[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:
(signal-reader-error "Incomplete regex comment starting with '(#'")

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by signal-reader-error

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `signal-reader-error`.
The macro should take a string argument (the error message) and presumably signal an error at macroexpansion time.
The specific pattern mentioned is `(signal-reader-error "Incomplete regex comment starting with '(#'")`.
This suggests the macro is intended to be used in a reader or a macro that parses text, and if it encounters an invalid pattern, it expands into a form that signals an error.

1.  **Pattern**: `(signal-reader-error "message string")`
2.  **Lisp constructs**: `error` or `cerror` or a specific condition type. Since it's a "reader error", a standard `error` signal is usually sufficient, or perhaps a specific condition like `simple-error`. Given the context of "reader error", throwing an error during macro expansion is the goal.
3.  **Quasiquote/unquote**: The argument is a literal string in the macro call. We need to embed this string into the generated code.
4.  **Variable capture**: The argument is a string literal passed to the macro. There are no dynamic variables involved in the expansion itself, just the string constant.
5.  **Structure**:
    ```lisp
    (defmacro signal-reader-error (message)
      `(error ,message))
    ```
    Or perhaps catch the context. But usually, a macro like this just expands to an error signal.

    Let's refine. If this is a macro, it runs at compile/expand time. The error will be signaled then.
    The user provided a specific example: `(signal-reader-error "Incomplete regex comment starting with '(#'")`.
    The macro should accept this string and generate code that signals it.

    Is there anything special about "reader-error"? Maybe it should signal a specific condition type?
    Standard practice: `(error 'simple-error :format-control ,message)` or just `(error ,message)`.
    Let's stick to the simplest robust interpretation: signaling an error with the provided message.

    However, sometimes "reader-error" implies a specific condition class. In CL, `reader-error` is a standard condition type.
    So, `(error 'reader-error :format-control ,message)` might be more semantically accurate.
    Let's check the standard condition hierarchy. `reader-error` inherits from `error`.
    So `(error 'reader-error ,message)` is valid if the message is a string, but `error` expects a format string and arguments usually, or a condition object.
    Actually, `(error 'reader-error :format-control ,message)` is the precise way to signal a reader error with a string message.
    Or simply `(error ,message)` which defaults to `simple-error`.
    Given the name `signal-reader-error`, using the `reader-error` condition type is the most professional choice.

    Let's write the macro.

    ```lisp
    (defmacro signal-reader-error (msg)
      `(error 'reader-error :format-control ,msg))
    ```

    Wait, `error` macro takes a format control and arguments.
    If I do `(error 'reader-error :format-control ,msg)`, it signals a `reader-error` with the message.
    This looks correct.

    Let's double check if the user just wants a generic error signal or specifically a reader error. The name of the macro is `signal-reader-error`.
    I will use the `reader-error` condition type.

    Step-by-step reasoning:
    1.  **Pattern**: `(signal-reader-error &body body)`? No, the example shows a single string argument. `(signal-reader-error "message")`.
    2.  **Constructs**: `defmacro`, `error`.
    3.  **Quasiquote**: Use backquote to generate the `error` form. Unquote the message string so it is evaluated (as a constant) in the generated code.
    4.  **Capture**: No gensyms needed for a single literal string argument.
    5.  **Defmacro**:
        ```lisp
        (defmacro signal-reader-error (message)
          `(error 'reader-error :format-control ,message))
        ```
        This expands `(signal-reader-error "foo")` to `(error 'reader-error :format-control "foo")`.

    One detail: The prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by signal-reader-error".
    It implies the macro *is* the transformation.
    The example input is `(signal-reader-error "Incomplete regex comment starting with '(#'")`.
    The output should be code that signals this error.

    Let's consider if it should be `cerror`? No, "error" is standard for fatal syntax issues.
    Let's consider if
</think>
(defmacro signal-reader-error (format-control &rest format-arguments)
  "Like ERROR but signals a SIMPLE-READER-ERROR for the stream
*STREAM*."
  `(error 'simple-reader-error
          :stream *stream*
          :format-control ,format-control
          :format-arguments (list ,@format-arguments)))


[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:
(defclause hash-entries-of (hash-table) "Iterates over the entries of a hash table. The iteration variables must be specified as (key value), for example: (for (lemma definitions) (hash-entries-of the-english-vocabulary))." (unless (and (listp *iteration-variable*) (= 2 (length *iteration-variable*))) (error "Invalid variable specification for hash-entry, expected (key value) but got ~S" *iteration-variable*)) (let ((iterator (gensym "HASH-TABLE-ITERATOR")) (test (gensym "TEST")) (key (car *iteration-variable*)) (value (cadr *iteration-variable*))) `(,(make-wrapper :function (lambda (body) `(with-hash-table-iterator (,iterator ,hash-table) ,body))) ,(make-iteration :bindings (list test key value) :initializations `((setf (values ,test ,key ,value) (,iterator))) :steps `((setf (values ,test ,key ,value) (,iterator))) :postconditions `((not (null ,test)))))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro based on the provided `defclause` expansion logic.
Looking at the provided code:
</think>
(defmacro defclause (name arglist &body body)
  "Same as cl:defmacro, but additionally records <name> in *clauses* as a known clause macro."
  `(progn
     (defmacro ,name ,arglist ,@body)
     (pushnew ',name *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]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(with-unique-names (value coerced-value) `((,name (,value) (let ((,coerced-value (coerce ,value ',type))) (declare (type ,type ,coerced-value)) (when (or ,firstp (> ,coerced-value ,var)) (setq ,var ,coerced-value ,firstp nil))))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `with-unique-names` that takes a list of variable names and a body, and expands the body with those variables replaced by unique (gensym) variables.

Let's look at the example provided:
</think>
(defmacro with-unique-names (names &body body)
  `(let ,(mapcar (lambda (sym)
                   `(,sym (gensym ,(symbol-name sym))))
                  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:
(macroexpand-convention (form) (if (consp form) (expand-export-slots-using-head (first form) form) form))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by macroexpand-convention

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `macroexpand-convention`.
Looking at the provided code snippet:
`(macroexpand-convention (form) (if (consp form) (expand-export-slots-using-head (first form) form) form))`

This looks like a macro definition where the first argument is a list `(form)`, which usually denotes the lambda list of the macro.
The second argument is the body: `(if (consp form) (expand-export-slots-using-head (first form) form) form)`.

So the macro should be defined as:
`(defmacro macroexpand-convention (form) ...)`

The body expands the expression.
If `form` is a cons (a list), it calls `expand-export-slots-using-head` with the head of the list and the list itself.
Otherwise, it returns `form` unchanged.

Wait, is `macroexpand-convention` the name of the macro I need to write, or is the user showing me an example of a macro call and asking me to write the macro definition for it?
"Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (macroexpand-convention (form) (if (consp form) (expand-export-slots-using-head (first form) form) form))"

This looks like a `defmacro` form where the user has omitted `defmacro`.
Pattern: `(defmacro macroexpand-convention (form) (if (consp form) (expand-export-slots-using-head (first form) form) form))`

Let's verify standard macro structures.
`(defmacro name lambda-list [declaration]* [documentation]* form*)`

If the user wants a macro that performs this logic, the definition is straightforward.
However, maybe the user wants a macro that *generates* this pattern? No, "handle this code pattern" usually means "implement this macro".

Let's assume the user wants the `defmacro` definition for `macroexpand-convention`.

Lambda list: `(form)`
Body: `(if (consp form) (expand-export-slots-using-head (first form) form) form)`

Are there any hygiene issues?
`form` is a user-supplied argument.
`first` is a standard function.
`consp` is a standard function.
`expand-export-slots-using-head` is presumably a function available in the environment.
There are no generated variables, so variable capture is not a concern here.

Structure:
</think>
(defmacro macroexpand-convention ((original-form) &body body)
  "Executes BODY as like `progn' and return the result as the first
value.  As the second value, returns a boolean whether the result is
not same with ORIGINAL-FORM or not.
This macro is designed to follow the `macroexpand' convention."
  `(multiple-value-bind (result expanded-p)
       (progn ,@body)
     (values result
             (or expanded-p
                 (not (eq result ,original-form))))))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(defalias path:catfile (&rest pathnames) cl-fad:merge-pathnames-as-file)

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by defalias

[Assistant]
<think>
This request asks for a macro definition for `defalias`. The pattern is `(defalias name (&rest pathnames) target)`.
Wait, the example is:
`(defalias path:catfile (&rest pathnames) cl-fad:merge-pathnames-as-file)`
This looks like a macro to create a function alias, but the arguments `(&rest pathnames)` suggest it's defining a lambda list for the alias, or maybe it's just documenting the lambda list.
Actually, `defalias` in Emacs Lisp defines a function alias. In Common Lisp, we can just setf `symbol-function` or use `defun` with a lambda. But the request says "Macro call that should be transformed by defalias".
Wait, `defalias` in CL usually just sets the function cell. But here it has a lambda list `(&rest pathnames)`. This might be for generating a wrapper function that calls the target function, or maybe it's just for documentation/type checking.
Let's assume it creates a new function that delegates to the target.
Structure: `(defalias alias-name lambda-list target-function)`
Expansion: `(defun alias-name lambda-list (declare (ignorable ...)) (apply target-function args))`
Or maybe it just sets the symbol function: `(setf (symbol-function 'alias-name) (function target-function))`. But then why the lambda list?
Perhaps it's for generating a proper `defun` that forwards arguments.
Let's look at the example: `(defalias path:catfile (&rest &rest pathnames) cl-fad:merge-pathnames-as-file)` -> wait, `(&rest pathnames)` is the lambda list.
If we expand it to a `defun`, it would be:
`(defun path:catfile (&rest pathnames) (apply #'cl-fad:merge-pathnames-as-file pathnames))`
This handles `&rest` correctly. What if the lambda list has `&key` or `&allow-other-keys`? `apply` might not work perfectly for keyword arguments unless we handle them carefully, but usually `apply` is fine for simple cases, or we can just use `funcall` if it's not `&rest`. But to be safe, generating a wrapper that uses `apply` is standard for `&rest`. Actually, if it's `&rest`, `apply` is needed. If it's fixed args, `funcall` is better. But a simple macro might just use `apply` or generate a lambda that calls the target.
Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by defalias". It might just be a simple macro that expands to a `defun` or `setf`.
Let's stick to the simplest robust expansion:
`(defun ,alias-name ,lambda-list (apply (function ,target) ,@(when (and (listp lambda-list) ...) ...)))` -> too complex.
Actually, a common pattern for `defalias` in CL is just:
`(setf (symbol-function ',alias-name) (function ,target))`
But the lambda list is provided. Maybe it's for `defmethod`? No.
Maybe it's from a specific library? `path:catfile` suggests `path` package, `cl-fad` is `cl-fad`.
I will write a macro that expands to a `defun` that forwards arguments using `apply`. To handle `&rest` properly, we can just collect the argument names from the lambda list and pass them to `apply`. But extracting argument names from a lambda list is tedious.
Alternatively, we can just use `&rest args` in the generated function and `apply` the target to `args`. But that loses the original lambda list signature for docstrings/compilers.
Better: generate `(defun ,name ,lambda-list (apply (function ,target) ,@(loop for x in ,lambda-list when (and (symbolp x) (not (member x '(&rest &key &optional &allow-other-keys &aux &body &whole &environment)))) collect x)))` -> too messy.
Actually, a simpler approach: just use `funcall` if no `&rest`, else `apply`. But for a macro, we can just assume `&rest` or fixed args. Or we can just generate:
`(defun ,name ,lambda-list (apply (function ,target) ,@(remove-if-not #'symbolp ,lambda-list)))` -> this is wrong for `&key`.
Let's reconsider. Maybe `defalias` here is meant to just set the function cell, and the lambda list is ignored or used for documentation. But the prompt says "handle this code pattern".
I'll write a macro that expands to a `defun` that calls the target function. To keep it simple and correct for most
</think>
(defmacro defalias (name args realname)
  `(progn
     (defun ,name ,args
       ,(if (eql '&rest (first args))
            `(apply #',realname ,(second args))
            `(,realname ,@args)))
     (define-compiler-macro ,name (&rest args)
       (list* ',realname 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 (typep (node-slot name) 'identifier) (format stream "~~"))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro that transforms the following code:
`(when (typep (node-slot name) 'identifier) (format stream "~~"))`

Wait, the user says "Macro call that should be transformed by when". This implies the macro is named `when`? Or maybe the user wants a macro that replaces `(when ...)` with something else? Or maybe the user wants a macro that expands to `(when ...)`?

Let's re-read carefully: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: `(when (typep (node-slot name) 'identifier) (format stream "~~"))` What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by when"

This is a bit ambiguous. It might mean: "Create a macro that, when called, expands to the given code." Or "Create a macro that replaces `when` with something else?" Or maybe it's a specific pattern from a codebase.

Actually, this looks like a prompt from a benchmark or a specific task. "Macro call that should be transformed by when" might mean the macro is named `when`? But `when` is already a standard CL macro. Maybe the user wants a macro named `when-identifier` or something? Or maybe the user wants to define a macro that takes `name`, `stream` and expands to that `when` form?

Wait, "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by when" could mean the macro name is missing, and I need to invent one, or maybe the macro is supposed to be `when-identifier-p`?

Let's think about standard macro patterns. Often, users ask for a macro that abstracts a common pattern. The pattern is checking if a slot of a node is an identifier, and if so, printing "~~".
Maybe the macro is `(print-identifier name stream)`?
Or maybe the user literally wants a macro that expands to exactly that, but with parameters.

Let's look at the phrasing: "Macro call that should be transformed by when". This is weird. Maybe it means "The macro call should be transformed *into* the `when` form." So the macro expands to the `when` form.

Let's assume the macro name is `when-identifier` or `emit-identifier`. I'll define a macro `emit-identifier` that takes `name` and `stream`.
`(defmacro emit-identifier (name stream) `(when (typep (node-slot ,name) 'identifier) (format ,stream "~~")))`

But wait, `when` is a standard macro. Maybe the user wants to redefine `when`? No, that's dangerous.
Maybe the user wants a macro that wraps the `when` form?
Actually, this looks like a prompt where the user forgot to provide the macro name. I will choose a sensible name like `when-identifier` or `format-identifier`.
Or maybe the macro is simply `(defmacro when-identifier (name stream) ...)`

Let's reconsider the exact wording: "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by when". This might be a fill-in-the-blank from a dataset. "Macro call that should be transformed by [macro-name]". If the macro name is missing, I'll use `when-identifier`.

Wait, could it be that the user wants a macro that *replaces* `when`? No.
Could it be that the user wants a macro named `when` that takes different arguments? Unlikely.

I will define a macro named `when-identifier` that takes `name` and `stream` and expands to the given form. I'll explain the reasoning.

Actually, looking at the pattern `(when (typep (node-slot name) 'identifier) (format stream "~~"))`, it's very specific. Maybe the macro is `(defmacro node-is-identifier (name stream) ...)`?

Let's stick to a generic but descriptive name: `when-node-identifier`.
I will write the macro carefully, handling unquoting properly.
`(defmacro when-node-identifier (name stream)
  `(when (typep (node-slot ,name) 'identifier)
     (format ,stream "~~")))`

Wait, `node-slot` and `identifier` are symbols. `name` and `stream` are arguments.
I should ensure that `identifier` is quoted in the expansion.
The expansion is:
`(when (typep (node-slot ,name) 'identifier) (format ,stream "~~"))`

Is there any variable capture concern? `name` and `stream` are evaluated in the caller's environment. `node-slot` and `identifier` are literals. No capture issues.

Let's structure the response as requested.
Step 1: Identify pattern. The pattern checks if a node's
</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]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(with-context (context) (funcall result (lambda (result) (funcall responder (process-response this result)))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `with-context` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The pattern provided is:
`(with-context (context) (funcall result (lambda (result) (funcall responder (process-response this result)))))`

Let's analyze the pattern:
1. The macro name is `with-context`.
2. The first argument is a binding list `(context)`. This suggests `context` is a variable being bound.
3. The second argument is a body: `(funcall result (lambda (result) (funcall responder (process-response this result))))`.

Wait, the pattern looks like it might be part of a larger context, or maybe `result`, `responder`, `this` are free variables in the macro expansion, or maybe the macro is supposed to bind them?
Usually, `with-context` macros bind a context object.
The pattern shows `with-context` taking a variable `context` and a body.
The body uses `result`, `responder`, `this`.
If this is a macro, it likely expands into something that sets up `context`.
Perhaps `context` is bound to some value, or `with-context` is a macro that takes a context object and binds variables like `result`, `responder`, `this`?
Or maybe `with-context` is a macro that wraps the body in a context, and the example shows how it's used.

Let's assume the standard `with-` macro pattern: `(with-context (var) body...)` expands to `(let ((var ...)) body...)` or similar.
However, the prompt says: "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-context".
And gives the pattern: `(with-context (context) (funcall result (lambda (result) (funcall responder (process-response this result)))))`.

Maybe the macro is supposed to transform this specific call into something else?
Or maybe the user wants a macro `with-context` that matches this pattern?
The pattern looks like a specific usage.
Let's look at the variables: `context`, `result`, `responder`, `this`.
Maybe `with-context` binds `context`, and the body is executed.
But the body contains `result`, `responder`, `this`.
Perhaps `with-context` is supposed to bind these variables from the context?
Or maybe the macro is supposed to extract these variables?

Let's re-read carefully: "Given this code pattern: (with-context (context) (funcall result (lambda (result) (funcall responder (process-response this result))))) Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-context"

This sounds like the user wants a macro `with-context` that, when called with `(context)` and a body, expands to something.
But what does it expand to?
Maybe it's a macro that creates a context object and binds it?
Or maybe it's a macro that transforms the body?
The phrase "Macro call that should be transformed by with-context" is a bit ambiguous.
It might mean: Write a macro `with-context` that handles this call.
Or it might mean: The user has this call, and wants a macro that transforms it into something else.
Given the typical `with-` macro, it usually binds variables.
Let's assume `with-context` binds `context` to some value, maybe `(make-context)` or similar, and executes the body.
But the body uses `result`, `responder`, `this`. These are likely free variables in the surrounding scope, or maybe they are supposed to be bound by `with-context`?
If `with-context` binds them, the signature would be different.
Maybe `context` is an object that has slots `result`, `responder`, `this`?
Or maybe `with-context` is a macro that takes a context and binds variables from it?
Like `(with-context (ctx context) body)`? But the pattern is `(with-context (context) body)`.

Let's consider another possibility: The user wants a macro that matches this pattern and transforms it into a `let` or `progn` or something.
Or maybe it's a macro that simplifies the nested `funcall` and `lambda`?
`(funcall result (lambda (result) ...))` -> maybe `result` is a function that takes a callback?
This looks like a callback pattern.
Maybe `with-context` is supposed to bind `context` and the body is just the body.
I will write a standard `with-context` macro that binds `context` to a value (maybe a placeholder or a function call) and executes the body.
But to be safe, I'll make it generic: `(defmacro with-context ((var) &body body) ...)`
</think>
(defmacro with-context ((context) &body body)
  `(let* ((*context* ,context)
          (*request* (context :request))
          (*response* (context :response))
          (*session* (context :session)))
     ,@body))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(~> (loop for i from 0 below 3 collecting (let ((i i)) (-> :p (a) (declare (type fixnum a)) (the fixnum (+ a i))))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `~>` that transforms a specific code pattern.
Let's analyze the input pattern:
`(~> (loop for i from 0 below 3 collecting (let ((i i)) (-> :p (a) (declare (type fixnum a)) (the fixnum (+ a i))))))`

Wait, the pattern contains `->` inside. This looks like a "threading macro" or "pipeline macro", similar to Clojure's `->` or Emacs Lisp's `->`.
Usually, `~>` or `->` threads the value from the previous form into the next form.
In Clojure, `->` inserts the result as the *second* argument (or first if only one arg).
In Emacs Lisp, `->` inserts the result as the *second* argument.
In Common Lisp libraries like `iterate` or `trivia`, `~>` might be the "last" threading macro (inserts at the end), while `->` is the "second" threading macro. Or vice versa.
Let's check typical Common Lisp conventions. `alexandria` doesn't have threading macros. `trivia` has `~>` (last) and `->` (second).
Actually, the prompt shows `(~> (loop ... collecting (let ... (-> ...))))`.
Wait, the outer macro is `~>`. The inner macro is `->`.
The prompt says: "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by ~>".
This implies I need to define `~>`.

Let's look at the structure:
`(~> form1 form2 ...)`
Usually, `~>` threads the value to the *end* of the next form.
`->` threads the value to the *second* position.

Let's assume standard threading macro behavior:
`(~> x)` => `x`
`(~> x (f y))` => `(f y x)`
`(~> x (f y) (g z))` => `(g (f y x) z)`

Wait, the input is:
`(~> (loop for i from 0 below 3 collecting (let ((i i)) (-> :p (a) (declare (type fixnum a)) (the fixnum (+ a i))))))`
There is only one argument to `~>`.
If `~>` is a threading macro, with one argument it just returns that argument.
But maybe the prompt implies `~>` is a specific macro from a library, or I need to implement the standard `~>` (thread-last).

Let's reconsider. The prompt says: "Given this code pattern: (~> (loop ...)) Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by ~>"
Maybe the user wants the definition of `~>` that handles threading.
Or maybe `~>` is just a macro that expands to something else?
Actually, in many Lisp dialects, `~>` is `thread-last`.
Let's implement `thread-last` (`~>`).

Structure of `thread-last`:
</think>
(defmacro ~> (&rest body)
  "See flow:concurrently"
  `(concurrently ,@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:
(cache-dir #p"/tmp/clache-test/")

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `cache-dir` that takes a pathname as an argument.
The transformation is not explicitly described in the prompt "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by cache", but the example shows `(cache-dir #p"/tmp/clache-test/")`.
Usually, a macro like this is intended to set a package variable or a dynamic variable, or perhaps return the pathname after ensuring the directory exists.
Given the name `cache-dir`, it likely sets a global cache directory variable.
Let's assume the macro sets a package variable `*cache-dir*` to the provided pathname.
Or perhaps it just returns the pathname, ensuring it's a logical pathname or physical pathname.
Wait, the prompt says "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by cache". This is a bit ambiguous.
Let's look at common patterns. Maybe it's from a specific library? "clache" sounds like a caching library.
If it's just a simple macro, maybe it expands to `(setf *cache-dir* #p"/tmp/clache-test/")` or just returns the pathname.
Actually, the prompt might be asking to define a macro that expands to something else. But without the target expansion, I have to guess or provide a standard implementation.
Wait, "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by cache" might be a placeholder or instruction from a template.
Let's assume the macro should set a variable `*cache-directory*` or similar, or maybe it just ensures the directory exists and returns it.
Another possibility: it's a macro that expands to `(make-pathname :defaults *default-cache-dir* :directory '(:absolute "tmp" "clache-test"))`.
But the simplest interpretation: The macro `cache-dir` takes a pathname and expands to a form that sets a package variable, say `*cache-dir*`, or just returns the pathname.
Given the lack of specific target expansion, I will design a macro that sets a dynamic variable `*cache-dir*` to the given pathname, or perhaps just returns it. Actually, many caching libraries use a macro to configure the cache directory at compile/expand time.
Let's make it expand to `(setf *cache-dir* ,dir)`.
Wait, the prompt says "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by cache". This might mean the user wants me to write the macro definition.
I will write a macro `cache-dir` that takes a pathname and expands to a `setf` of `*cache-dir*`. Or maybe it just returns the pathname.
Actually, in many Lisp projects, such a macro might just be a configuration macro. I'll stick to setting a package variable `*cache-dir*`.
Alternatively, it could be a macro that expands to `(ensure-directories-exist ,dir)`.
Let's think about standard practices. A macro named `cache-dir` likely sets a configuration variable. I'll define it to set `*cache-dir*`.
Wait, the prompt might be from a specific context where `cache-dir` expands to something like `(setf *cache-directory* ,path)`.
I will provide a macro that sets `*cache-dir*` and returns it.
Actually, the prompt is very brief. I will assume the goal is to define the macro `cache-dir` that sets a variable `*cache-dir*`.
Let's structure the macro:
</think>
(defmacro cache ((keyargs &key store expire) function-definition-form)
  "Annotation for caching functions with their arguments. This should
be used with CL-ANNOT. KEYARGS is a form or a list of form for making
a cache key.  To make cache keys distinct as to the function, you may
add a keyword or a symbol into KEYARGS. See also WITH-CACHE.

Example:

    @cache ((:f x y z))
    (defun f (x y z)
      ...)

    ;; Remove a cache of F
    (remcache '(:f 1 2 3))"
  (replace-function-body
   (lambda (name lambda-list body)
     @ignore name
     @ignore lambda-list
     (let ((key (if (listp keyargs)
                    `(list ,@keyargs)
                    keyargs)))
       `(with-cache (,key :store ,store :expire ,expire)
          ,@body)))
   function-definition-form))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(with-reader-syntax (set) (let ((set (er "#{'a 'b 1 '(1) '(1) :test #'equal}"))) (is-true (alexandria:setp set)) (is-true (member 'a set)) (is-true (member 'b set)) (is-true (member 1 set)) (is-false (member 2 set)) (is (= 1 (count '(1) set :test #'equal)))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro called `with-reader-syntax`.
The example usage is:
`(with-reader-syntax (set) (let ((set (er "#{'a 'b 1 '(1) '(1) :test #'equal}"))) ...))`

Wait, the example usage shows `with-reader-syntax` taking a variable name `set` and a body.
Inside the body, there is `(er "#{'a 'b 1 '(1) '(1) :test #'equal}")`.
`er` likely stands for "eval-read" or something similar. It reads a string as Lisp code and evaluates it.
The string `#{'a 'b 1 '(1) '(1) :test #'equal}` looks like a set literal syntax.
The macro `with-reader-syntax` probably sets up a local reader macro or modifies the readtable so that `#{...}` is read as a set.
However, `er` takes a string. If `er` reads the string using the current readtable, `with-reader-syntax` needs to make sure that when `er` is called, the readtable has the set syntax installed.

Let's look at the structure.
`with-reader-syntax` binds a variable `set`? No, the variable `set` in `(with-reader-syntax (set) ...)` is likely the name of the readtable or a local binding for the readtable.
Actually, `with-reader-syntax` might just install a readtable locally.
Let's assume `with-reader-syntax` creates a new readtable, installs the set syntax, and binds it to the variable `set`? Or maybe it just installs it globally for the duration of the body?
The example shows `(let ((set (er ...))) ...)`. So `set` is a variable holding the result of `er`.
Wait, `(with-reader-syntax (set) ...)` might mean "bind `set` to the readtable"?
Or maybe `with-reader-syntax` is from a specific library. The syntax `#{...}` is often used for sets in some Lisp dialects or libraries.
In Common Lisp, there is no standard set literal.
The macro `with-reader-syntax` likely comes from a library like `alexandria` or `lisp-unit`? No.
Maybe it's from `fiveam` or a testing library? `is-true`, `is-false` suggest a testing framework.
The string `#{'a 'b 1 '(1) '(1) :test #'equal}` is read by `er`.
If `er` uses `read-from-string`, it uses the current readtable.
So `with-reader-syntax` probably modifies the readtable.

Let's hypothesize the macro structure:
`(defmacro with-reader-syntax ((var) &body body)`
  `(let ((,var (copy-readtable nil)))`
    `(set-dispatch-macro-character ,var #\# #\{ #'read-set)`
    `(let ((*readtable* ,var)) ,@body)))`

But the example shows `(with-reader-syntax (set) ...)`.
If `set` is the readtable variable, then inside the body, `*readtable*` should be bound to `set`.
Then `(er ...)` uses `*readtable*` to read the string.
This makes sense.

Let's refine the macro.
We need to handle the readtable installation.
The syntax `#{...}` is a dispatch macro character.
The reader function for `#{` should read until `}` and return a set.
Since I don't have the implementation of the set reader, I should assume it exists or provide a placeholder.
However, the prompt asks to "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-reader-syntax".
It might be asking for the macro definition that expands the call.
The macro `with-reader-syntax` likely sets up the readtable.

Let's look at the pattern again.
`(with-reader-syntax (set) (let ((set (er "#{'a 'b 1 '(1) '(1) :test #'equal}"))) ...))`
The variable `set` is bound to the readtable.
Then inside the body, `set` is rebound to the result of `er`.
Wait, `let ((set ...))` shadows the readtable variable `set`.
This is a bit confusing. Why bind the readtable to `set` if it's immediately shadowed?
Maybe `with-reader-syntax` doesn't bind a variable. Maybe it takes no arguments?
`(with-reader-syntax () ...)`?
But the example has `(set)`.
Maybe `set` is the name of the syntax? Or the variable to bind the readtable to?
If it binds the readtable to `set`, and the body shadows
</think>
(defmacro with-reader-syntax (reader-macro-identifiers &body body)
  "This macro is only made for use by read-and-eval functionality,
and rather directed towards tests than users. So, do not export."
  (let ((identifiers (loop :for identifier :in reader-macro-identifiers
                           :collect `(quote ,identifier))))
    `(let ((*array-function*         'make-t-array-from-initial-contents)
           (*hash-table-function*    'alexandria:plist-hash-table)
           (*get-val-function*       'get-val)
           (*get-val-array-function* 'cl:aref)
           (*set-function*           'cl:remove-duplicates)
           (*alists-are-lists*       nil)
           (*plists-are-lists*       nil)
           (*readtable*             (%enable-reader-syntax *readtable* ,@identifiers)))
       ,@body)))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(augment arglist (list 'generate))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `augment`.
The pattern provided is `(augment arglist (list 'generate))`.
This looks like a macro that takes two arguments:
1. `arglist`: likely a symbol or a list of symbols representing arguments to a function.
2. `(list 'generate)`: a list containing the symbol `generate`. This might be a hint about what to do with the arguments, or perhaps it's just a literal list in this specific example.

Let's look at the structure. `(augment arglist form)`? Or maybe `(augment arglist generator-spec)`?
The example shows `(list 'generate)`. This suggests the second argument is a form that evaluates to a list of symbols or something similar.
Wait, looking at typical macro patterns, `augment` often implies adding something to an existing structure.
Maybe it's about adding arguments to a function definition?
Or maybe it's about modifying a lambda list?

Let's assume the macro is meant to be used like:
`(augment (x y z) (list 'generate))`
And it expands to something involving `x`, `y`, `z` and `generate`.

However, without more context on what "augment" means in a specific library, I have to infer the intent from the pattern.
The pattern `(list 'generate)` suggests the second argument is a list of symbols to be added to the first argument?
Or maybe the first argument is a variable name containing a list, and we want to append the second argument to it?
But in a macro, `arglist` is usually a template.

Let's consider a common pattern: `augment` might be a macro that takes a list of variables and a generator form, and produces code that generates values for those variables?
Or maybe it's a macro that expands to a function call where the arguments are augmented?

Let's look at the prompt again: "Macro call that should be transformed by augment".
The input is `(augment arglist (list 'generate))`.
If `arglist` is a symbol representing a list of arguments, and `(list 'generate)` is a list of new arguments.
Maybe the macro expands to `(append arglist '(generate))`?
But `arglist` in the macro call is likely a pattern variable, not a runtime variable.
If the macro call is `(augment (a b c) (list 'generate))`, then `arglist` matches `(a b c)`.
The expansion might be `(list 'generate 'a 'b 'c)`? Or `(append '(a b c) '(generate))`?

Let's assume a simpler interpretation often found in code generation macros:
The macro takes a list of symbols and a form that produces a list of symbols, and combines them.
Or, it takes an existing argument list and augments it with new arguments.

Let's try to construct a macro that:
1. Takes a list of symbols (the `arglist`).
2. Takes a form that evaluates to a list of symbols (the `(list 'generate)` part).
3. Combines them.

However, the prompt is very specific: "Given this code pattern: `(augment arglist (list 'generate))`".
This looks like a specific instance.
Maybe `arglist` is a variable? No, in a macro call, the first position is usually the macro name.
So `augment` is the macro name.
`arglist` is the first argument.
`(list 'generate)` is the second argument.

If `arglist` is a symbol, say `args`, the call is `(augment args (list 'generate))`.
If `arglist` is a list, say `(a b c)`, the call is `(augment (a b c) (list 'generate))`.

Let's assume the macro is designed to take a list of variables and a generator, and create a binding or a call.
But "augment" suggests adding to something.
Maybe it's `(augment (a b c) (list 'generate))` -> `(a b c generate)`?
Or `(list 'generate 'a 'b 'c)`?

Let's consider the possibility that this is a macro for defining functions with extra arguments.
Like `(defun foo (a b c) ...)` becomes `(defun foo (a b c generate) ...)`.
But the syntax `(augment arglist ...)` doesn't look like `defun`.

Let's go with a generic interpretation: The macro takes a list of items and a list of items to add, and returns a combined list.
Since it's a macro, it handles code transformation.
Maybe it's `(augment (a b c) (list 'generate))` -> `(append '(a b c) '(generate))`?
But if `arglist` is
</think>
(defmacro augment (var stuff)
  `(setf ,var (nconc ,var ,stuff)))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(with-preprocessor-state-slots (state) (loop for i = (first token-list) while token-list until (eq i +newline-marker+) do (pop token-list) collect i))

Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-preprocessor-state-slots

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `with-preprocessor-state-slots`.
The example usage is:
`(with-preprocessor-state-slots (state) (loop for i = (first token-list) while token-list until (eq i +newline-marker+) do (pop token-list) collect i))`

This looks like a binding macro, similar to `with-slots` or `with-accessors`.
It takes a state object (likely a structure or class instance) and binds its slots to local variables.
The body is the loop.

Let's analyze the pattern:
`(with-preprocessor-state-slots (state) body...)`
This binds the slots of `state` to variables.
Usually, `with-slots` takes a list of slot names and the object.
Here, the syntax is `(with-preprocessor-state-slots (state) ...)`.
This implies the macro knows which slots to bind, or it binds all slots, or the syntax is slightly different from standard `with-slots`.
However, without the definition of the `state` structure, I cannot know the slot names.
But the prompt asks to "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-preprocessor-state-slots".
This implies I need to write the macro definition itself.
Since I don't have the structure definition, I will assume a generic structure name, say `preprocessor-state`, or I will write a macro that expects the structure name to be known or passed.
Actually, looking at the name `with-preprocessor-state-slots`, it strongly suggests it's specific to a structure named `preprocessor-state` (or similar).
I will assume the structure is named `preprocessor-state`.
The macro should expand to a `let` or `let*` binding the slots of `state` to variables.
Standard `with-slots` syntax is `(with-slots (slot-name ...) object body)`.
The provided syntax is `(with-preprocessor-state-slots (state) body)`.
This suggests the macro hardcodes the slot names.
Let's assume the structure `preprocessor-state` has slots like `input`, `output`, `tokens`, etc.
But I don't know them.
Maybe the user wants a generic expansion mechanism?
Or maybe the user wants me to define the macro such that it binds specific slots.
Let's look at the example body: `(loop for i = (first token-list) ...)`
The body uses `token-list`.
Is `token-list` a slot? Or a local variable?
If `token-list` is a slot, the macro should bind it.
If the macro is `(with-preprocessor-state-slots (state) ...)`, it likely binds all slots of `state` to variables of the same name.
This is a common pattern for convenience macros.
I will define the macro to bind slots `token-list` and potentially others.
Since I don't know the full structure, I will define a placeholder structure and the macro to bind its slots.
Or, I can write the macro to use `with-slots` internally, assuming a structure name.
Let's assume the structure is named `preprocessor-state`.
The macro will expand to `(with-slots (token-list ...) state body)`.
I need to guess the slots or just use `token-list` as an example.
Actually, the prompt asks to "Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by with-preprocessor-state-slots".
This is slightly ambiguous. It could mean "Write the macro definition".
I will write a macro that binds `token-list` from `state`.
I'll assume the structure is `preprocessor-state`.
The macro will use `with-slots` or `let` with `slot-value`.
`with-slots` is cleaner.
I will define the macro to bind `token-list` and maybe `current-line` or similar common preprocessor slots.
To be safe, I'll just bind `token-list` as implied by the usage.
Wait, `token-list` might be a variable passed in, not a slot.
But the macro name `with-preprocessor-state-slots` implies it's about slots.
I'll create a macro that binds `token-list` from the `state` object.
I'll also add a comment about the assumed structure.

Structure:
</think>
(defmacro with-preprocessor-state-slots ((state) &body body)
  `(with-accessors ((file-pathname pp-state-file-pathname)
                    (token-list pp-state-token-list)
                    (result-list pp-state-result-list)
                    (line-number pp-state-line-number)
                    (tokens-in-line pp-state-tokens-in-line)
                    (macro-alist pp-state-macro-alist)
                    (if-section-stack pp-state-if-section-stack)
                    (if-section-skip-reason pp-state-if-section-skip-reason)
                    (include-stack pp-state-include-stack))
       ,state
     ,@body))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(with-reader-syntax (describe) (is (string= (with-output-to-string (*standard-output*) (describe 'reader:enable-reader-syntax)) (er "(with-output-to-string (*standard-output*) ?reader:enable-reader-syntax )"))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-reader-syntax`.
The provided example shows a usage pattern:
`(with-reader-syntax (describe) (is (string= (with-output-to-string (*standard-output*) (describe 'reader:enable-reader-syntax)) (er "..."))))`

Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by with-reader-syntax".
And "Before code: (with-reader-syntax (describe) ...)"
"What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-reader-syntax"

This implies `with-reader-syntax` is a macro that takes a list of functions (like `describe`) and a body.
Inside the body, calls to those functions (like `(describe 'reader:enable-reader-syntax)`) should probably be wrapped in something, or the macro expands to enable reader syntax, call the function, and disable it? Or maybe it's about enabling reader syntax for the duration of the body?

Actually, looking at the context `reader:enable-reader-syntax`, this looks like it's related to `reader-syntax` package or similar.
Usually, `with-reader-syntax` might enable the reader syntax for a dynamic extent.
But the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by with-reader-syntax".
Maybe the macro expands to something that calls `reader:enable-reader-syntax`?
Or maybe it's a macro that wraps the body in a call to a function that enables reader syntax?

Let's look at the structure: `(with-reader-syntax (describe) body...)`
It might expand to:
`(let ((reader::*reader-syntax-enabled* t)) body...)`? No.
Maybe it expands to:
`(progn (reader:enable-reader-syntax) (unwind-protect (progn body...) (reader:disable-reader-syntax)))`?

Wait, the prompt says "Before code: ...". And "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-reader-syntax".
This is a bit ambiguous. It might be asking to write a macro `with-reader-syntax` that takes a list of functions and wraps calls to them?
Or maybe it's just a standard `with-reader-syntax` macro that enables reader syntax for the body.
Actually, `with-reader-syntax` is a known macro in some libraries (like `reader-syntax` or `cl-ppcre` or similar).
But let's assume a standard pattern:
`(with-reader-syntax () body...)` -> enables reader syntax.
Here it takes `(describe)`. Maybe it means "apply reader syntax transformation to calls of `describe`"?
Or maybe `(describe)` is just a list of functions to be called?
Wait, `describe` is a standard CL function. `reader:enable-reader-syntax` is likely a function that enables some reader macro.
Maybe `with-reader-syntax` is supposed to expand to:
`(let ((*reader-syntax-enabled* t)) ...)`?

Let's reconsider the prompt: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: (with-reader-syntax (describe) (is ...))"
This looks like a test case from a library. `is` and `er` are likely from a testing framework (like `fiveam` or `prove` or `stumpwm` tests?). `er` might be a quoted string or a macro for expected result.
Actually, `with-reader-syntax` might be a macro that temporarily enables reader syntax.
In the `reader-syntax` package by Zach Beane, there is `with-reader-syntax`.
It usually expands to:
`(let ((reader::*reader-syntax-enabled* t)) ,@body)`
But why `(describe)`? Maybe it's `(with-reader-syntax () ...)` and the user wrote `(describe)` by mistake? Or maybe it takes a list of packages or features?
Wait, `describe` is a function. Maybe the macro is supposed to intercept calls to `describe` and wrap them?
Or maybe `(describe)` is actually the body? No, the body is `(is ...)`.
Could it be that `with-reader-syntax` takes a list of functions to be called with reader syntax enabled?
Or maybe it's `(with-reader-syntax (describe) ...)` where `describe` is the function to be called, and the macro expands to `(progn (reader:enable-reader-syntax) (describe ...) (reader:disable-reader-syntax))`? But the body is `(is ...)`.

Let's look at the actual code inside: `(with-output-to-string (*standard-output*) (describe 'reader:enable-reader-syntax))`
This calls `describe` on the symbol `reader:enable-reader-syntax`.
If `with-reader-syntax` is supposed to enable reader syntax, it might just be:
`(macrolet ((with-reader-syntax ((&optional (fns nil)) &body body) ...))`? No.

Actually, this looks exactly like a macro definition
</think>
(defmacro with-reader-syntax (reader-macro-identifiers &body body)
  "This macro is only made for use by read-and-eval functionality,
and rather directed towards tests than users. So, do not export."
  (let ((identifiers (loop :for identifier :in reader-macro-identifiers
                           :collect `(quote ,identifier))))
    `(let ((*array-function*         'make-t-array-from-initial-contents)
           (*hash-table-function*    'alexandria:plist-hash-table)
           (*get-val-function*       'get-val)
           (*get-val-array-function* 'cl:aref)
           (*set-function*           'cl:remove-duplicates)
           (*alists-are-lists*       nil)
           (*plists-are-lists*       nil)
           (*readtable*             (%enable-reader-syntax *readtable* ,@identifiers)))
       ,@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:
(insert-char-class-tester (regex (schar *string* curr-pos)) (greedy-constant-length-closure (char-class-test)))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by insert-char-class-tester

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `insert-char-class-tester`.
The pattern to match is:
`(insert-char-class-tester (regex (schar *string* curr-pos)) (greedy-constant-length-closure (char-class-test)))`

Let's analyze the pattern:
1. `insert-char-class-tester` is the macro name.
2. The first argument is a list: `(regex (schar *string* curr-pos))`.
3. The second argument is a list: `(greedy-constant-length-closure (char-class-test))`.

Wait, the user says "Macro call that should be transformed by insert-char-class-tester".
It seems like `insert-char-class-tester` is meant to take these two arguments and transform them into something else. But what?
Usually, regex parsers in Lisp (like those in `cl-ppcre` or custom ones) use macros to build ASTs or code generators.
The pattern looks like it's extracting a character class test and wrapping it in a greedy constant length closure.
Perhaps `insert-char-class-tester` is supposed to generate code that tests if the character at `curr-pos` matches `char-class-test`, and if so, advances `curr-pos` and returns success, possibly within a loop for the greedy closure.

Let's think about typical regex macro expansions.
Often, these macros expand into code that manipulates a position variable, checks conditions, and returns offsets or booleans.
Without more context, I need to make reasonable assumptions or write a generic transformer that captures the structure.
Actually, the prompt says: "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: (insert-char-class-tester (regex (schar *string* curr-pos)) (greedy-constant-length-closure (char-class-test)))"
It might be that `insert-char-class-tester` is a macro that takes a regex node and a closure node, and inserts the tester into the closure.
Or maybe it's simpler: it's a macro that matches this exact structure and expands to some specific code.

Let's look at the structure:
`(insert-char-class-tester regex-node closure-node)`
where `regex-node` is `(regex (schar *string* curr-pos))`
and `closure-node` is `(greedy-constant-length-closure (char-class-test))`

Maybe the macro is supposed to generate a loop that checks the char class repeatedly?
"greedy-constant-length-closure" usually means `*` or `+` with a fixed width (like 1 for a single char class).
So it would expand to something like:
</think>
(defmacro insert-char-class-tester ((char-class chr-expr) &body body)
  "Utility macro to replace each occurence of '\(CHAR-CLASS-TEST)
within BODY with the correct test (corresponding to CHAR-CLASS)
against CHR-EXPR."
  (with-rebinding (char-class)
    (with-unique-names (test-function)
      (flet ((substitute-char-class-tester (new)
               (subst new '(char-class-test) body
                      :test #'equalp)))
        `(let ((,test-function (test-function ,char-class)))
           ,@(substitute-char-class-tester
              `(funcall ,test-function ,chr-expr)))))))


[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:
(action (:traverse node-let node new-subs) (loop :for (name . expr) :in (node-let-bindings node) :do (when (find name subs :key #'ast-substitution-from) (util:coalton-bug "Failure to apply ast substitution on variable ~A to node-let" name)) :do (when rename-bound-variables (push (make-ast-substitution :from name :to (make-node-variable :type (node-type expr) :value (gensym (symbol-name name)))) new-subs))) (make-node-let :type (node-type node) :bindings (loop :for (name . node) :in (node-let-bindings node) :collect (cons (if rename-bound-variables (node-variable-value (ast-substitution-to (find name new-subs :key #'ast-substitution-from))) name) (funcall *traverse* node new-subs))) :subexpr (funcall *traverse* (node-let-subexpr node) new-subs)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to create a Common Lisp macro named `action` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The pattern is:
`(action (:traverse node-let node new-subs) <body>)`
The body consists of:
1. A `loop` that iterates over `(node-let-bindings node)`, binding `(name . expr)`.
2. Inside the loop, there are two `:do` clauses:
   - One checks if `name` is found in `subs` (using `find` with `:key 'ast-substitution-from`). If found, it calls `util:coalton-bug`.
   - Another checks `rename-bound-variables`, and if true, pushes a new substitution to `new-subs`.
3. A `make-node-let` form that constructs a new node-let.
   - `:type` is `(node-type node)`.
   - `:bindings` is a `loop` collecting cons cells. The car is either a renamed variable or the original `name`. The cdr is `(funcall *traverse* node new-subs)`.
   - `:subexpr` is `(funcall *traverse* (node-let-subexpr node) new-subs)`.

Wait, looking at the structure, this looks like a specific transformation rule for an AST traversal system (likely Coalton or similar). The `action` macro seems to be a domain-specific macro for defining traversal actions.
However, the prompt asks to "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation." and gives "Before code" which is the macro call itself? Or is "Before code" the expansion?
Usually, these prompts ask to write a macro that expands into the "Before code" (which is the verbose implementation) when called with a shorter syntax, OR the "Before code" is the target expansion and I need to write the macro that produces it.
Let's re-read carefully: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code: ... What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by action".
This phrasing is slightly ambiguous. It likely means: "Write a macro `action` such that when called with specific arguments, it expands into the provided 'Before code'."
But the 'Before code' is a single expression containing `:traverse`, `node-let`, `node`, `new-subs` and a body.
Actually, looking at the pattern `(:traverse node-let node new-subs)`, this looks like the arguments to the macro.
The macro signature is likely `(action (spec ...) &body body)`.
The `spec` is `(:traverse node-let node new-subs)`.
The body is the rest of the code.
So the macro should capture the spec and the body, and perhaps just return the body? Or does it need to generate the body?
If the "Before code" is the *result* of the macro expansion, then the macro call would be something like `(action (:traverse node-let node new-subs) ...)`.
But the prompt says "Before code: (action ...)"? No, the prompt says "Before code: (action (:traverse node-let node new-subs) (loop ...))".
This implies the "Before code" IS the macro call. And the user wants the macro definition that makes this call valid or transforms it into something else?
Or is the "Before code" the verbose code, and the user wants a macro that *shortens* it?
"What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by action" suggests the input to the macro is the short form, and the output is the long form?
Or is the input the long form?
Let's look at similar patterns in Lisp macro exercises. Usually, "Before code" is the verbose code we want to replace with a macro.
So, the verbose code is:
`(loop :for ... :do ... :do ... (make-node-let ...))`
And the macro call is `(action (:traverse node-let node new-subs) ...)`.
But the prompt includes the word `action` in the "Before code".
"Before code: (action (:traverse node-let node new-subs) (loop ...))"
This is confusing. If `action` is the macro, why is it in the "Before code"?
Maybe the "Before code" is the *expansion*? No, usually "Before" is the source code before refactoring.
If the source code is `(action ...)`, then the macro `action` needs to be defined.
What does `action` do? It seems to define a traversal action.
Perhaps the macro `action` is supposed to wrap the body in a `lambda` or generate a function?
</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:
(do-subclasses (ctype content) (publish ctype))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `do-subclasses`.
The syntax provided is: `(do-subclasses (ctype content) (publish ctype))`.
This looks like a loop macro that iterates over subclasses of a given class.
The pattern seems to be: `(do-subclasses (loop-vars...) body-forms...)`.
Wait, looking at the example: `(do-subclasses (ctype content) (publish ctype))`.
Usually, `do-subclasses` takes a class name and iterates over its subclasses.
Maybe the syntax is `(do-subclasses (var class-name) body...)`?
Or maybe `(do-subclasses (var) class-name body...)`?
The example `(ctype content)` suggests `ctype` is the loop variable, and `content` is the class to iterate over.
So the pattern is: `(do-subclasses (loop-var class-name) &body body)`.
Let's assume `content` is a variable holding a class object or symbol, and `ctype` will be bound to each subclass.
We need to generate code that iterates over the subclasses of `content`.
In Common Lisp, we can use `closer-mop` or standard `mop` to get subclasses, but standard CL doesn't have a direct `subclasses` function without MOP. However, for a macro exercise, we can assume a function like `subclasses` exists, or use `find-class` and iterate.
Actually, a common pattern is to use `dolist` over the subclasses.
Let's write a macro that expands to:
`(let ((class (eval class-name))) ;; or just use class-name directly
   (dolist (,loop-var (subclasses ,class-name))
     ,@body))`
Wait, `subclasses` isn't standard CL. Maybe the user expects a specific expansion or just a generic loop structure.
Let's stick to a standard `dolist` expansion, assuming a `subclasses` function or similar, or maybe just `(loop for ,loop-var being the subclasses of ,class-name do ...)`.
Actually, `loop` has `being the subclasses of`.
`(loop for ,loop-var being the subclasses of ,class-name do ,@body)`
This is valid CL if we use `loop`.
But let's keep it simple: `(dolist (,loop-var (subclasses ,class-name)) ,@body)`
Or maybe the macro is meant to work with a specific library? The prompt just says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation."
I will assume the expansion uses `dolist` and a hypothetical `subclasses` function, or I'll define it using `closer-mop` if needed, but usually macro exercises just want the syntactic transformation.
Let's look at the pattern: `(do-subclasses (ctype content) (publish ctype))`
Matches: `(do-subclasses (var class) &body body)`
Expansion: `(dolist (,var (subclasses ,class)) ,@body)`
Wait, `subclasses` might return a list. If `content` is a symbol, we might need to find the class. But I'll keep it simple.
Actually, a safer expansion uses `loop`:
`(loop for ,var being the subclasses of ,class do ,@body)`
But `loop` with `being the subclasses of` is standard in CL? No, `loop` doesn't have `being the subclasses of` in standard CL. It's a CLOS extension or specific to some implementations.
I'll stick to `dolist` and assume `subclasses` is available, or just write the macro to generate a `dolist` over `(subclasses ,class)`.
Alternatively, maybe it's just a syntactic sugar for:
`(let ((,var nil)) (dolist (,var (subclasses ,class)) ,@body))` -> `dolist` already binds the var.
Let's just use `dolist`.

Structure:
</think>
(defmacro do-subclasses ((var class) &body body)
  "Iterate over the subclasses of CLASS performing BODY with VAR
lexically bound to the current subclass."
  (alexandria:with-gensyms (klasses)
    `(let ((,klasses (all-subclasses (find-class ',class))))
       (loop for ,var in ,klasses do ,@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:
(binary-reader ((days int 4)) (funcall f days))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by binary-reader

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `binary-reader` that expands a call like `(binary-reader ((days int 4)) (funcall f days))` into some code.
I need to determine what the expansion should be.
The pattern looks like it's defining a reader for a binary format, perhaps reading an integer of 4 bytes and binding it to `days`, then executing the body `(funcall f days)`.
Common patterns for this in Lisp might involve generating code that reads from a stream or buffer.
Since the prompt doesn't specify the exact expansion target (e.g., reading from `*standard-input*`, a specific buffer, or using a library like `flexi-streams` or `binary-reader` libraries), I will assume a generic expansion that demonstrates the macro structure.
Usually, a macro like this would generate a `let` binding where the value is read from some source.
Let's assume the expansion should look like:
`(let ((days (read-int 4))) (funcall f days))`
Or perhaps it's part of a larger library where `binary-reader` is a DSL.
However, without a specific target library, I should create a macro that:
1. Parses the spec `((days int 4))`.
2. Generates code to "read" the value. Since I don't have a real `read-int` function defined, I'll use a placeholder or a generic `read-binary` function call in the expansion, or just show the structure.
3. Actually, looking at the pattern `((days int 4))`, it looks like a list of bindings. Each binding has a variable name, a type, and a size/length.
4. The macro should handle multiple bindings potentially, though the example only shows one.
5. The expansion should probably wrap the body in a `let` with these bindings.

Let's refine the expansion logic:
- Input: `((days int 4))` and body `(funcall f days)`.
- The spec is a list of lists. Each inner list is `(var-name type size)`.
- The macro should iterate over the spec.
- For each `(var-name type size)`, generate a binding `(var-name (read-binary type size))`.
- Wrap the body in a `let`.

Wait, the prompt asks to "handle this code pattern". It implies I need to write the macro that *processes* this pattern.
I will assume a generic `read-binary` function exists or is the intended target of the expansion.
The macro structure:
`(defmacro binary-reader (specs &body body) ...)`
- `specs` is `((days int 4))`.
- `body` is `(funcall f days)`.
- Expand to: `(let ((days (read-binary 'int 4))) (funcall f days))`

I should also consider if `specs` can be a single list or a list of lists. The example shows `((days int 4))`, which is a list containing one list. So `specs` is a list of bindings.
I need to handle the quasiquote/unquote carefully.
I need to avoid variable capture, though `let` bindings are local, so standard `let` is safe if I generate the bindings correctly.

Let's write the macro step by step.
1. Check if `specs` is a list.
2. Map over `specs` to generate binding clauses.
3. Construct the `let` form.

One detail: `int` and `4` might be symbols or numbers. The macro should pass them through.
The expansion might look like:
`(let ,(mapcar (lambda (spec) (list (first spec) `(read-binary ,(second spec) ,(third spec)))) specs) ,@body)`

This seems reasonable. I will provide this macro. I'll add a comment that `read-binary` is a placeholder for the actual reading logic.

Structure of reasoning:
1. Pattern: `(binary-reader ((var type size) ...) body...)`.
2. Constructs: `let`, `mapcar`, quasiquote.
3. Quasiquote: Use `` `let ((,(first spec) ,(second spec) ,(third spec))) `` style.
4. Capture: `let` introduces new scope, so `days` is safe.
5. Defmacro form.

I will write the macro now.
I'll assume the expansion uses a function `read-binary-value`.
The macro will be:
</think>
(defmacro binary-reader (fields &body value)
  "A slightly convoluted macro for defining interpreter functions. It
allows two forms. The first is to pass a single type identifier, in
which case a value of this type will be read and returned directly.
The second is to pass a list of lists containing names and types, and
then a body. In this case the names will be bound to values read from
the socket and interpreted as the given types, and then the body will
be run in the resulting environment. If the last field is of type
bytes, string, or uint2s, all remaining data will be read and
interpreted as an array of the given type."
  (let ((stream-name (gensym))
        (size-name (gensym))
        (length-used 0))
    (flet ((read-type (type &optional modifier)
             (ecase type
               (bytes `(read-bytes ,stream-name (- ,size-name ,length-used)))
               (string `(enc-read-string ,stream-name
                                         :byte-length (- ,size-name ,length-used)))
               (uint2s `(let* ((size (/ (- ,size-name ,length-used) 2))
                               (result
                                 (make-array size
                                             :element-type '(unsigned-byte 16)
                                             :initial-element 0)))
                          (dotimes (i size)
                            (setf (elt result i) (read-uint2 ,stream-name)))
                          result))
               (int (assert (integerp modifier))
                (incf length-used modifier)
                `(,(integer-reader-name modifier t) ,stream-name))
               (uint (assert (integerp modifier))
                (incf length-used modifier)
                `(,(integer-reader-name modifier nil) ,stream-name)))))
      `(lambda (,stream-name ,size-name)
         (declare (type stream ,stream-name)
                  (type integer ,size-name)
                  (ignorable ,size-name))
         ,(if (consp fields)
              (progn
                `(let ,(loop :for field :in fields
                            :collect `(,(first field)
                                       ,(apply #'read-type (cdr field))))
                  ,@value))
              (read-type fields (car value)))))))


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

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by *>

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro `*>` that eliminates the repetitive pattern `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`.
Wait, the pattern itself is `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`. The user says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`".
This implies the user wants a macro that expands `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)` into something else, or perhaps they want a macro that represents this pattern so they don't have to type it repeatedly.
Wait, `*>` is likely a macro that takes arguments and expands them into some specific form. But the prompt says: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`". This is slightly ambiguous. It could mean:
1. Define a macro `*>` that expands to some specific code, and the user wants to use it as `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`.
2. Or maybe `*>` is a macro that combines two actions: opening a table and skipping space.
3. Or perhaps the user wants a macro that expands `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)` into a single call or something.
Actually, looking at the pattern `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`, it looks like a macro call with two arguments. Maybe `*>` is supposed to be a macro that takes two arguments and expands to `(and +table-open+ +skip-space+)` or `(progn +table-open+ +skip-space+)`? Or maybe it's a reader macro? No, "defmacro".

Let's re-read carefully: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`"
Wait, maybe the user means they have a repetitive pattern in their code like:
`(perform-action +table-open+ +skip-space+)`
and they want a macro `*>` that expands to that? Or maybe `*>` is the macro they want to define, and it should expand `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)` into something else.
Actually, in many Lisp codebases (like parsers or state machines), `*>` might be a macro that sequences actions. Or maybe it's just a shorthand for `(progn +table-open+ +skip-space+)`.
But the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`". This could mean the pattern itself is the macro call they want to define. So they want `(defmacro *> (a b) ...)`?
Wait, maybe the pattern is actually something like `(sequence +table-open+ +skip-space+)` and they want to rename it to `*>`? Or maybe `*>` is already defined elsewhere and they want a macro that expands to `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`? No, "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`" usually means "I keep typing `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`, make a macro for it." But they already named it `*>`.
Perhaps they want a macro `*>` that takes two arguments and expands to `(progn ,a ,b)` or `(and ,a ,b)`? Or maybe it's a macro that expands to `(funcall +table-open+) (funcall +skip-space+)`?
Given the lack of context, I will assume `*>` is a macro that takes two forms and sequences them, perhaps returning the result of the second, or just a shorthand for `(progn a b)`. Or maybe it's a macro that expands to `(and +table-open+ +skip-space+)` if they are predicates.
Wait, `+table-open+` and `+skip-space+` look like constants or functions. In Lisp, `+`-surrounded names are often constants or parameters.
Maybe the user wants a macro `*>` that expands `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)` into `(progn +table-open+ +skip-space+)`?
Or perhaps the user wants a macro that expands to exactly `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)` so they can call it with a shorter name? No.

Let's think about typical Lisp macro patterns. `*>` might be a macro that takes a list of actions and sequences them. But the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(*> +table-open+ +skip-space+)`". This implies the pattern itself is what they want to replace. Maybe they want a macro `table-open-skip-space`? Or maybe `*>` is the macro they want to define, and it should expand to something like `(progn +table-open+ +skip-space+)`.
Actually,
</think>
(defmacro *> (parser &rest parsers)
  "Combination of parsers yielding the result of the rightmost one."
  (let ((offset (gensym "*>-OFFSET")))
    `(lambda (,offset)
       ,(reduce (lambda (i p)
                  (let ((res  (gensym "*>-RES"))
                        (next (gensym "*>-NEXT")))
                    `(multiple-value-bind (,res ,next) ,i
                       (if (ok? ,res)
                           (funcall ,p ,next)
                           (fail ,next)))))
                parsers
                :initial-value `(funcall ,parser ,offset)))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(skip "Not ready yet" (false T) (is = 5 6))

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

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

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Goal:** Create a Common Lisp macro named `skip`.
    *   **Input Pattern:** `(skip "reason" form1 form2 ...)`
    *   **Transformation Goal:** The user provided an example `(skip "Not ready yet" (false T) (is = 5 6))`. The intent of a macro named `skip` is usually to skip the execution of subsequent forms, perhaps printing a message or just returning `nil` (or a specific indicator), effectively commenting out code but keeping it in the source.
    *   **Context:** The user asks for an "expert Common Lisp macro programmer" persona.

2.  **Determine the Semantics (Step 1 & 2):**
    *   *What does `skip` do?* It takes a string (the reason) and a body of forms. It should *not* evaluate the body. It should probably signal the reason why it's skipping.
    *   *Return value:* In Lisp, skipping usually implies returning `nil` or `values` (no values). However, to make it useful for testing frameworks (suggested by the example forms `(false T)` and `(is = 5 6)` which look like assertion macros), it might be better to return a specific condition or just `nil`. Let's assume standard behavior: print the message and return `nil`.

3.  **Handle Quasiquote/Unquote (Step 3):**
    *   We need to construct a list that represents the code to be executed at runtime.
    *   The structure is: `(progn (format t "~a~%" reason) nil)`.
    *   Using backquote (quasiquote) is the standard way to build code templates.
    *   Template: `` `(progn (format t "~a~%" ,reason) nil) ``.

4.  **Variable Capture Concerns (Step 4):**
    *   *Lexical Closures:* Since we are just wrapping the body in a `progn` and not introducing new bindings (like `let` or `lambda`), variable capture is less of a risk *unless* we introduce a variable name that clashes with the user's code.
    *   *The `reason` variable:* We need a variable to hold the string "Not ready yet".
    *   *The `body` variable:* We need to collect the rest of the forms.
    *   *Risk:* If we define a `let` binding for `reason` using a generic name like `reason`, and the user's code (inside the skipped part) also uses a variable named `reason`, and if the user's code was actually executed (which it isn't here, but good practice dictates safety), it might conflict. However, since the body is *not* evaluated, the scope of the macro expansion doesn't really touch the body's scope in a way that causes capture *unless* the macro expansion wraps the body in a `let`.
    *   *Refinement:* To be truly safe and "expert", we should treat the `reason` string as a literal or use a `gensym` if we were evaluating the reason dynamically. In this specific signature `(skip "string" body)`, the string is usually a literal. If the user passes `(skip (some-function) body)`, the function needs to be evaluated.
    *   *Decision:* Let's assume the first argument is evaluated to get the string, and the rest are forms.
    *   *Gensym usage:* It is best practice to use `gensym` for any temporary variable introduced by the macro to avoid shadowing user variables.

5.  **Drafting the Macro Structure (Step 5):**
    *   *Signature:* `(defmacro skip (reason &body body))`
    *   *Expansion:*
        *   We need to evaluate `reason` once.
        *   We need to ignore `body`.
        *   We need to return `nil`.
    *   *Draft 1 (Simple):*
        ```lisp
        (defmacro skip (reason &body body)
          `(progn
             (format t "Skipping: ~a~%" ,reason)
             nil))
        ```
    *   *Critique of Draft 1:* If `reason` is a complex expression like `(format nil "Error ~d" code)`, it gets evaluated. The `body` is completely discarded. This looks correct.

    *   *Draft 2 (More robust/Expert):*
        What if the user wants to use `skip` inside a `let`?
        ```lisp
        (let ((x 10
</think>
(defmacro skip (desc &body tests)
  `(with-forced-status (:skipped ,@(if (listp desc) desc (list desc)))
     ,@tests))


[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:
(orf (formatted-message-text self) (format-message self))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `orf`.
Looking at the example usage: `(orf (formatted-message-text self) (format-message self))`.
This looks like a "or function" or "or function call" macro.
It takes two arguments. If the first argument evaluates to non-nil, it returns that. Otherwise, it evaluates the second argument.
Wait, `or` is a special operator.
If `orf` is meant to be like `or` but perhaps with specific semantics or just a custom name, I need to infer the intent.
Usually, `orf` might stand for "or function" or something similar in a specific codebase.
However, without specific documentation, I should assume it behaves like `or` but maybe handles function calls specifically, or it's just a synonym.
Let's look at the arguments: `(formatted-message-text self)` and `(format-message self)`.
Both look like function calls.
If it's just `or`, why make a macro?
Maybe it's "or first".
Let's assume it's a macro that expands to `(or form1 form2)`.
But wait, `or` is a special operator, so `(defmacro orf (x y) (list 'or x y))` works.
Is there any specific behavior?
Maybe it's "or function" where it checks if the result of the first is a function? No, that's unlikely.
Maybe it's "or fallback".
Let's stick to the simplest interpretation: a macro that implements `or` logic for two forms.
Wait, `or` handles any number of arguments. `orf` takes two.
Let's write a macro that expands to `(or form1 form2)`.

Wait, could `orf` stand for "or function reference"?
Or maybe it's a typo for `or`?
Let's assume the user wants a macro that mimics `or` but specifically for two arguments, or perhaps it's a specific pattern in their codebase.
I will implement it as `(or form1 form2)`.

Wait, let's think about variable capture.
If I just quote `or`, it's safe.
`(defmacro orf (form1 form2) '(or ,form1 ,form2))`
This is safe because `or` is a special operator and doesn't bind variables that could capture `form1` or `form2` in a way that causes issues, and `form1`/`form2` are just spliced in.

Let's double check if there's a standard meaning for `orf`.
In some contexts, `orf` might be "or function".
If the first form is a function call that returns nil, call the second.
This is exactly `or`.

Let's consider if `orf` implies "or function" where the arguments are function calls.
Maybe it's meant to be `(or (funcall form1) (funcall form2))`?
No, the example shows `(formatted-message-text self)`. This is already a function call form.
So `orf` likely just wraps `or`.

Let's write the macro.
Structure:
`(defmacro orf (form1 form2) ...)`
Expansion: `(or form1 form2)`

Is there any risk?
If `form1` has side effects, `or` handles it correctly (evaluates form1, if non-nil, doesn't evaluate form2).
This matches the likely intent of a fallback mechanism.

Let's refine the reasoning.
Pattern: `(orf form1 form2)`
Constructs: `or` special operator.
Quasiquote: `(list 'or form1 form2)` or `(or ,form1 ,form2)`.
Capture: None, `or` is safe.

One more thought: Could `orf` be "or function" meaning if the first is nil, call the second as a function?
No, the second argument in the example is `(format-message self)`, which is already a call.
So it's just a fallback.

I will provide the macro that expands to `or`.
</think>
(defmacro orf (location form &environment env)
  (multiple-value-bind (vars values new setter getter)
      (get-setf-expansion location env)
    (when (cdr new)
      (error "Can't work with setf-expansion for ~s - ~d values from setter ~s"
             location (length new) new))
    (let ((current (car new)))
      `(let* (,@(mapcar 'list vars values)
              (,current ,getter))
         (or ,current
             (progn (setf ,current ,form)
               ,setter))))))


[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-test partially-correct (true "Happy") (is = (get-universal-time) 2962566000))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-test` that handles a specific pattern.
The pattern is: `(define-test test-name (condition message) (assertion))`
Wait, looking at the example:
`(define-test partially-correct (true "Happy") (is = (get-universal-time) 2962566000))`

Let's break down the example:
- `define-test` is the macro name.
- `partially-correct` is the test name.
- `(true "Happy")` seems to be a condition or a setup, or maybe a label? Actually, in many testing frameworks, `true` might be a function that returns true, or it's a specific test condition. But let's look at the structure:
  - First arg: `partially-correct` (symbol, test name)
  - Second arg: `(true "Happy")` (a form, possibly a condition or a setup)
  - Third arg: `(is = (get-universal-time) 2962566000)` (the actual test assertion)

Wait, this looks like it might be from a specific testing framework, perhaps `prove` or `stumpwm` or something else? Or maybe it's a custom pattern.
The prompt says: "Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern: `(define-test partially-correct (true "Happy") (is = (get-universal-time) 2962566000))`"
And "Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-test"

I need to define a macro `define-test` that takes these arguments and expands them into a function definition or a test registration.
Common pattern for test macros:
</think>
(defmacro define-test (name &body arguments-and-body)
  (destructuring-bind (nparent name) (if (listp name) name (list NIL name))
    (form-fiddle:with-body-options (body options parent home (test-class 'test) (compile-at :compile-time) defun) arguments-and-body
      (let ((body (remove 'define-test body :key (lambda (a) (when (listp a) (car a))) :test #'eql))
            (defs (remove 'define-test body :key (lambda (a) (when (listp a) (car a))) :test-not #'eql))
            (home-form (or home `(find-package ,(package-name *package*)))))
        (when (and parent nparent)
          (error "Cannot specify parent through name and through a keyword argument at the same time!"))
        `(let ((*package* (find-package ,(package-name *package*)))) ; Make sure package stays consistent throughout initialisation.
           (setf (find-test ',name ,home-form)
                 (ensure-test ',test-class
                              :name ',name
                              :home ,home-form
                              :tests (list ,@(loop for form in body
                                                   collect (ecase compile-at
                                                             (:compile-time `(lambda () ,form))
                                                             (:execute `(lambda () (call-compile ',form))))))
                              :parent ',(or parent nparent)
                              ,@(loop for option in options
                                      collect `',option)))
           ,@(loop for (def subname . body) in defs
                   collect `(,def (,name ,subname)
                              :home ,home
                              ,@body))
           ,@(when defun
               `((defun ,(if (stringp name) (read-symbol name) name) (&rest test-args)
                   (apply #'test (find-test ',name ,home-form) test-args))))
           ',name)))))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defclause counting (var) "Counts the number of iterations, starting from 0." (make-simple-iteration :var var :init 0 :step `(1+ ,var)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `defclause` that expands a specific pattern.
The input pattern is:
`(defclause counting (var) "Counts the number of iterations, starting from 0." (make-simple-iteration :var var :init 0 :step `(1+ ,var)))`

Let's analyze the structure:
1. Name: `counting`
2. Parameters: `(var)`
3. Documentation: `"Counts the number of iterations, starting from 0."`
4. Body: `(make-simple-iteration :var var :init 0 :step '(1+ ,var))` (Note: the user wrote backquote in the example, but usually macros expand to code. I should treat the body as a form that likely generates a clause object or function).

Wait, looking at the example:
`(defclause counting (var) "..." (make-simple-iteration ...))`

This looks like a definition form. It probably defines a function or a special object named `counting`.
Common patterns for `defclause` in Lisp systems (like CLOS or specific DSLs) often define a generic function or a specialized structure.
However, without a specific target expansion provided in the prompt, I must infer the standard expansion or ask for clarification.
Actually, the prompt asks: "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation... What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defclause".
This implies I need to write the macro that accepts this syntax and expands it into something reasonable.
Usually, `defclause` might define a function that takes the parameters and returns the result of the body.
Or it might define a `defun` with documentation.

Let's assume the standard expansion for a macro defining a named entity with parameters, docstring, and a body:
It likely expands to a `defun` or `defparameter` or similar.
Given `make-simple-iteration` returns something, maybe `counting` is a function that creates an iteration.

Let's assume the expansion is:
`(defun counting (var) "Counts..." (make-simple-iteration :var var :init 0 :step '(1+ var)))`
Wait, the input has backquote: `(1+ ,var)`. If `defclause` is a macro, the body is quoted at macro-expansion time.
If the user writes `(1+ ,var)` inside the macro call, and `var` is a parameter of `defclause`, then `var` in the body refers to the parameter.
If the expansion is a `defun`, the body code `(make-simple-iteration ...)` will be evaluated when `counting` is called.
If the body contains backquote `(1+ ,var)`, and `var` is the argument to `counting`, the backquote should be preserved so it evaluates at runtime.

However, often `defclause` macros in iterative systems define a *clause* object, not a function.
But without specific context on what `defclause` produces (e.g., a CLOS class, a function, a macro), the safest bet is a `defun`-like expansion or a generic definition form.
Let's look at the structure again.
`(defclause name (args) doc body)`

If I write a macro that expands to `defun`:
</think>
(defmacro defclause (name arglist &body body)
  "Same as cl:defmacro, but additionally records <name> in *clauses* as a known clause macro."
  `(progn
     (defmacro ,name ,arglist ,@body)
     (pushnew ',name *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]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(defvar-compile-time *local?* nil "This must be globally NIL.")

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `defvar-compile-time` that behaves like `defvar` but ensures the variable is bound to `nil` at compile time.
Looking at the example: `(defvar-compile-time *local?* nil "This must be globally NIL.")`

Wait, `defvar` in Common Lisp already has specific semantics. If the variable is already bound, `defvar` doesn't rebind it. If it's unbound, it binds it to the provided initial value.
However, the prompt says "This must be globally NIL." and asks for a macro that addresses "Macro call that should be transformed by defvar-compile-time".

Let's analyze `defvar-compile-time`.
Usually, `defvar` is a macro that expands into something involving `defconstant` or `symbol-value` checks, or it's a special form. In CL, `defvar` is a special operator, but can be implemented as a macro.
If we want to enforce that it is *always* nil at compile time, maybe we want to ensure that during macroexpansion, the variable is set to nil, or perhaps we want to generate code that checks this, or maybe it's just a wrapper around `defvar` that expands to `defvar` but with some compile-time side effects?

Actually, `defvar` is often implemented as:
`(defvar name initial-value doc-string)`
If `name` is bound, do nothing. Else, `(setf (symbol-value name) initial-value)`.

If the requirement is "This must be globally NIL", maybe the macro should expand to a `defvar` that forces the value to be `nil` regardless of the second argument? Or maybe the second argument is ignored and forced to `nil`?
Or perhaps it's a macro that expands to `(defvar name nil doc-string)` and also performs a compile-time check?

Let's look at the pattern: `(defvar-compile-time *local?* nil "This must be globally NIL.")`
The user provides `nil` as the initial value.
Maybe the macro is simply:
</think>
(defmacro defvar-compile-time (name &optional initial-value documentation)
  `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
     (defvar ,name ,initial-value ,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]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-shell-component sass-strict :input-type "sass" :output-type "css" :shell-command "sass")

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-shell-component

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-shell-component`.
The macro takes four arguments:
1. A name (symbol), e.g., `sass-strict`.
2. `:input-type` followed by a string, e.g., `"sass"`.
3. `:output-type` followed by a string, e.g., `"css"`.
4. `:shell-command` followed by a string, e.g., `"sass"`.

The goal is to transform this macro call into some Lisp code. Since the user didn't specify the exact expansion, I need to infer a reasonable expansion for a "shell component" definition. Typically, such a macro would define a function or a class, or register a component in a system. Given the arguments, it likely defines a function that takes input, runs the shell command, and produces output.

Let's assume a standard pattern for such macros: defining a function that wraps the shell command.
The function name would be the first argument (`sass-strict`).
It might take an input file/path and an output file/path.
Inside, it constructs the shell command string.

However, without specific requirements on the expansion, I should provide a generic expansion that demonstrates the macro mechanics. A common pattern is to define a function or a variable. Let's define a function that prints the configuration or simulates the command.

Actually, looking at the pattern, it looks like a configuration macro.
Let's assume it defines a function named after the first argument.
The function signature might be `(defun name (input output) ...)`.
Inside, we can use `uiop:run-program` or similar, but since I don't know the dependencies, I'll stick to standard Common Lisp or a generic placeholder.

Let's refine the expansion.
Input: `(define-shell-component name :input-type in-type :output-type out-type :shell-command cmd)`
Expansion:
</think>
(defmacro define-shell-component (name &key input-type output-type shell-command)
  "Define an ASDF component that's compiled by running a shell command."
  `(define-component ,name
     :input-type ,input-type
     :output-type ,output-type
     :compile-function (lambda (input-pathname output-pathname)
                         (inferior-shell:run (list ,@(ensure-list shell-command)
                                                    input-pathname
                                                    output-pathname)
                                             :show t))))