIM checking operator.

If TEST returns a true value a test-passed result is generated,
otherwise a test-failure result is generated. The reason, unless
REASON-ARGS is provided, is generated based on the form of TEST:

 (predicate expected actual) - Means that we want to check
 whether, according to PREDICATE, the ACTUAL value is
 in fact what we EXPECTED.

 (predicate value) - Means that we want to ensure that VALUE
 satisfies PREDICATE.

 Wrapping the TEST form in a NOT simply produces a negated reason
 string."
  (assert (listp test)
          (test)
          "Argument to IS must be a list, not ~S" test)
  (let (bindings effective-test default-reason-args)
    (with-gensyms (e a v)
      (flet ((process-entry (predicate expected actual &optional negatedp)
               ;; make sure EXPECTED is holding the entry that starts with 'values
               (when (and (consp actual)
                          (eq (car actual) 'values))
                 (assert (not (and (consp expected)
                                   (eq (car expected) 'values))) ()
                                   "Both the expected and actual part is a values expression.")
                 (rotatef expected actual))
               (let ((setf-forms))
                 (if (and (consp expected)
                          (eq (car expected) 'values))
                     (progn
                       (setf expected (copy-list expected))
                       (setf setf-forms (loop for cell = (rest expected) then (cdr cell)
                                              for i from 0
                                              while cell
                                              when (eq (car cell) '*)
                                              collect `(setf (elt ,a ,i) nil)
                                              and do (setf (car cell) nil)))
                       (setf bindings (list (list e `(list ,@(rest expected)))
                                            (list a `(multiple-value-list ,actual)))))
                     (setf bindings (list (list e expected)
                                          (list a actual))))
                 (setf effective-test `(progn
                                         ,@setf-forms
                                         ,(if negatedp
                                              `(not (,predicate ,e ,a))
                                              `(,predicate ,e ,a)))))))
        (list-match-case test
          ((not (?predicate ?expected ?actual))
           (process-entry ?predicate ?expected ?actual t)
           (setf default-reason-args
                 (list "~2&~S~2% evaluated to ~2&~S~2% which is ~2&~S~2%to ~2&~S~2% (it should not be)"
                       `',?actual a `',?predicate e)))
          ((not (?satisfies ?value))
           (setf bindings (list (list v ?value))
                 effective-test `(not (,?satisfies ,v))
                 default-reason-args
                 (list "~2&~S~2% evaluated to ~2&~S~2% which satisfies ~2&~S~2% (it should not)"
                       `',?value v `',?satisfies)))
          ((?predicate ?expected ?actual)
           (process-entry ?predicate ?expected ?actual)
           (setf default-reason-args
                 (list "~2&~S~2% evaluated to ~2&~S~2% which is not ~2&~S~2% to ~2&~S~2%"
                       `',?actual a `',?predicate e)))
          ((?satisfies ?value)
           (setf bindings (list (list v ?value))
                 effective-test `(,?satisfies ,v)
                 default-reason-args
                 (list "~2&~S~2% evaluated to ~2&~S~2% which does not satisfy ~2&~S~2%"
                       `',?value v `',?satisfies)))
          (?_
           (setf bindings '()
                 effective-test test
                 default-reason-args (list "~2&~S~2% was NIL." `',test)))))
      `(let ,bindings
         (if ,effective-test
             (add-result 'test-passed :test-expr ',test)
             (process-failure ',test
                              ,@(or reason-args default-reason-args)))))))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defclause (finding expr minimizing min-expr &optional into variable) "Return value which minimizes expression" (return-find-extremum-code expr min-expr variable :min))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `defclause`.
Looking at the "Before code":
</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]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-error not-core-type-error () (type-name) "Type ~a is not a core type and thus cannot end up in glsl src code It must end up being used or converted to something that resolves to a glsl type." type-name)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-error` that defines a new error condition.
Looking at the example usage:
`(define-error not-core-type-error () (type-name) "Type ~a is not a core type..." type-name)`

This looks like a wrapper around `define-condition` or a similar mechanism for defining error conditions.
Standard Common Lisp `define-condition` syntax is:
`(define-condition condition-name (supertypes) ((slot-name :initform ... :initarg ... :reader ... ...)))`

The user's pattern is:
`(define-error name () (slots...) message-format &rest message-args)`

Wait, looking at the pattern:
`(define-error not-core-type-error () (type-name) "..." type-name)`

It seems to define a condition with:
- Name: `not-core-type-error`
- Supertypes: `()` (empty list, implying `error` or `serious-condition` might be default, usually `error` is best for `define-error`)
- Slots: `(type-name)`
- Message format string: `"Type ~a is not a core type..."`
- Message arguments: `type-name`

The macro should probably generate a `define-condition` form.
The `slots` argument `(type-name)` is a list of slot names.
The `message-format` is a string.
The `message-args` are the arguments to format the string.

Usually, error conditions in CL have a `:report` method or just rely on the default error printing which uses `format` on the condition.
If we use `define-condition`, we can define a `:report` function that formats the message.
However, `define-condition` doesn't directly take a format string and args in standard syntax.
We need to construct the `:report` lambda or function.

Let's break down the arguments to `define-error`:
1. `name`: The symbol for the condition name.
2. `supertypes`: The list of supertypes (in the example `()`). If empty, it should probably default to `(error)`.
3. `slots`: A list of slot specifiers or names. In the example `(type-name)`.
4. `format-string`: The string for the error message.
5. `format-args`: The arguments to the format string.

The macro needs to expand into a `define-condition` form.
`define-condition` syntax:
`(define-condition name (supertypes) ((slot-name :initarg key :reader reader ...)))`

We need to handle the slots. The example just gives `(type-name)`. We should probably treat these as slot names and add standard options like `:initarg` and `:reader`.
For the `:report` method, we can define a function or use a lambda in the `:report` option.
`:report` takes a function of two arguments (condition and stream).
We can generate a lambda that calls `format` with the provided format-string and format-args, extracting the values from the slots.

Let's refine the slot handling.
If the input is `(type-name)`, we want to generate a slot specifier like `(type-name :initarg :type-name :reader type-name)`.
Actually, standard practice is often `:reader` with the same name.
So for each slot name `s`, we generate `(s :initarg (intern (string s) :keyword) :reader s)`.

For the `:report` method:
We need to access the slot values. If the reader is `type-name`, we call `(type-name condition)`.
The format args in the macro call are symbols (like `type-name`). We need to map these symbols to calls on the condition object.
So if the macro arg is `type-name`, the generated code should be `(type-name condition)`.

Let's structure the macro:
`(defmacro define-error (name supertypes slots format-string &rest format-args)`

Expansion:
1. Handle supertypes: if `supertypes` is nil, use `(error)`.
2. Build slot specifiers: Iterate over `slots`. For each `slot`, create `(slot :initarg (keyword slot) :reader slot)`.
3. Build the `:report` function.
   The `:report` function signature is `(lambda (condition stream) ...)`.
   Inside, we call `format` with `stream`, `format-string`, and the evaluated `format-args`.
   The evaluated `format-args` are calls to the readers on the `condition`.
   So if `format-args` contains `type-name`, we replace it with `(type-name condition)`.

Let's verify the example:
`(define-error not-core-type-error
</think>
(defmacro define-error (name (&key (error-type 'varjo-error) (prefix "Varjo"))
                            (&rest args) error-string &body body)
  `(defcondition ,name (:error-type ,error-type :prefix ,prefix) ,args
       ,error-string ,@body))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(c?-with-stored (v :foo store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `c?-with-stored`.
Looking at the example call: `(c?-with-stored (v :foo store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))`

The macro takes a list of bindings followed by a body.
The binding pattern seems to be `(var :foo store 'default)` or similar.
Wait, the example shows `(v :foo store 'nothing)`.
It looks like `c?-with-stored` is meant to handle storing/retrieving values, possibly related to a specific library or domain (like a config system or a state monad simulation).
However, without specific library context, I must infer the transformation logic from standard patterns or the name.
'c?' might stand for 'check' or 'config'. 'with-stored' suggests binding a variable to a stored value.
The arguments are `(v :foo store 'nothing)`.
Maybe `:foo` is a key, `store` is an action or context, and `'nothing` is a default?
Or maybe `store` is a variable name?
Let's look at the structure: `(c?-with-stored binding-form body-form)`.
The binding form is `(v :foo store 'nothing)`.
This looks like a destructuring or a specific binding syntax.
If this is a generic request, I should probably implement a macro that destructures the binding form `(var key action default)` and expands into a `let` or `let*` where `var` is bound to the result of some function call involving `key`, `action`, and `default`.
Since I don't have the runtime functions, I'll assume a hypothetical function like `c?-retrieve` or similar, or simply structure the macro to expose these parts.
Actually, `c?-with-stored` sounds like it might be from a specific library (e.g., `cl-store` or similar, but `c?` is unusual).
Let's assume the transformation is:
`(c?-with-stored (var key action default) body...)`
=> `(let ((var (c?-get-stored key action default))) body...)`
Or maybe `store` is a variable? `(v :foo store 'nothing)` -> `v` is bound to the result of looking up `:foo` in `store` with default `nothing`.
This seems plausible: `(let ((v (c?-lookup store :foo 'nothing))) body...)`.

Let's refine the pattern recognition.
Pattern: `(c?-with-stored (var key store-var default) body...)`
Transformation: `(let ((var (c?-fetch store-var key default))) body...)`

I will write the macro to handle a list of such bindings.
Structure:
`(defmacro c?-with-stored (bindings &body body)`
  ...
)

Inside, I need to process `bindings`. Each binding is `(var key store default)`.
I'll use `loop` or `reduce` to generate a `let*` chain or a single `let` if independent. `let*` is safer.

Step 1: Parse bindings.
Step 2: Generate `let` structure.
Step 3: Handle variable capture (gensym).
Step 4: Quasiquote the result.

Let's assume the function name is `c?-retrieve`.
The macro:
</think>
(defmacro c?-with-stored ((var key store &optional default) &body body)
  `(c? (bwhen-c-stored (,var ,key ,store ,default)
	 ,@body)))


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

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(make-float-converters encode-float32 decode-float32 8 23 nil)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by make-float-converters

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that eliminates the repetitive pattern of `(make-float-converters encode-float32 decode-float32 8 23 nil)`.
This looks like a call to a function or macro `make-float-converters` with specific arguments: `encode-float32`, `decode-float32`, `8`, `23`, `nil`.
The pattern suggests creating float converters for a specific format (likely IEEE 754 single precision, given 8 exponent bits, 23 mantissa bits).
The repetitive pattern implies that the user wants a shorthand for this specific call.
For example, a macro like `make-float32-converters` that expands to `(make-float-converters encode-float32 decode-float32 8 23 nil)`.
Or maybe a more general macro that takes fewer arguments and fills in defaults? But the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern", which usually means a specific shorthand macro.
Let's assume the macro name is `def-float32-converters` or `make-float32-converters`. I'll stick to `make-float32-converters` or similar.
Wait, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(make-float-converters encode-float32 decode-float32 8 23 nil)`".
It might just be a simple macro that expands to that exact form, or perhaps it takes arguments like names for the converters?
Often, such macros define functions or variables. But here it just says "eliminates this repetitive pattern".
I will define a macro `make-float32-converters` that takes no arguments (or optional ones) and expands to the given form.
Actually, it's common in Lisp to have a macro that generates a set of functions or just calls a function.
Let's keep it simple: `(defmacro make-float32-converters () '(make-float-converters encode-float32 decode-float32 8 23 nil))`
But maybe it should allow overriding? Or maybe it's meant to be used in a specific context.
Given the exact pattern, I'll define `make-float32-converters` that expands to that call.
Wait, `encode-float32` and `decode-float32` might be symbols that need to be quoted or passed as functions. In the original call, they are unquoted, so they are likely variables or functions being passed.
I will write a macro that simply expands to that form.
Let's consider if it should take arguments for the names of the generated converters? The pattern doesn't show that.
I'll just define `make-float32-converters` as a zero-argument macro.
Alternatively, maybe the pattern is `(make-float-converters ,encoder ,decoder ,exp-bits ,man-bits ,signaling)` and the macro fills in defaults for float32.
I'll define `def-float32-converters` or `make-float32-converters`.
Let's stick to `make-float32-converters`.
Structure:
</think>
(defmacro make-float-converters (encoder-name
                                 decoder-name
                                 exponent-bits
                                 significand-bits
                                 support-nan-and-infinity-p)
  "Writes an encoder and decoder function for floating point
numbers with the given amount of exponent and significand
bits (plus an extra sign bit). If support-nan-and-infinity-p is
true, the decoders will also understand these special cases. NaN
is represented as :not-a-number, and the infinities as
:positive-infinity and :negative-infinity. Note that this means
that the in- or output of these functions is not just floating
point numbers anymore, but also keywords."
  (let* ((total-bits (+ 1 exponent-bits significand-bits))
         (exponent-offset (1- (expt 2 (1- exponent-bits)))) ; (A)
         (sign-part `(ldb (byte 1 ,(1- total-bits)) bits))
         (exponent-part `(ldb (byte ,exponent-bits ,significand-bits) bits))
         (significand-part `(ldb (byte ,significand-bits 0) bits))
         (nan support-nan-and-infinity-p)
         (max-exponent (1- (expt 2 exponent-bits)))) ; (B)
    `(progn
       (defun ,encoder-name (float)
         ,@(unless nan `((declare (type float float))))
         (multiple-value-bind (sign significand exponent)
             (cond ,@(when nan `(((eq float :not-a-number)
                                  (values 0 1 ,max-exponent))
                                 ((eq float :positive-infinity)
                                  (values 0 0 ,max-exponent))
                                 ((eq float :negative-infinity)
                                  (values 1 0 ,max-exponent))))
                   ((zerop float)
                    (values 0 0 0))
                   (t
                    (multiple-value-bind (significand exponent sign)
                        (decode-float float)
                      (let ((exponent (+ (1- exponent) ,exponent-offset))
                            (sign (if (= sign 1.0) 0 1)))
                        (unless (< exponent ,(expt 2 exponent-bits))
                          (error "Floating point overflow when encoding ~A."
                                 float))
                        (if (< exponent 0) ; (C)
                            (values sign (ash (round (* ,(expt 2 significand-bits)
                                                        significand))
                                              exponent)
                                    0)
                            (values sign (round (* ,(expt 2 significand-bits)
                                                   (1- (* significand 2))))
                                    exponent))))))
           (let ((bits 0))
             (declare (type (unsigned-byte ,total-bits) bits))
             (setf ,sign-part sign
                   ,exponent-part exponent
                   ,significand-part significand)
             bits)))

       (defun ,decoder-name (bits)
         (declare (type (unsigned-byte ,total-bits) bits))
         (let* ((sign ,sign-part)
                (exponent ,exponent-part)
                (significand ,significand-part))
           ,@(when nan `((when (= exponent ,max-exponent)
                           (return-from ,decoder-name
                             (cond ((not (zerop significand)) :not-a-number)
                                   ((zerop sign) :positive-infinity)
                                   (t :negative-infinity))))))
           (if (zerop exponent) ; (D)
               (setf exponent 1)
               (setf (ldb (byte 1 ,significand-bits) significand) 1))
           (unless (zerop sign)
             (setf significand (- significand)))
           (scale-float (float significand ,(if (> total-bits 32) 1.0d0 1.0))
                        (- exponent ,(+ exponent-offset significand-bits))))))))


[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:
(*> +comma+ +skip-space-and-comments+)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `*>` (or similar, based on the input `(*> +comma+ +skip-space-and-comments+)`).
The input form is `(*> +comma+ +skip-space-and-comments+)`.
This looks like a threading macro, similar to `->` (thread-first) or `->>` (thread-last), but the name `*>` suggests it might be a specific variant or just a custom name.
Let's analyze the arguments: `+comma+` and `+skip-space-and-comments+`. These look like variable names or function names.
The macro call is `(*> +comma+ +skip-space-and-comments+)`.
Usually, threading macros like `->` take the first argument and thread it through the rest.
`-> a b c` expands to `(c (b a))`.
`->> a b c` expands to `(b (c a))`.
The name `*>` is unusual. Let's look at the structure.
If it's a thread-last macro (like `->>`), `(*> x y)` would become `(y x)`.
If it's a thread-first macro (like `->`), `(*> x y)` would become `(y x)`? No, `(y x)` is thread-last. `(y x)` puts x as the first arg of y.
Wait, `->` is `((c (b a)))`. `->>` is `((b (c a)))`.
Let's assume `*>` is a thread-last macro, similar to `->>` or `->`.
Actually, looking at the names `+comma+` and `+skip-space-and-comments+`, these sound like functions or variables in a parser/combinator library (like `cl-ppcre` or a custom parser).
If `*>` is a monadic bind or a threading macro, the structure is likely `(func2 (func1 arg))` or `(func1 (func2 arg))`.
Given the name `*>`, it might be "star greater", implying a specific direction.
However, without more context, the most standard interpretation of a two-argument macro `(*> a b)` in Lisp is often a threading macro.
Let's consider the standard `->` (thread-first) and `->>` (thread-last).
`->` : `a` is threaded as the first argument. `(*> a b)` -> `(b a)`.
`->>` : `a` is threaded as the last argument. `(*> a b)` -> `(b a)`? No, `(b a)` is first arg. `(b a)` is `a` first.
If `*>` is thread-last, and there's only one function `b`, `(*> a b)` -> `(b a)`.
If `*>` is thread-first, `(*> a b)` -> `(b a)`.
With only two arguments, thread-first and thread-last look identical for a single function call.
However, the user asks for "a macro for the following transformation".
Maybe `*>` is a specific operator from a library like `iterate` or `cl-who`? No.
Let's look at the symbols: `+comma+` and `+skip-space-and-comments+`.
This looks like parser combinators. `*>` is often used in Haskell for the `then` operator in the `Monad` class (`>>` or `*>`).
In Haskell, `a *> b` runs `a`, discards result, runs `b`.
In Lisp, a macro `*>` might sequence two forms.
`(*> form1 form2)` -> `(progn form1 form2)`? Or `(and form1 form2)`?
Or maybe it's a threading macro where the result of the first is passed to the second?
Let's assume the user wants a standard threading macro behavior, likely `->>` (thread-last) or `->` (thread-first).
Given the name `*>`, it visually resembles `->>`.
Let's assume it's a thread-last macro: `(*> x y z)` => `(y (z x))`.
For two arguments: `(*> x y)` => `(y x)`.
Let's check if there's a specific library this comes from. `+comma+` and `+skip-space-and-comments+` look like variables holding parser functions.
If `*>` sequences parsers, it might be `(and (funcall +comma+) (funcall +skip-space-and-comments+))`?
Or maybe it's just a simple threading macro.
Let's provide a generic threading macro implementation.
The prompt asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by *>".
This implies I need to write the macro `*>` that transforms the
</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]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(with-gensyms (parent-type term type string current-mode position position-foobage mode-wait new-position advance) `(let ((,parent-type (or (find-coloring-type ,parent) (and ,parent (error "No such coloring type: ~S" ,parent))))) (setf (find-coloring-type ,name) (make-instance 'coloring-type :fancy-name ',fancy-name :modes (append ',modes (if ,parent-type (coloring-type-modes ,parent-type))) :default-mode (or ',default-mode (if ,parent-type (coloring-type-default-mode ,parent-type))) ,@(if autodetect `(:autodetect-function ,autodetect)) :parent-type ,parent-type :visible (not ,invisible) :formatter-initial-values (lambda nil (list* ,@(mapcar #'(lambda (e) `(cons ',(car e) ,(second e))) formatter-variables) (if ,parent-type (funcall (coloring-type-formatter-initial-values ,parent-type)) nil))) :formatter-after-hook (lambda nil (symbol-macrolet ,(mapcar #'(lambda (e) `(,(car e) (cdr (assoc ',(car e) *formatter-local-variables*)))) formatter-variables) (concatenate 'string (funcall ,formatter-after-hook) (if ,parent-type (funcall (coloring-type-formatter-after-hook ,parent-type)) "")))) :term-formatter (symbol-macrolet ,(mapcar #'(lambda (e) `(,(car e) (cdr (assoc ',(car e) *formatter-local-variables*)))) formatter-variables) (lambda (,term) (labels ((call-parent-formatter (&optional (,type (car ,term)) (,string (cdr ,term))) (if ,parent-type (funcall (coloring-type-term-formatter ,parent-type) (cons ,type ,string)))) (call-formatter (&optional (,type (car ,term)) (,string (cdr ,term))) (funcall (case (first ,type) ,@formatters (t (lambda (,type text) (call-parent-formatter ,type text)))) ,type ,string))) (call-formatter)))) :transition-functions (list ,@(loop for transition in transitions collect (destructuring-bind (mode &rest table) transition `(cons ',mode (lambda (,current-mode ,string ,position) (let ((,mode-wait (constantly nil)) (,position-foobage ,position)) (with-scanning-functions ,string ,position-foobage ,current-mode ,mode-wait (let ((*reset-position* ,position)) (cond ,@table)) (values ,position-foobage ,current-mode (lambda (,new-position) (setf ,position-foobage ,new-position) (let ((,advance (nth-value 1 (funcall ,mode-wait ,position-foobage)))) (values ,position-foobage ,advance))))) ))))))))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `with-gensyms` that takes a list of variable names and a body, and replaces each variable name in the body with a fresh gensym.
Wait, looking at the provided code pattern:
`(with-gensyms (parent-type term type string current-mode position position-foobage mode-wait new-position advance) ...)`
The macro `with-gensyms` should replace each symbol in the list with a gensym in the backticked body.
Actually, the standard way to implement `with-gensyms` is to bind each name to a gensym using `let`, and then the body is evaluated with those bindings. But the body is backticked, so we need to replace the symbols in the backticked form with the gensyms.
Wait, the typical `with-gensyms` macro works like this:
</think>
(defmacro with-gensyms ((&rest names) &body body)
  `(let ,(mapcar #'(lambda (name)
                     (list name `(make-symbol ,(symbol-name name)))) names)
    ,@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:
(builder (:auth-basic :authenticator (lambda (user pass) (declare (ignore user pass)) t)) *app*)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by builder

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `builder` that handles a specific code pattern:
`(builder (:auth-basic :authenticator (lambda (user pass) (declare (ignore user pass)) t)) *app*)`

Let's analyze the pattern:
1. `(builder ...)` - The macro name.
2. The first argument is a list starting with a keyword `:auth-basic`, followed by another keyword `:authenticator`, and then a lambda expression.
3. The second argument is a variable `*app*`.

This looks like a DSL for configuring an application, possibly related to Boron/Stein or similar web frameworks in Lisp. The pattern suggests adding an authenticator to an app.

Let's think about what the macro should expand to. Usually, such builders expand to function calls that modify the app or return a new app. For example:
`(auth-basic *app* (lambda (user pass) (declare (ignore user pass)) t))`
or
`(setf (authenticator *app*) (lambda ...))`
or maybe it's just a wrapper around some library function.

Since the prompt doesn't specify the exact expansion, I need to make a reasonable assumption or create a generic structure that matches the pattern. Often, `builder` macros in Lisp DSLs expand to a series of calls or a single call with reordered arguments.

Let's assume the expansion should be:
`(auth-basic *app* (lambda (user pass) (declare (ignore user pass)) t))`
Wait, the pattern is `(:auth-basic :authenticator lambda)`. Maybe it's `(authenticator :auth-basic *app* lambda)`? Or maybe it's just a placeholder for a specific library function.

Actually, looking at common Lisp web frameworks, this resembles `boron` or `clack` or `stein`. But without specific library context, I'll design a macro that extracts the components and generates a plausible function call, or I'll make it expand to a generic form that demonstrates the transformation.

Let's assume the macro should extract:
- `:auth-basic` -> indicates the type of authentication.
- `:authenticator` -> indicates the field/option being set.
- `lambda` -> the function.
- `*app*` -> the target.

A reasonable expansion might be:
`(auth-basic *app* (lambda (user pass) (declare (ignore user pass)) t))`
Or maybe:
`(setf (authenticator *app*) (lambda ...))`

Actually, the prompt says "handle this code pattern". It might be from a specific library like `boron` where `(builder ...)` is used to configure middleware. In Boron, you might have `(builder (:auth-basic ...) *app*)` expanding to `(auth-basic *app* ...)`.

Let's think about the macro structure:
</think>
(defmacro builder (&rest app-or-middlewares)
  (let ((middlewares (butlast app-or-middlewares)))
    `(reduce #'funcall
             (remove-if
              #'null
              (list
               ,@(loop for mw in middlewares
                       when mw
                         collect (convert-to-middleware-form mw))))
             :initial-value (to-app ,(car (last app-or-middlewares)))
             :from-end t)))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(lambda-ematch0 ((list* var options) `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var)))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by lambda-ematch0

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `lambda-ematch0` that transforms a specific pattern into a lambda expression.
The input pattern is: `(lambda-ematch0 ((list* var options) `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var)))`
This looks like a pattern matching macro for lambda expressions.
The pattern `((list* var options) ...)` suggests that the argument to the lambda is destructured into `var` and `options`.
`list*` is like `rest` in destructuring-bind, but keeps the rest as a list.
The body is a backquoted expression: `` `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var) ``.
So the macro should generate a lambda that takes one argument, destructures it using `list*` into `var` and `options`, and then evaluates the backquoted form.

Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by lambda-ematch0". It gives the before code as the macro call itself.
So I need to define `lambda-ematch0` such that when called with `((list* var options) `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var))`, it expands to a lambda expression that performs this destructuring and returns the backquoted form.

Let's think about standard Common Lisp destructuring. `destructuring-bind` supports `&rest`. `list*` isn't standard, but in pattern matching macros, it usually means the first element is `var` and the rest is `options`.
Actually, `list*` in some pattern matching libraries (like `cl-patterns` or similar) means `(cons var options)`. But here it's inside a list pattern: `(list* var options)`. This likely means the input list has at least one element, `var` is the first, and `options` is the rest.
Wait, `list*` in Common Lisp constructs a list with a dotted end. But in pattern matching, it often means "match a list where the last element is a list".
However, given the simplicity, it's probably just destructuring a list into a head and a tail. Let's assume it's equivalent to `(cons var options)` or just `(var &rest options)`.
Actually, many pattern matching macros use `&rest` for the tail. Let's stick to standard CL destructuring: `(lambda (arg) (destructuring-bind (var &rest options) arg ...))`.
But the prompt says `list*`. In some libraries, `list*` matches a proper list or an improper list. But for simplicity, I'll treat it as matching a list where `var` is the first element and `options` is the rest.
Wait, the prompt might be from a specific library or just a custom macro. I will implement `lambda-ematch0` to handle this specific pattern.
The macro takes a pattern and a body.
Pattern: `((list* var options) body)`
It should expand to:
`(lambda (x) (destructuring-bind (var &rest options) x body))`
But wait, `list*` might imply that `options` could be a dotted list? Or maybe it's just `(var . options)`.
Let's look at the backquote in the body: `` `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var) ``.
`options` is expected to be a property list, so it's a list of alternating keys and values. `getf` works on lists. So `options` is a list.
Thus, `(var &rest options)` is appropriate.

Let's define the macro carefully.
`(defmacro lambda-ematch0 ((pattern body) &environment env)`
But the call is `(lambda-ematch0 ((list* var options) `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var)))`.
So the first argument is a list containing the pattern and the body.
Pattern: `(list* var options)`
Body: `` `(type ,(getf options :type) ,var) ``

I need to parse the pattern. `list*` here likely means a list pattern where the first element binds to `var` and the rest to `options`.
To be safe, I'll generate code that uses `destructuring-bind` with `&rest`.
Actually, `lambda-ematch0` might be a simplified version of a pattern-matching lambda.
I will write:
</think>
(defmacro lambda-ematch0 (&body clauses)
  (alexandria:with-gensyms (arg)
    `(lambda (,arg)
       (ematch0 ,arg
         ,@clauses))))


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

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by make-avl-map

[Assistant]
<think>
This request is asking for a macro to eliminate a repetitive pattern related to `make-avl-map`.
The pattern provided is `(make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))`.
Wait, the pattern shows quoted keys like `'foo`.
Usually, `make-avl-map` in libraries like `avltree` or `alexandria` takes a list of key-value pairs, or maybe it's a specific library function.
However, the prompt says: "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by make-avl-map".
Wait, the prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))".
Maybe the user wants a macro like `avl-map` that takes key-value pairs and expands to `(make-avl-map '(foo val1 bar val2))` or similar?
Or maybe the pattern is `(make-avl-map 'foo val1 'bar val2)`?
Let's assume the user wants a macro `avl-map` that takes a series of key-value pairs and expands to a call to `make-avl-map`.
Wait, `make-avl-map` usually takes a list of conses or a plist.
If the input is `(make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))`, maybe the macro should be `(avl-map (foo val1) (bar val2))`?
Or maybe the macro is `defavlmap`?
Let's think about standard patterns. Often, people write `(make-hash-table :test 'equal)` and then loop.
If the pattern is `(make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))`, maybe the macro is `avl-map` and it expands to `(make-avl-map '(foo . val1) '(bar . val2))`?
Actually, the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: (make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))".
Perhaps the macro is `avl-map` and the call is `(avl-map foo val1 bar val2)`.
Or maybe the macro is `with-avl-map`?
Let's consider that `make-avl-map` might be from a library like `avltree`. In `avltree`, `make-avl-map` takes a list of key-value pairs.
If the user writes `(make-avl-map '(foo val1 bar val2))`, that's a plist.
If the user writes `(make-avl-map '((foo . val1) (bar . val2)))`, that's an alist.
The pattern `(make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))` looks like it's passing multiple arguments, each being a list of two elements. This is unusual.
Maybe the macro is `avl-map` and it expands to `(make-avl-map (list (cons 'foo val1) (cons 'bar val2)))`?
Or maybe the macro is `avl-map` and it takes `(foo val1) (bar val2)` and expands to `(make-avl-map '(foo val1 bar val2))`?
Let's assume the macro is `avl-map` and it takes key-value pairs as separate arguments or as a list of pairs.
Actually, a common macro for this is `avl-map` or `define-avl-map`.
Let's create a macro `avl-map` that takes a series of key-value pairs and expands to `(make-avl-map '(key1 val1 key2 val2 ...))` or similar.
Wait, the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: (make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))".
Maybe the macro is `avl-map` and the usage is `(avl-map (foo val1) (bar val2))`.
I will define a macro `avl-map` that takes a list of pairs and expands to `(make-avl-map (list (cons 'key1 val1) ...))` or `(make-avl-map '(key1 val1 key2 val2))`.
Actually, `make-avl-map` in `avltree` takes an alist or plist.
Let's assume the macro `avl-map` expands to `(make-avl-map '(foo val1 bar val2))`.
To be safe, I'll define `avl-map` that takes key-value pairs and constructs a plist or alist.
Wait, the prompt might be from a specific codebase. "make-avl-map" is used in some projects.
I will write a macro `avl-map` that takes a series of key-value pairs and expands to `(make-avl-map '(key1 val1 key2 val2 ...))`.
Let's handle variable capture by quoting the keys if they are symbols, or just using `gensym` if needed. But for a
</think>
(defmacro make-avl-map (&rest pairs)
  "Construct an AVL tree from literal (key-expr value-expr) pairs.
Usage: (make-avl-map ('foo val1) ('bar val2))"
  (let ((tree (gensym "TREE")))
    `(let ((,tree (empty-avl-tree)))
       ,@(loop :for (k v) :in pairs
               :collect `(setf ,tree (avl-set ,tree ,k ,v)))
       ,tree)))


[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:
(match 1 (x x))

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

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

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Goal:** Create a Common Lisp macro named `match`.
    *   **Input Example:** `(match 1 (x x))`
    *   **Desired Behavior:** The user didn't explicitly state the *output* behavior, but the syntax `(match value (pattern body...))` strongly suggests a pattern matching construct. In the context of Common Lisp macros, this usually means checking if the `value` matches the `pattern` and, if so, executing the `body`.
    *   **Implicit Requirements:**
        *   It needs to handle variable binding (e.g., if the pattern is `x`, `x` should be bound to the value).
        *   It needs to handle literals (e.g., if the pattern is `1`, it should check equality).
        *   It needs to handle structural patterns (lists, vectors), though the example is simple.
        *   It needs to handle the "else" or "no match" case (usually returning `nil` or signaling an error, but for a simple macro, returning `nil` or just not executing the body is standard).

2.  **Determine the Strategy:**
    *   Writing a full-blown pattern matcher from scratch in one step is complex (handling `&rest`, `&key`, nested structures, etc.).
    *   However, the prompt asks for a macro that transforms code *like* the example. The example `(match 1 (x x))` looks like a single clause.
    *   *Interpretation 1:* A simple binding macro. If `value` matches `pattern`, bind variables in `pattern` to sub-values of `value` and run `body`.
    *   *Interpretation 2:* A `cond`-like structure. `(match value (pat1 body1) (pat2 body2))`. The example only shows one clause, but `match` usually implies multiple. Let's stick to the simplest interpretation first: a single clause matcher, or a general structure that supports multiple clauses. Given the example `(match 1 (x x))`, it looks like `(match <expr> (<pattern> <body-form>))`.

    *   *Decision:* I will implement a recursive pattern matcher. This is the most robust way to handle "pattern matching" in Lisp. The macro will generate code that checks the structure of the `value` against the `pattern`.

3.  **Step-by-Step Implementation Plan:**

    *   **Macro Definition:** `(defmacro match (value &rest clauses) ...)`
    *   **Clause Structure:** Each clause is `(pattern body...)`.
    *   **Transformation:**
        *   Iterate through clauses.
        *   For each clause, generate a test.
        *   If the test succeeds, execute the body.
        *   Use `let` bindings for variables found in the pattern.

    *   *Alternative (Simpler) Approach for the specific example:*
        The example `(match 1 (x x))` is very specific.
        If I treat `x` as a variable, it should bind to `1`.
        If I treat `1` as a literal, it matches `1`.
        Wait, the example is `(match 1 (x x))`.
        Value: `1`.
        Clause: `(x x)`.
        Pattern: `x`.
        Body: `x`.
        Result: `x` evaluates to `1`.

        Let's look at a more complex example to ensure robustness: `(match '(a b) ((cons a b) (+ a b)))`.

    *   **The "Matcher" Function (Internal Helper):**
        Since pattern matching logic is complex to write purely in macro expansion (quasi-quoting recursive structures is hard), it is often better to write a helper *function* that does the matching logic at runtime, or generate the code at macro expansion time.
        *Macro Expansion Time generation* is faster and more "Lispy" for simple cases, but a helper function is easier to write and debug.
        However, the prompt asks for a `defmacro`. I should try to generate the code.

    *   **Code Generation Logic (The `match-code` generator):**
        We need a function (or internal macro) that takes `(value pattern)` and returns a list of bindings and a predicate.
        Actually, a common idiom is to generate a `cond` or a series of `if`s.

    *   *Refined Plan:*
        1.  Define `match` to take `value` and `&rest clauses`.
        2.  For each clause
</think>
(defmacro match (arg &body clauses)
  "Matches ARG with CLAUSES. CLAUSES is a list of the form of (PATTERN
. BODY) where PATTERN is a pattern specifier and BODY is an implicit
progn. If ARG matches some PATTERN, `match` then evaluates
the corresponding BODY and returns the evaluated value.  If no pattern matches,
then returns NIL.

Evaluating a form (FAIL) in the clause body causes the latest pattern
matching to fail. For example,

    (match 1
      (x (if (eql x 1)
             (fail)
             x))
      (_ 'ok))

returns OK, because the form (FAIL) in the first clause is
evaluated.

If BODY starts with the symbols WHEN or UNLESS, then the next form
will be used to introduce (FAIL). That is,

    (match list ((list x) when (oddp x) x))
    (match list ((list x) unless (evenp x) x))

will be translated to

    (match list ((list x) (if (oddp x) x (fail))))
    (match list ((list x) (if (evenp x) (fail) x)))

Examples:

    (match 1 (1 1))
    => 1
    (match 1 (2 2))
    => 2
    (match 1 (x x))
    => 1
    (match (list 1 2 3)
      (list x y z) (+ x y z))
    => 6"
  (compile-match-1 arg clauses 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]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(with-table-name nil (yield (when-op-right op)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-table-name`.
The example usage provided is: `(with-table-name nil (yield (when-op-right op)))`.
This looks like a macro that might be part of a larger library (perhaps related to database operations or table manipulation), but the prompt is asking to write the macro to "handle this code pattern".

Let's break down the pattern:
1. `with-table-name` is the macro name.
2. `nil` is likely a parameter or a table name specification (maybe indicating "no specific table" or using a default).
3. The body is `(yield (when-op-right op))`.

Without more context on what `with-table-name` is supposed to do semantically, I have to infer the structure. Usually, `with-*` macros in Common Lisp establish a dynamic environment or bind variables.
Given the name, it probably binds a variable (let's say `*current-table-name*` or similar) to the first argument (`nil` in this case) and then executes the body.

Let's assume the macro signature is `(with-table-name table-name &body body)`.
The expansion would likely look like `(let ((*current-table-name* table-name)) ,@body)`.

However, the prompt asks to "handle this code pattern". It might be asking for a generic macro that wraps the body in some context.
Let's consider if `yield` and `when-op-right` are specific to a library. They look like they might be from a monadic or iterative library (like `iterate` or `cl-cont`).
If `with-table-name` is meant to be a generic wrapper, I should define it to bind a variable.

Let's refine the "Step by Step" thinking as requested.

1.  **Pattern Matching**: The macro call is `(with-table-name arg body...)`. The specific call is `(with-table-name nil (yield (when-op-right op)))`.
2.  **Lisp Constructs**: I need `defmacro`. I need to handle the body. I need to establish a binding. `let` is the standard way to do this.
3.  **Quasiquote/Unquote**: The expansion will look like `` `(let ((,*table-name-var* ,table-name)) ,@body) ``.
4.  **Variable Capture**: I should use `gensym` for the variable being bound if it's not a standard dynamic variable, or just assume a standard dynamic variable name if this is a specific library pattern. Since I don't know the specific library, I will assume a generic dynamic variable name like `*current-table-name*` or just bind a lexical variable `table-name` if the body expects it. Given the name `with-table-name`, it suggests the name is available in the body. Let's assume it binds a variable named `table-name` dynamically or lexically. Lexical is safer for macros unless dynamic binding is explicitly required. Let's use `let` with a variable named `table-name`.
5.  **Structure**:
    ```lisp
    (defmacro with-table-name (table-name &body body)
      `(let ((table-name ,table-name))
         ,@body))
    ```
    Wait, if the user passes `nil` as the table name, and the body uses `table-name`, that works.
    However, often `with-*` macros bind a specific variable name. Let's look at the example again: `(with-table-name nil ...)`.
    If the macro is intended to set a dynamic variable, it might be `(let ((*table-name* table-name)) ...)`.
    Without specific requirements, a simple lexical binding is the most robust "macro" interpretation unless dynamic extent is needed.
    However, looking at the snippet `(yield (when-op-right op))`, this looks like code inside a generator or a monad. `yield` often implies a specific control flow.
    If `with-table-name` is just a scope binder, `let` is sufficient.

    Let's consider if `with-table-name` is a specific macro from a library like `postmodern` or `cl-postgres`.
    In `postmodern`, there is `with-connection`, `with-transaction`.
    If this is a custom macro requested by the user, I should implement the logic that makes sense for the name.
    "With table name" implies "Execute body with this table name active".

    Let's provide a macro that binds a variable `*table-name*` (dynamic) or `table-name` (lexical).
    Given the lack of context, I will assume it binds a variable named `table-name` available in the body.
    Actually, usually `with-table-name` might take a symbol or string.
    Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: A macro that binds
</think>
(defmacro with-table-name (table-name &body body)
  `(let ((*table-name-scope* ,table-name))
     ,@body))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) \"Docstring\" (:documentation \"Real docstring\"))" (first body))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-generic

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-generic`.
The pattern to match is: `(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) "Docstring" (:documentation "Real docstring"))`.
Wait, the input example is slightly malformed or illustrative:
`(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) \"Docstring\" (:documentation \"Real docstring\"))" (first body))`
The user probably means the macro should accept a name, a lambda-list, a docstring, and potentially `:documentation` keyword arguments or other options.
Actually, looking at the pattern: `(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) "Docstring" (:documentation "Real docstring"))`
It seems the user wants to define a generic function.
Standard CL has `defgeneric`.
`defgeneric` syntax: `(defgeneric name lambda-list [declaration*] [documentation] [option*])`.
The user's pattern has a docstring immediately after the lambda list, then `(:documentation ...)`.
Maybe the user wants to map this specific syntax to `defgeneric` or `defmethod`? Or maybe just a wrapper around `defgeneric`.
Let's assume the goal is to transform `(define-generic name args doc options)` into a standard `defgeneric` form.
The pattern provided: `(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) "Docstring" (:documentation "Real docstring"))`
The result should likely be `(defgeneric name (arg1 arg2) (:documentation "Real docstring"))`.
Or perhaps the first string is a summary and the `:documentation` is the full text?
Standard `defgeneric` allows a string as documentation.
If the macro receives a string and then `:documentation`, maybe it should use the `:documentation` value as the official documentation, or combine them?
Usually, macros like this in libraries (like Alexandria or local frameworks) might just pass the `:documentation` to `defgeneric`.
Let's look at the "Problem" statement: `Macro call that should be transformed by define-generic`.
The user provides a snippet: `(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) \"Docstring\" (:documentation \"Real docstring\"))" (first body))`.
The trailing `" (first body))` looks like a copy-paste error or part of a larger context not provided. I will focus on the core pattern: `(define-generic name args doc options)`.

Let's assume the macro signature is `(define-generic name lambda-list &rest options)`.
If the first option is a string, it's a docstring.
If there is a `:documentation` keyword, it takes precedence or is the intended documentation.
Actually, a common pattern in some Lisp libraries (like `defmethod` wrappers or specific framework macros) is to allow a docstring as a positional argument for convenience, but `defgeneric` expects it at the end or as a keyword.
However, `defgeneric` syntax allows a string at the end.
`(defgeneric name args declarations docstring options)`.
If the user writes `(define-generic name args "Doc" (:documentation "Real"))`, maybe they want to ignore the positional "Doc" and use "Real"? Or maybe "Doc" is a summary and "Real" is the body?
Without specific requirements on how to merge them, the safest bet is to generate a `defgeneric` form.
If the input has `:documentation`, use that. If not, use the positional string?
Or maybe the macro is meant to define a generic function and perhaps add some metadata?
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: The user wants a macro that accepts this syntax and expands to `defgeneric`.
If the syntax is `(define-generic name args doc &rest rest)`, and `rest` contains `(:documentation ...)`.
Actually, looking at the pattern again: `(define-generic name (arg1 arg2) "Docstring" (:documentation "Real docstring"))`.
This looks like the user might be trying to replicate a syntax where the docstring is positional, but also supports the keyword.
Perhaps the macro should just pass everything to `defgeneric`, adjusting the position of the docstring if necessary?
`defgeneric` expects: `(defgeneric name lambda-list declarations docstring options)`.
If the user provides `(define-generic name args "Doc" (:documentation "Real"))`, `defgeneric` would see `("Doc" (:documentation "Real"))` as the tail.
`defgeneric` parses declarations, then docstring, then options.
A string is a docstring. `(:documentation ...)` is an option.
So `(defgeneric name args "Doc" (:documentation "Real"))` is actually valid CL syntax for `defgeneric`!
The string "Doc" becomes the documentation. The `:documentation` option is also processed.
In CL,
</think>
(defmacro define-generic (name (&rest arglist) &body body)
  "Convenience macro to define generics as if they were methods.
ARGLIST can be a method arglist, in which case it's parsed into
generic function arglist by removing method-specific args.

BODY can be a list of `defgeneric' options (processed as-is, even
:method ones) intermixed with other Lisp forms:
- If there's a docstring as the first form, it's processed into
  :documentation option of `defgeneric'.
- If there are non-option forms, they are put together into a separate
  :method option under ARGLIST.
- If there's a `declare' form:
  - If it's generic-friendly (optimize for speed or space), then it's
    put into both generic body and :method body (if any).
  - Otherwise it's only put into :method (creating it if necessary).
- If there's an `:export-generic-name-p' boolean option, export (T) or
  don't export (NIL) the generic symbol.

Example:

\(define-generic add ((a integer) (b integer) &key coerce-to-fixnum &allow-other-keys)
  \"Adds A and B, coercing them to fixnum if the sum is too big.\"
  (if coerce-to-fixnum
      (coerce (+ a b) 'fixnum)
      (+ a b))
  (:method ((a string) (b integer))
   (error \"Cannot use `add' on strings!\")))
=>
\(defgeneric add (a b &key &allow-other-keys)
  (:method ((a integer) (b integer) &key coerce-to-fixnum &allow-other-keys)
   (if coerce-to-fixnum
      (coerce (+ a b) 'fixnum)
      (+ a b)))
  (:method ((a string) (b integer))
   (error \"Cannot use `add' on strings!\"))
  (:documentation \"Adds A and B, coercing them to fixnum if the sum is too big.\"))"
  (multiple-value-bind (body declarations documentation)
      (uiop:parse-body body :documentation t)
    (when (and (= 1 (length body))
               (stringp (first body)))
      (style-warn "Body of DEFINE-GENERIC contains a single string:
~s.
It's interpreted as a method body by default.

If you meant this string to be a generic docstring, and not a method
body, add an explicit NIL or some other body form:
(define-generic name (arg1 arg2)
  \"Docstring\"
  'body-form)

If you meant it as a body form, do nothing, or provide explicit
documentation or any other option:
(define-generic name (arg1 arg2)
  \"Docstring\"
  (:documentation \"Real docstring\"))" (first body)))
    (let* ((generic-declarations (remove-if (lambda (d)
                                              (or (> (length d) 2)
                                                  (not (eq 'optimize (first (second d))))
                                                  (notevery (lambda (o)
                                                              (let ((feature (first (uiop:ensure-list o))))
                                                                (or (eq feature 'speed)
                                                                    (eq feature 'space))))
                                                            (rest (second d)))))
                                            declarations))
           (options (remove-if-not (lambda (form)
                                     (keywordp (first (uiop:ensure-list form))))
                                   body))
           (method-body (remove-if (lambda (f) (member f options :test #'equal)) body))
           (export-generic-name-p (find :export-generic-name-p options :key #'first))
           (options (remove export-generic-name-p options :test #'equal))
           (export-p (if export-generic-name-p
                         (second export-generic-name-p)
                         *export-generic-name-p*))
           (generalized-arglist (generalize-arglist arglist)))
      (when (and (not (equal generalized-arglist arglist))
                 (every #'null (list method-body options)))
        (style-warn "Specialized arglist used without method body in define-generic: ~a" arglist))
      `(prog1
           (defgeneric ,name ,generalized-arglist
             ,@generic-declarations
             ,@(when (or method-body
                         (not (equal generic-declarations
                                     declarations)))
                 `((:method ,arglist
                     ,@declarations
                     ,@method-body)))
             ,@options
             ,@(when documentation
                 `((:documentation ,documentation))))
         ;; FIXME: Maybe only export if package of generic function name
         ;; matches *PACKAGE*?
         ,@(when export-p
             `((eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
                 (export ',name ,(package-name *package*)))))
         ,@(let ((documentation (or documentation
                                    (second (first (member :documentation options :key #'first))))))
             (when documentation
               `((setf (documentation ',name 'function) ,documentation)
                 (setf (documentation (fdefinition ',name) 'function) ,documentation))))))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(lret* ((y 1) (y 2)) (declare (ignorable y)) 3)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `lret*` that transforms code like:
`(lret* ((y 1) (y 2)) (declare (ignorable y)) 3)`
Wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by lret".
This implies `lret*` is a macro that handles multiple return values or perhaps just expands to `lret` or `multiple-value-call` or similar.
Actually, `lret` is a standard Common Lisp macro (often from Alexandria or similar libraries) that allows returning multiple values from a function, binding them to local variables first.
Wait, `lret` typically looks like: `(lret (a b) c)` which expands to `(multiple-value-call #'(lambda (a b) c) a b)` or similar.
But here we have `lret*` with a list of bindings: `((y 1) (y 2))`. This looks like `let*` but for multiple values? Or maybe it's just a macro that expands to `let*` followed by `lret`?
Actually, `lret*` might be a macro that takes a list of bindings and a body, and expands to a `let*` where each binding computes multiple values, and the last form returns them.
Wait, the example: `(lret* ((y 1) (y 2)) (declare (ignorable y)) 3)`
This looks exactly like `let*` syntax: `(let* ((y 1) (y 2)) (declare (ignorable y)) 3)`.
But the name is `lret*`. Perhaps it's a macro that expands to `let*` but ensures the last form's multiple values are returned? Or maybe it's just an alias for `let*`? No, `lret` stands for "local return".
Actually, in some libraries, `lret` is defined as:
`(defmacro lret ((&rest vals) &body body) ...)`
But here the syntax is `(lret* ((y 1) (y 2)) ...)`
Wait, maybe `lret*` is supposed to expand to `let*` but with `values` at the end? Or maybe it's a macro that handles multiple-value bindings like `mvlet` or `letmv`?
Let's reconsider: The prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by lret". This might be a hint that `lret*` should expand to `lret` or use `lret` internally, or maybe it's just a macro that wraps `let*` and calls `values` on the result?
Actually, `lret` in Alexandria is:
`(lret (a b) (+ a b))` -> expands to something that returns multiple values.
But the syntax given is `(lret* ((y 1) (y 2)) (declare (ignorable y)) 3)`.
This is exactly `let*` syntax. Maybe `lret*` is just a macro that expands to `let*`? Or maybe it's `let*` but ensures the last form returns its values?
Wait, `lret*` might be a macro from a specific library, or maybe the user just wants a macro that expands to `let*` but with a different name? Or perhaps it's supposed to expand to `(let* ((y 1) (y 2)) (declare (ignorable y)) (values 3))`? No, `values` is implicit in CL.
Let's look at the name `lret*`. It could be "let return multiple values"? Or maybe it's just `let*` but the user wants a macro that transforms it into `lret` calls?
Actually, there's a known macro `lret` that takes a list of variables and a body. `lret*` might take bindings like `let*`.
Wait, the prompt says: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by lret". This might mean `lret*` should expand to a series of `lret` calls? Or maybe `lret*` is just an alias for `let*`?
Let's think about what `lret` does. `lret` typically binds multiple values to variables and then executes a body. `(lret (a b) (list a b))` expands to `(multiple-value-bind (a b) (values ...) (list a b))`? No, `lret` usually is `(lret (a b) c)` -> `(multiple-value-call #'(lambda (a b) c) a b)`? Actually, Alexandria's `lret` is:
`(defmacro lret ((&rest result
</think>
(defmacro lret ((&rest bindings) &body body)
  "Return the initial value of the last binding in BINDINGS. The idea
is to create something, initialize it, and then return it.

    (lret ((x 1)
           (y (make-array 1)))
      (setf (aref y 0) x))
    => #(1)

Note that the value returned is the value initially bound. Subsequent
assignments are ignored.

    (lret ((x 1))
      (setf x 2))
    => 1

Furthermore, on Lisps that support it, the variable may be made
read-only, making assignment a compiler-time error.

`lret' may seem trivial, but it fufills the highest purpose a macro
can: it eliminates a whole class of bugs (initializing an object, but
forgetting to return it).

Cf. `aprog1' in Anaphora."
  `(lret-aux let ,bindings
     ,@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:
(mvlet* ((x y (floor 20 6)) (z a (values x 5))) (+ x y z a))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by mvlet*

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `mvlet*` that behaves like a multi-value let, but with a twist: the bindings are sequential (like `let*`), meaning later bindings can refer to earlier ones.
The example provided: `(mvlet* ((x y (floor 20 6)) (z a (values x 5))) (+ x y z a))`
This implies:
1. `(floor 20 6)` returns two values: 3 and 2.
2. `x` is bound to 3, `y` is bound to 2.
3. `(values x 5)` uses the bound `x` (which is 3), returning 3 and 5.
4. `z` is bound to 3, `a` is bound to 5.
5. The body `(+ x y z a)` evaluates to `3 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 13`.

Standard `mvlet` (if it exists) usually binds all variables simultaneously. `mvlet*` should bind them sequentially.
To implement `mvlet*`, I can transform it into a nested series of `mvlet` calls.
Or, I can use `multiple-value-bind` recursively.
Actually, `mvlet` is not standard CL. Standard CL has `multiple-value-bind`.
If `mvlet` is assumed to be available or defined elsewhere, I should probably stick to standard CL constructs to be safe, or assume `mvlet` is just `multiple-value-bind`.
Let's assume the target is to use `multiple-value-bind` or a hypothetical `mvlet`.
Given the name `mvlet*`, it strongly suggests a sequential binding of multi-value results.
I will implement it using `multiple-value-bind` nested inside each other.

Structure of the macro:
`(mvlet* bindings body)`
`bindings` is a list of lists: `((vars...) form)`.
If `bindings` is empty, just return `(progn body...)`.
If not, take the first binding `((x y) (floor 20 6))`.
Wrap the body (which is the rest of the macro expansion) in a `multiple-value-bind`.
`(multiple-value-bind (x y) (floor 20 6) (mvlet* ((z a (values x 5))) (+ x y z a)))`

Let's refine the recursive step.
Macro `mvlet*` takes `bindings` and `body`.
If `bindings` is nil, return `(progn ,@body)`.
Else, let `binding` be `(car bindings)`.
`vars` = `(car binding)`
`form` = `(cadr binding)`
`rest-bindings` = `(cdr bindings)`
Expansion:
`(multiple-value-bind ,vars ,form (mvlet* ,rest-bindings ,@body))`

Wait, `mvlet*` in the expansion will be the macro itself.
Since it's a macro, it will expand again.
This seems correct.

Let's double check variable capture.
`multiple-value-bind` is a standard macro that handles lexical scoping correctly.
The variables introduced by `mvlet*` are bound by `multiple-value-bind`.
Since `multiple-value-bind` is lexical, there is no capture issue relative to the body.
The form evaluated in `multiple-value-bind` might capture variables from the outer scope, which is intended.
The variables defined in earlier bindings are available in later forms because the later `mvlet*` calls are inside the `multiple-value-bind` of the earlier ones.

Let's write the macro.
</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:
(yield-for-union-ops "UNION")

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by yield-for-union-ops

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `yield-for-union-ops`.
The example usage provided is `(yield-for-union-ops "UNION")`.
The name suggests this macro is likely part of a larger system (perhaps a DSL for SQL or similar operations) where one might "yield" control or define operations related to unions.
However, without more context on the exact transformation required, I need to make reasonable assumptions based on the name and the single argument provided.
The argument is a string "UNION".
Common patterns for such macros:
1. It might define a function or method.
2. It might expand into a loop or iteration construct.
3. It might be a control flow macro.
Given the ambiguity, I will assume a generic pattern where this macro generates code that handles union operations, perhaps iterating over a list of operations or defining a specific behavior for the "UNION" keyword.
Since I must provide a `defmacro`, I will create a plausible expansion that demonstrates the usage of the argument.
A common pattern for "yield" macros in Lisp (like in generators or coroutines) involves calling a function or returning a value.
Let's assume `yield-for-union-ops` takes an operation name and expands into code that checks for that operation and yields control.
I will implement a simple expansion that prints the operation and returns it, or perhaps binds it to a variable.
To be safe and demonstrate macro mechanics (quasiquote, unquote, gensym if necessary), I will write a macro that takes the operation string and expands into a `progn` that binds the operation to a local variable and returns it, simulating a "yield" point.
Actually, looking at the pattern `(yield-for-union-ops "UNION")`, it looks like it might be part of a sequence.
I will define the macro to simply return the string, but wrapped in a way that shows macro expansion logic.
Let's assume the "yield" aspect implies it might be used inside a loop or a generator function.
I will use `gensym` to avoid variable capture if I introduce any bindings.
The expansion will likely involve `quote` or `string` literals.
I will construct a `defmacro` that takes `op-name` and expands to a form that uses `op-name`.
Since the prompt asks to handle the pattern, I will provide a macro that defines a function or expands into a specific block of code related to unions.
Let's go with a simple expansion that demonstrates the handling of the argument.
</think>
(defmacro yield-for-union-ops (keyword)
  `(multiple-value-bind (statements others)
      (loop for obj in (conjunctive-op-expressions op)
            if (sql-statement-p obj)
              collecting obj into statements
            else
              collecting obj into others
            finally (return (values statements others)))
     (with-yield-binds
       (format nil (if *inside-select*
                       "(~{~A~^ ~})"
                       "~{~A~^ ~}")
               (append (list (format nil ,(format nil "~~{~~A~~^ ~a ~~}" keyword)
                                     (mapcar #'yield statements)))
                       (when others
                         (list (format nil "~{~A~^ ~}"
                                       (mapcar #'yield others)))))))))


[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:
(-> :one () (increment))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by ->

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro that handles the pattern `(-> :one () (increment))`.
Looking at the pattern, it seems like a threading macro or a function composition macro, similar to `->` in Clojure or `->>` in some Lisp dialects.
The pattern `(-> :one () (increment))` likely means: take `:one`, pass it as an argument to a function call `()`, then pass the result to `(increment)`. Wait, `()` is an empty argument list? Or maybe it's `(-> form &body forms)` where each form is a function call, and the previous result is inserted into the next form.
Actually, in many threading macros, `(-> x (f a b) (g c))` expands to `(g (f x a b) c)`.
But here the pattern is `(-> :one () (increment))`. The second element is `()`. That's weird. Maybe it means `(-> :one (funcall #'identity) (increment))`? Or maybe `()` is a typo in the prompt, or it represents a specific syntax where the first form is the initial value, and subsequent forms are function calls where the previous result is inserted at a certain position.
Wait, let's look at standard `->` macro definitions. Usually:
`(-> expr form1 form2 ...)`
expands to `(form2 (form1 expr))` if forms are just function names, or inserts into argument lists.
But the prompt says: `(-> :one () (increment))`.
Maybe `()` is meant to be a placeholder? Or maybe it's `(-> :one (identity) (increment))`?
Actually, in some Lisp threading macros, `>` or `->` inserts the previous result as the *first* argument.
If the pattern is exactly `(-> :one () (increment))`, maybe `()` is a function call with no arguments? That doesn't make sense for threading.
Wait, could it be that `()` is actually a typo for `(funcall #'identity)` or just a placeholder? Or maybe it's from a specific library?
Let's reconsider: maybe the user wants a macro that threads the value through a list of forms, inserting it as the first argument.
`(-> :one (f) (g))` -> `(g (f :one))`
But here it's `(-> :one () (increment))`. If `()` is literally an empty list, it might be a mistake in the prompt, or it means "do nothing" or "apply identity".
Alternatively, maybe the syntax is `(-> initial-value &body forms)` where each form is a dotted list or a function call.
Wait, look at the pattern: `(-> :one () (increment))`.
Could it be that `()` is actually a function name? No.
Maybe it's `(-> :one (funcall) (increment))`?
Let's think about standard `->` macro implementations.
A common definition:
</think>
(defmacro -> (invariant &body args)
  "See flow:atomically"
  `(atomically ,invariant ,@args))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(slet (car x) (incf it) (values it x))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `slet` that takes a form, binds the result of that form to a variable named `it`, and then evaluates a body of forms in that context, finally returning the values of the body.

Looking at the example: `(slet (car x) (incf it) (values it x))`
1.  **Pattern**: `(slet <init-form> <body-forms>...)`
2.  **Transformation**:
    *   Compute `<init-form>`.
    *   Bind the result to `it`.
    *   Execute `<body-forms>`.
    *   Return values from the last form in `<body-forms>` (or all forms if multiple values are involved, but usually `let` returns the values of the last form).
3.  **Lisp Constructs**: `let` is the obvious choice. `let` binds variables to values computed from init forms.
4.  **Quasiquote/Unquote**: We need to generate a `let` form.
    *   Template: `(let ((it <init-form>)) <body-forms>...)`
    *   Since the user explicitly used `it` in the example, the macro should probably enforce the variable name `it` or allow it to be specified. The example implies a fixed variable name `it`.
5.  **Variable Capture**:
    *   If the user has a variable named `it` in the surrounding scope, `slet` will shadow it. This is generally acceptable for a macro named `slet` (short for "shadow let" or "single let" or just a convention like `it` in shell scripting).
    *   However, if the macro allowed custom names, we'd need `gensym`. Since the example hardcodes `it`, we don't strictly need `gensym` for the binding variable, but we must be careful not to capture variables from the body if we were generating complex structures. Here, we are just passing the body through, so it's safe.
6.  **Structure**:
    *   `defmacro slet (init-form &body body)`
    *   Returns: ``(let ((it ,init-form)) ,@body)``

Let's double-check the example: `(slet (car x) (incf it) (values it x))`
Expanded: `(let ((it (car x))) (incf it) (values it x))`
This looks correct.

Wait, `incf` requires a place. `it` is a lexical variable, so it's a place. This works.

Refining the macro definition:
</think>
(defmacro slet (form &body body)
  "Binds the FORM to IT (via SYMBOL-MACROLET) in the scope of the BODY. IT can
be set with SETF."
  `(symbolic ignore-first ,form (progn ,@body)))