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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(define-simple-definition-resolver compiler-macro compiler-macro-function)

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-simple-definition-resolver

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

1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Goal:** Create a Common Lisp macro named `define-simple-definition-resolver`.
    *   **Input Pattern:** `(define-simple-definition-resolver compiler-macro compiler-macro-function)`
    *   **Context:** The user wants to "transform code like this." This usually implies generating boilerplate code for defining a specific type of resolver (likely for a macro system or a compiler infrastructure) based on the provided names.
    *   **Implicit Requirements:** Since the specific output isn't defined in the prompt, I need to infer a standard pattern for "simple definition resolvers" in Lisp systems (like ASDF, Quicklisp, or generic macro systems). Usually, this involves defining a function or a generic method that takes a name and returns a definition, or registering a macro. However, looking at the arguments `compiler-macro` and `compiler-macro-function`, it suggests a relationship where `compiler-macro` is the name of the macro being defined, and `compiler-macro-function` is the function used to implement it.

    *   *Self-Correction/Refinement:* The prompt asks to "transform code like this." It doesn't explicitly state the *target* code. However, the name `define-simple-definition-resolver` suggests it's creating a mechanism to resolve definitions.
    *   *Hypothesis:* A common pattern in advanced Lisp systems (like defining a custom `defmacro` or handling macro expansion) involves creating a function that looks up a macro definition.
    *   *Alternative Hypothesis (Simpler):* It might just be a wrapper around `defmacro` or `defun` that sets up metadata.
    *   *Most likely interpretation for a "resolver":* It likely defines a function that takes an argument (the macro name) and returns the macro function, or it defines the macro itself.

    *   *Let's assume a standard pattern for such a macro:*
        The macro likely defines a function (or generic method) named `compiler-macro-function` which acts as the body/implementation for the macro named `compiler-macro`. Or, it defines a macro `compiler-macro` that expands using `compiler-macro-function`.

    *   *Let's look at the arguments again:* `(define-simple-definition-resolver compiler-macro compiler-macro-function)`
        *   `compiler-macro`: Symbol (name of the macro).
        *   `compiler-macro-function`: Symbol (name of the function implementing the macro).

    *   *Proposed Transformation:*
        The macro should probably define the `compiler-macro` using `defmacro`, where the body of the macro calls the `compiler-macro-function`. Or, it might be defining a resolver function that *returns* the compiler macro function.

    *   *Let's try a generic, robust interpretation:* The macro defines a macro named `compiler-macro`. The expansion of this macro calls the function `compiler-macro-function`.
        *   Wait, the name is `define-simple-definition-resolver`. This sounds like it's defining a *resolver*, not the macro itself.
        *   A "resolver" usually takes a key and returns a value.
        *   Maybe it defines a function `compiler-macro-function` that acts as the resolver for `compiler-macro`?

    *   *Let's stick to the most logical structural transformation:*
        The user provides a name for a macro and a name for a function. The macro likely sets up the relationship between them.
        Let's assume the goal is to define a macro `compiler-macro` that, when expanded, calls `compiler-macro-function`.
        *   Actually, usually `defmacro` takes a lambda list and a body. If `compiler-macro-function` is just a function name, the macro expansion would be `(compiler-macro-function &rest args)`.

    *   *Refined Plan:*
        1.  Match the list structure: `(define-simple-definition-resolver macro-name func-name)`.
        2.  Generate a `defmacro` form.
        3.  The `defmacro` should accept arguments (usually `&rest args` or similar) and expand to a call to `func-name`.

    *   *Alternative interpretation (The "Resolver" aspect):*
        Maybe it's defining a function `compiler-macro-function` that *is* the resolver.
        Let's look at the variable names in the prompt: `compiler-macro` and `compiler-macro-function`.
        If I write `(define-simple-definition-resolver my-macro my-macro-fn)`, I probably want `my-macro` to be defined.

    *   *Decision:* I will implement a macro
</think>
(defmacro define-simple-definition-resolver (class lookup-function &body body)
  (let ((package (gensym "PACKAGE")))
    `(define-definition-resolver ,class (,class ,package)
       (when (ignore-errors ,(if body
                                 `(let ((,(first lookup-function) ,class))
                                    ,@body)
                                 `(,lookup-function ,class)))
         (list (make-instance ',class :designator ,class :package ,package))))))


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

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(define SEEK_CUR 1)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by define

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

1.  **Analyze User Input:**
   - **Pattern to eliminate:** `(define SEEK_CUR 1)`
   - **Goal:** Define a macro `define` that transforms this pattern into something else. Wait, the user says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define SEEK_CUR 1)". In Common Lisp, `defconstant` or `defparameter` or `defvar` is typically used for defining constants/variables. The pattern `(define NAME VALUE)` looks like Scheme's `define`. In CL, we'd want to translate `(define NAME VALUE)` to `(defconstant NAME VALUE)` or `(defparameter NAME VALUE)`. Given `SEEK_CUR 1`, it's clearly a constant. So `(define NAME VALUE)` should expand to `(defconstant NAME VALUE)`.
   - **Macro call:** The user says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by define". This implies they want a macro named `define` that takes two arguments (name and value) and expands to a CL definition form.
   - **Wait, let's think carefully:** In CL, `defconstant` is standard. But maybe they want a macro that just wraps `defconstant` or `defparameter`. The pattern `(define SEEK_CUR 1)` suggests a simple two-argument macro.
   - Let's assume the target expansion is `(defconstant SEEK_CUR 1)`. Or maybe `(progn (defconstant SEEK_CUR 1))`? Usually, `(defconstant name value)` is fine.
   - Could it be that they want to support multiple definitions? Like `(define (a 1) (b 2))`? The prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define SEEK_CUR 1)". It's singular. I'll stick to a simple two-argument macro.
   - Actually, in many Lisp contexts, `define` is used as a shorthand for `defconstant` or `defparameter`. I'll make it expand to `defconstant` since `SEEK_CUR` is a standard constant.
   - Let's consider variable capture: The macro takes a symbol (name) and a form (value). No looping, no gensyms needed. Just a straightforward expansion.
   - Quasiquote/unquote: Simple backquote or just cons/list. `(list 'defconstant name value)` or ``(defconstant ,name ,value)``.
   - Structure: `(defmacro define (name value) ...)`
   - Wait, is there a specific CL idiom they're referencing? Sometimes `define` is used in CL libraries to mimic Scheme. I'll just implement a straightforward macro.
   - Let's double check the exact wording: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define SEEK_CUR 1)". This is slightly ambiguous. It might mean they are writing `(define SEEK_CUR 1)` repeatedly and want a macro that handles it, or they want the macro `define` itself to be defined. The prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by define". This implies they want the `defmacro` definition for `define`.
   - I will define `(defmacro define (name value) `(defconstant ,name ,value))`.
   - But wait, `defconstant` might warn if redefined. `defparameter` or `defvar` might be better, but `SEEK_CUR` is a constant. I'll stick with `defconstant`. Alternatively, I could make it expand to `(defparameter ,name ,value)` or just `(setf (symbol-value ',name) ,value)` but that's not standard. I'll use `defconstant`.
   - Actually, many CL programmers use `define-constant` or just `defconstant`. I'll stick to `defconstant`.
   - Let's think about potential pitfalls: `define` might be used for functions too in Scheme, but the example is a constant. I'll assume it's for constants/variables.
   - I'll add a docstring and maybe handle the case where they want it to work like `defparameter` for safety, but `defconstant` is fine.
   - Wait, the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: (define SEEK_CUR 1)". Maybe they are coming from a language where `define` is used, and they want a CL macro to mimic it. Or maybe they want to define multiple constants at once? The example is singular.
   - I'll keep it simple: `(defmacro define (name value) \`(defconstant ,name ,value))`
   - Let's consider if they want it to expand to `(defparameter ...)` to avoid compilation warnings on redefinition. I'll use `defparameter` or `defvar`? Actually, `defconstant` is standard for constants like `SEEK_CUR`. I'll stick with `defconstant`.
   - Another possibility:
</think>
(defmacro define (name value &rest docstring)
  "Like a #define but also visible to Lisp code."
  `(progn
     (eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
       (defvar ,(pp-defines *package*) (make-hash-table))
       (setf (gethash ',name ,(pp-defines *package*)) ,(prin1-to-string value)))
     (defparameter ,name ,value ,@docstring)))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(with-html-string (:html (:head) (:body (:a "hai"))))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `with-html-string` (or perhaps `with-html` based on the prompt's ambiguity, but the example uses `with-html-string`).
The input is `(with-html-string (:html (:head) (:body (:a "hai"))))`.
The output is not explicitly specified, but usually, these macros transform nested lists into a string representation of HTML or a specific data structure.
Given the name `with-html-string`, the most likely intent is to generate a string containing the HTML markup.

Let's look at the structure:
`(:html (:head) (:body (:a "hai")))`
This looks like a nested list of symbols and strings.
`:html` is a keyword. `:head` is a keyword. `:body` is a keyword. `:a` is a keyword. `"hai"` is a string.

If the goal is to produce a string like `"<html><head></head><body><a>hai</a></body></html>"`, I need to traverse the list.
However, the user asks for a *macro*. Macros transform code at compile time.
If the input is just data (lists and strings), a macro can treat them as data and construct the resulting code (which might be a string literal or a function call).

Let's assume the standard behavior for such macros: converting the nested list structure into a string literal.
Example transformation:
Input: `(with-html-string (:html (:head) (:body (:a "hai"))))`
Output: `"<html><head></head><body><a>hai</a></body></html>"` (as a string literal).

Wait, the prompt asks "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by with-html". This phrasing is slightly confusing. It might mean "Write the macro `with-html-string` that transforms the call shown".

Let's refine the transformation logic.
The input is a list where the first element is the macro name `with-html-string`. The rest is the HTML structure.
The structure is a tree.
- If an element is a string, it remains a string.
- If an element is a list starting with a keyword (tag name), it represents an HTML tag.
  - The keyword becomes the tag name (e.g., `:html` -> `html`).
  - The rest of the list are children.
  - If there are no children, it might be a self-closing tag or an empty tag. Usually, in HTML, `<head>` and `<body>` are not self-closing in the XHMTL sense, but `<br>` is. Without specific rules on void elements, I'll assume standard open/close tags for everything unless specified otherwise. Or perhaps simpler: just wrap content in `<tag>...</tag>`.

Let's trace `(:html (:head) (:body (:a "hai")))`.
1. `:html` tag. Children: `(:head)`, `(:body (:a "hai"))`.
2. `:head` tag. Children: none. -> `<head></head>`? Or just `<head>`? Let's assume `<head></head>` for safety, or maybe the user wants a specific format. Let's look for standard patterns. Often `(:tag)` implies `<tag></tag>`.
3. `:body` tag. Children: `(:a "hai")`.
4. `:a` tag. Children: `"hai"`. -> `<a>hai</a>`.

So `(:body (:a "hai"))` -> `<body><a>hai</a></body>`.
So `(:html (:head) (:body (:a "hai")))` -> `<html><head></head><body><a>hai</a></body></html>`.

The macro needs to recursively process the list structure and concatenate strings.
Since it's a macro, the result should be a form that evaluates to this string. The simplest form is the string literal itself.

Algorithm for the macro:
1. Check if the input is a string. If so, return it (quasiquote it? No, just return the string literal).
2. Check if the input is a list.
   a. If the list is empty, return empty string.
   b. If the first element is a keyword (tag), process it as a tag.
      - Tag name: symbol name of the keyword.
      - Children: rest of the list.
      - Recursively process children.
      - Return `"<tag-name>" + children-str + "</tag-name>"`.
   c. If the first element is not a keyword, treat the whole list as a sequence of items to process? Or maybe the input is always a single root node? The example has a root `:html`.
</think>
(defmacro with-html (&body body &environment env)
  "Interpret BODY as HTML. Consult README.txt for the syntax."
  `(let ((*html* (ensure-html-stream *html*)))
     ,(if (and (null (cdr body)) (atom (car body)))
          (car body)
          `(progn ,@(parse-html body env)))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(ematch0 parsed1 ((list slot pattern) (let (effslot reader) (cond ((setf effslot (find-effective-slot slot type)) `((slot-value ,it ',(c2mop:slot-definition-name effslot)) ,pattern)) ((setf reader (find-reader slot type)) `((,reader ,it) ,pattern)) (t (error "Failed to deduce the way to access the slot ~s" slot))))))

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by ematch0

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `ematch0` that expands into a `cond` form based on pattern matching.
Looking at the example:
`(ematch0 parsed1 ((list slot pattern) (let (effslot reader) (cond ...))))`

It seems `ematch0` is a pattern matching macro. The first argument is the value to match against (`parsed1`).
The second argument is a list of clauses. Each clause has a pattern and a body.
The pattern `(list slot pattern)` matches a list of 3 elements, binding `slot` to the first and `pattern` to the third. Wait, the second element is ignored? Or maybe it's `(list slot _ pattern)`? The example shows `(list slot pattern)`. In many pattern matching macros, `(list a b)` matches a list of exactly 2 elements. But here it seems to match a list of 3? Or maybe the syntax is `(list slot pattern)` meaning the list has 2 elements? But the body uses `slot` and `pattern`. Let's assume standard pattern matching semantics where `(list slot pattern)` matches a list of 2 elements, binding `slot` to the first and `pattern` to the second. Or maybe it's a custom syntax.

Actually, looking at the body:
`(let (effslot reader) (cond ((setf effslot (find-effective-slot slot type)) ...) ...))`
It uses `slot` and `pattern` as variables bound by the pattern.

Let's design `ematch0` as a simple pattern matching macro. It will take a value and a list of clauses. Each clause is `(pattern body...)`.
We need to handle patterns like `(list var1 var2)`, literals, `_` for ignore, etc.
But the prompt says: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by ematch0". It asks to generate a `defmacro` form that transforms code like the example.

Wait, the prompt might be asking for a macro that specifically handles this exact pattern, or a general `ematch0` macro. Given the name `ematch0`, it's likely a custom pattern matching macro. I'll implement a basic pattern matcher that supports `list`, variables, and literals.

Let's think about how to implement pattern matching in Lisp macros.
A common approach is to generate a `cond` where each clause checks the pattern and binds variables.
For `(list slot pattern)`, we check if the value is a list of length 2, bind `slot` to `car`, `pattern` to `cadr`.
Actually, the example pattern is `(list slot pattern)`. It might mean a list of exactly 2 elements. Or maybe it's `(list slot _ pattern)` but abbreviated. I'll stick to `(list var1 var2)` matching a 2-element list.

Let's write a helper function or macro to expand patterns.
Since it's a `defmacro`, we can process the clauses at macro-expansion time.
For each clause `(pattern body...)`, we generate a test form and a binding form.
We can use `let` or `labels` for recursive pattern matching, but since it's a macro, we can just generate the code directly.

Simpler approach: generate a `cond` where each clause is:
`(test-form (let ((var1 val1) ...) body...))`
The `test-form` checks if the pattern matches.
For `(list slot pattern)`, test is `(and (consp val) (null (cddr val)))` (assuming exactly 2 elements). Bindings: `((slot (car val)) (pattern (cadr val)))`.
But what if the pattern is more complex? The prompt only shows `(list slot pattern)`. I'll keep it simple but extensible.

Actually, `ematch0` might be from a specific library or just a name the user chose. I'll implement a straightforward pattern matcher that handles:
- Variables (symbols not in a reserved set)
- `_` (ignore)
- `(list ...)` patterns
- Literals (quoted)

But to keep it robust and simple, I'll generate code that evaluates the pattern matcher at runtime or compile-time. Since it's a macro, compile-time is better.

Let's define a function `match-pattern` that takes a pattern and returns `(test bindings body)`.
Actually, it's easier to write the macro to expand directly.

Structure of `ematch0`:
</think>
(defmacro ematch0 (what &body clauses)
  `(match0 ,what
     ,@clauses
     (_ (error "level0 match error!"))))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(when (or body initializer) `(make-block ,body))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that transforms a specific pattern: `(when (or body initializer) ...)` into something that generates `(make-block ,body)`.
Wait, the prompt says: "Given this code pattern: `(when (or body initializer) '(make-block ,body))`".
Actually, it says: `(when (or body initializer) \`(make-block ,body))`
Wait, the backtick is likely part of the template.
The user wants a macro that, when called, expands to a `when` form that checks if `body` or `initializer` is non-nil, and if so, returns a quoted list `(make-block <value-of-body>)`.
But macros expand at compile time. If `body` and `initializer` are macro arguments, the macro needs to generate code that evaluates them at runtime.
Let's re-read carefully: "Given this code pattern: `(when (or body initializer) \`(make-block ,body))` Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by when"

Actually, this looks like a request to write a macro named `make-block-when` or similar, or perhaps the user just wants a macro that wraps this pattern.
Wait, the prompt might be asking to write a macro that *is* this pattern, or a macro that uses this pattern.
"Write a macro that addresses: Macro call that should be transformed by when"
This is slightly ambiguous. It might mean: Write a macro `defmacro make-block-when (body initializer) ...` that expands to `(when (or body initializer) \`(make-block ,body))`.
Or maybe it's asking to write a macro that takes `body` and `initializer` and expands to that `when` form.

Let's assume the macro name is `make-block-when` or `block-if-initialized`.
Arguments: `body`, `initializer`.
Expansion: `(when (or ,body ,initializer) \`(make-block ,body))`
Wait, if `body` is a macro argument, in the expansion we need to evaluate it at runtime. So `,body` inside the backquote will be unquoted, meaning it evaluates `body` at runtime.
So the macro definition would be:
</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]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(define-op (:< infix-op))

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

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

1.  **Analyze User Input:**
   - **Input Pattern:** `(define-op (:< infix-op))`
   - **Goal:** Generate a `defmacro` form that transforms this pattern.
   - **Context:** The user wants a macro named `define-op` that takes a list like `(:< infix-op)` and presumably defines an operation/operator with specific properties (prefix/infix, symbol, etc.). The exact transformation isn't fully specified, but I need to infer a reasonable transformation based on common Lisp macro patterns for defining operators/ops.
   - **Key Elements:** `define-op` is the macro name. The argument is a list starting with `:`, followed by a symbol representing the operator name (`infix-op`). The `:<>` or similar prefix might indicate directionality or type. Actually, `(:< infix-op)` looks like it specifies an operator with a specific syntax/name. Let's assume it's defining an infix operator named `infix-op` that maps to a function/method, or perhaps it's defining a reader macro or a special form. But since it's a macro, it likely expands to a `defun`, `defmethod`, or `defgeneric`, or maybe sets up some dispatch table.
   - **Wait**, the prompt says: "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by define-op". It's a bit open-ended. I should design a macro that destructures the input, validates it, and expands to a reasonable form. Common patterns for operator definitions in Lisp involve creating a function or method, possibly with special reader support, or just a simple `defun` with a generated name.
   - Let's assume the goal is to define a function/operator with a specific name and possibly metadata. For example, `(define-op (:< infix-op))` might expand to `(defun infix-op (a b) ...)`. But that's too vague.
   - Actually, in many DSLs or Lisp libraries, `define-op` might be used to define operators with specific precedence, associativity, or syntax. Since the prompt is minimal, I'll make reasonable assumptions and clearly document them. I'll design it to expand to a `defun` with a generated name, or perhaps just a placeholder that shows the macro structure.
   - Let's think about what a robust `define-op` macro would do:
     - Destructure the argument list: `(define-op (direction name))`
     - Validate that `direction` is a keyword (like `:infix`, `:prefix`, `:<`, etc.)
     - Generate code that defines the operator. Since we don't know the exact target, I'll expand it to a `defun` with the given name, and attach some metadata or just show the structure.
     - Actually, a common pattern is to define a function and register it in a dispatch table. I'll keep it simple but idiomatic: expand to `(defun ,name (left right) (declare (ignorable left right)) (error "Operator ~S not implemented" ',name))` or similar.
     - Wait, the prompt says `(:< infix-op)`. The `:<` might be a keyword for "less-than" or direction. I'll treat the first element as a keyword specifying properties, and the second as the symbol name.
     - I'll use `destructuring-bind` or pattern matching in the macro lambda list.
     - Structure: `(defmacro define-op ((direction op-name) &body body) ...)`
     - But the example has no body. So: `(defmacro define-op ((direction op-name)) ...)`
     - I should handle variable capture by using `op-name` as a symbol, not evaluating it.
     - I'll generate a `defun` that takes two arguments, and maybe attach a property.
     - Let's make it expand to: `(defun ,op-name (x y) (declare (ignorable x y)) (error "Undefined operator: ~S" ',op-name))`
     - Actually, to be more general and useful, I'll expand it to a `defun` with a docstring or metadata, and show how to handle the direction keyword.
     - I'll also add validation: `(unless (keywordp direction) (error "Direction must be a keyword: ~S" direction))`
     - I'll use `gensym` if needed, but here we're defining a named function, so no gensym needed for the function name.
     - Let's structure the macro carefully.

2.  **Step-by-Step Reasoning (as requested):**
   - **(1) Pattern Recognition:** The macro call is `(define-op (:< infix-op))`. It matches a list where the first element is `define-op`, and the second is a two-element
</think>
(defmacro define-op ((op-name struct-type &key sql-op-name include-slots (package (find-package '#:sxql/operator))) &body body)
  (check-type op-name symbol)
  (let ((struct-name (intern (concatenate 'string (symbol-name op-name) #.(string :-op)) package)))
    `(defstruct (,struct-name (:include ,struct-type
                               (name ,(or sql-op-name
                                          (with-output-to-string (s)
                                            (loop for c across (symbol-name op-name)
                                                  if (char= c #\-)
                                                    do (write-char #\Space s)
                                                  else
                                                    do (write-char c s)))))
                               ,@include-slots)
                              (:constructor ,(intern (concatenate 'string
                                                                  #.(string :make-)
                                                                  (symbol-name op-name)
                                                                  #.(string :-op))
                                                     package)
                                  ,(ecase struct-type
                                     ((unary-op
                                       unary-splicing-op
                                       unary-postfix-op) '(var))
                                     ((infix-op
                                       infix-splicing-op
                                       infix-list-op) '(left right))
                                     (conjunctive-op '(&rest expressions)))))
       ,@body)))


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(define-library libwinpthread)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro called `define-library` that takes a library name (like `libwinpthread`) and transforms it into something.
Looking at the pattern `(define-library libwinpthread)`, this seems to be related to defining a library in a Lisp system, possibly for foreign function interface (FFI) or just a naming convention.

Since the user hasn't specified what the macro should expand to, I need to make reasonable assumptions based on common Lisp patterns:
1. It might define a package for the library.
2. It might set up an FFI library binding (like in CFFI).
3. It might just be a simple wrapper that prints or logs the library definition.

Given the name `libwinpthread`, it looks like a C library name (Windows pthread implementation). This strongly suggests CFFI (Common Foreign Function Interface) usage. In CFFI, you define a library with `(cffi:defcfun ... :library ...)` or `(cffi:define-foreign-library ...)`.

However, without explicit instructions on the expansion, I'll create a macro that:
1. Takes a library name (symbol)
2. Expands to a form that defines a foreign library using CFFI's `define-foreign-library` or similar, or just a simple package definition.

Actually, looking at the simplicity of the call `(define-library libwinpthread)`, it might just be a macro that creates a package or sets a variable. But given "libwinpthread", I'll assume it's for FFI.

Let me think about a reasonable expansion:
- It could expand to `(cffi:define-foreign-library libwinpthread ...)` but that requires path specifications.
- It could just be a simple macro that defines a symbol or prints a message.

Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by define-library". This is a bit vague. I'll create a macro that:
1. Takes a library name
2. Expands to a form that defines a CFFI foreign library with a default path, or just a simple wrapper.

Actually, a common pattern in some Lisp systems is to just define a package. Let's make it expand to a `defpackage` form, or perhaps a `defvar` that holds the library name.

But to be safe and useful, I'll make it expand to a CFFI `define-foreign-library` form with a simple path specification, or just a comment/documentation form.

Wait, let's reconsider. The user might be testing macro expansion patterns. I'll write a macro that:
- Takes a library name
- Expands to a form that defines a variable holding the library name, and maybe prints a message.

Actually, I'll go with a CFFI-style expansion since `libwinpthread` is clearly a C library. I'll use `cffi:define-foreign-library` but since I don't know the exact paths, I'll make it a simple macro that just defines a symbol or expands to a comment.

Let's think step by step:
1. Pattern: `(define-library libwinpthread)` -> matches `(define-library name)`
2. Constructs needed: `defmacro`, `defvar` or `defparameter`, or just a simple form.
3. Quasiquote/unquote: Use `` `(defvar ,name ...) ``
4. Variable capture: The name is a symbol, not a binding, so no capture issues.
5. Structure: Standard defmacro.

I'll make it expand to a `defvar` that stores the library name as a string, and maybe a comment. Or better, I'll make it expand to a CFFI `define-foreign-library` form with a placeholder, but that's too specific.

Actually, a simpler approach: the macro could just expand to a `defpackage` or `defvar`. Let's go with `defvar` that holds the library name as a string, which is common for FFI library references.

Wait, I'll make it more generic: it expands to a `defparameter` that creates a binding for the library name, and maybe a `warn` or `format` call.

Let's just write a straightforward macro that expands to a `defvar` form. I'll also add a check to ensure the argument is a symbol.

Actually, looking at common Lisp patterns, `define-library` might be from a specific system. I'll create a macro that:
- Takes a library name
- Expands to `(defvar ,name (string-downcase (symbol-name ',name)))`
- This converts the symbol to a string (common for FFI library names)

Let's refine:
</think>
(defmacro define-library (name &body initargs)
  #+cffi
  `(change-class (cffi::get-foreign-library ',name)
                 'library
                 ,@initargs)
  #-cffi
  `(make-instance 'library ,@initargs))


[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:
(defsynonym :as :for)

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `defsynonym` that takes a list of keyword pairs and generates synonyms for them.
The example call is `(defsynonym :as :for)`.
Wait, the example call `(defsynonym :as :for)` suggests it takes two arguments? Or a list?
Looking at the pattern `:as :for`, it seems like it wants to define `:as` as a synonym for `:for`, or vice versa.
Usually, `defsynonym` in Lisp contexts might be for defining synonyms for keywords or symbols.
Let's assume the macro takes pairs of symbols/keywords. `(defsynonym :as :for :by :with)` etc.
But the example is just `(defsynonym :as :for)`.
Wait, `defsynonym` is often used in the context of defining synonyms for Common Lisp keywords or maybe for a specific library.
Actually, `defsynonym` might just be a simple macro that expands to something like `(setf (symbol-function ':as) (symbol-function ':for))`? No, keywords are special.
Maybe it's for defining synonyms for function names? `(defalias ...)`?
Or maybe it's for defining synonyms for variables?
Let's look at the exact wording: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (defsynonym :as :for)"
Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym". This is a bit ambiguous.
Perhaps the user wants a macro that defines a synonym for a keyword or symbol.
In Common Lisp, `defmacro` or `defun`? The prompt says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern".
Maybe the pattern is something like:
`(defparameter *as* *for*)`?
Or maybe it's from a specific library like `cl-who` or `lisp-unit`?
Actually, `defsynonym` is a known macro in some Lisp codebases for defining synonyms for keywords, often used in parsers or DSLs.
Wait, could it be from `alexandria`? No.
Let's think about a simple interpretation: The user wants a macro `defsynonym` that takes two arguments `synonym` and `original`, and defines `synonym` to be the same as `original`.
For functions: `(defalias synonym original)`
For variables: `(defparameter synonym original)` or `(setf (symbol-value 'synonym) (symbol-value 'original))`
For keywords: Keywords are self-evaluating, so you can't really make one a synonym for another in the standard sense, unless you use a hash table or macro.
But maybe the user just wants a macro that expands to `(defalias ,synonym ,original)` or similar.
Wait, the prompt says "eliminates this repetitive pattern: (defsynonym :as :for)". This implies the *call itself* is the pattern to be eliminated? Or the macro *is* `defsynonym` and it eliminates something else?
"Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (defsynonym :as :for)" -> This is poorly phrased. It probably means "Define a macro `defsynonym` that handles calls like `(defsynonym :as :for)`."
Or maybe the repetitive pattern is something like:
</think>
(defmacro defsynonym (symbol synonym)
  "Set SYNONYM for a SYMBOL. "
  `(eval-always
     (setf (get ',symbol 'synonym) ',synonym)))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(define-custom-var (:beginning-of-array *beginning-of-array-handler*) (constantly t) "Designator for a function of no arguments (called at encountering an opening bracket for an Array).")

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro `define-custom-var` in Common Lisp.
The macro takes three arguments:
1. A keyword or symbol (e.g., `:beginning-of-array`).
2. A variable name (e.g., `*beginning-of-array-handler*`).
3. An initial value form (e.g., `(constantly t)`).
4. A documentation string (e.g., `"Designator for a function..."`).

Wait, looking at the example call:
`(define-custom-var (:beginning-of-array *beginning-of-array-handler*) (constantly t) "Designator for a function of no arguments (called at encountering an opening bracket for an Array).")`

The first argument is a list `(:beginning-of-array *beginning-of-array-handler*)`.
The second argument is the initial value `(constantly t)`.
The third argument is the documentation string.

So the macro signature is `(define-custom-var (keyword var) init-value documentation)`.

What should this macro expand to?
Usually, `defcustom` in Emacs Lisp defines a variable, sets a default value, and adds documentation.
In Common Lisp, we might want to define a variable using `defvar`, set its value, and perhaps associate the keyword with the variable in some registry.
However, the prompt doesn't specify the exact behavior, just "transforms code like this".
I need to infer a reasonable expansion.
Common patterns for such macros:
1. `defvar` the variable with the initial value and documentation.
2. Maybe store the mapping from keyword to variable in a hash table or alist.
3. Return the variable symbol or something.

Let's assume a standard `defvar` expansion plus some registration.
Or maybe it's just a wrapper around `defvar`.
Let's look at the arguments: `(keyword var)`, `init-value`, `doc`.
Expansion could be:
</think>
(defmacro define-custom-var ((key name) &rest other-args)
  `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
     (progn (pushnew '(,name . ,key) *custom-vars* :test #'equal)
            (defvar ,name ,@other-args))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(is (not (plusp 1)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `is` that transforms code like `(is (not (plusp 1)))`.
Looking at the pattern, it seems like a testing/assertion macro. The `is` macro likely takes an expression and asserts that it is true (or non-nil).
However, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by is", which is a bit vague. Let's assume it's a simple assertion macro that checks if the form evaluates to true, and if not, signals an error.

Wait, the prompt says "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: `(is (not (plusp 1)))`".
It doesn't specify the exact transformation, but typically `is` in Lisp testing frameworks (like 5am or similar) asserts that the form is true.
Actually, `is` might just be a wrapper around `assert` or `unless`.
Let's think about a standard assertion macro: `(is form)` -> `(unless form (error "Assertion failed: ~S" form))` or similar.
But maybe it's from a specific library? The prompt is generic.
I will create a macro `is` that takes a form and expands to an `assert` or `unless` form.
Wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by is". This might imply that `is` is the macro itself.
Let's just write a simple `is` macro that asserts the condition.
Structure:
</think>
(defmacro is (test &rest reason-args)
  "The DWIM checking operator.

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

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

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

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


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

[User]
You are a Common Lisp macro expert. Given this code pattern:
(draw scene (:rect :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30) :fill "purple")

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro named `draw` that transforms a specific pattern:
`(draw scene (:rect :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30) :fill "purple")`

Let's analyze the pattern:
1. The first argument is `scene` (likely a variable or target).
2. The second argument is a list starting with `:rect`, followed by keyword/value pairs: `:x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30`.
3. The third argument is `:fill`, followed by `"purple"`.

Wait, the pattern seems to be:
`(draw TARGET (SHAPE-TYPE :key1 val1 :key2 val2 ...) :fill COLOR)`
Or maybe it's more general: `(draw TARGET (SHAPE-TYPE &key ...) &rest OPTIONS)`

Let's look at the exact call:
`(draw scene (:rect :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30) :fill "purple")`

It looks like a DSL for drawing.
`scene` is the canvas/context.
`(:rect :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30)` describes a rectangle.
`:fill "purple"` is a property.

How should this be transformed? Usually, such macros expand into function calls.
Maybe `(draw-rect scene :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30 :fill "purple")`?
Or maybe it's supposed to generate a structure and then draw it?
Without specific requirements, I'll assume it expands to a function call like `(draw-rect scene :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30 :fill "purple")` or similar.
Actually, a common pattern in Lisp GUIs/graphics is to have a macro that collects properties and calls a specific function based on the shape type.
Let's assume the expansion should be:
`(draw-rect scene :x 75 :y 75 :height 30 :width 30 :fill "purple")`
Or maybe just pass everything to a generic `draw` function but preprocess it?
Wait, the prompt says: "Macro call that should be transformed by draw". It doesn't specify the exact expansion, but I need to write a macro that handles this pattern.

Let's design a macro that matches:
`(draw scene (shape-type &rest shape-props) &rest draw-props)`
And expands to:
`(draw-<shape-type> scene ,@shape-props ,@draw-props)`
Or maybe it's better to just show how to parse it and construct a call.

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


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(with-color (:yellow :stream stream) (format/indent reporter stream "△ Tests were run but no plan was declared.~%"))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a `defmacro` for `with-color`.
The example usage is: `(with-color (:yellow :stream stream) (format/indent reporter stream "△ Tests were run but no plan was declared.~%"))`.

1.  **Analyze the input pattern**:
    The macro takes a list of keyword/property pairs (like `:yellow :stream stream`) and a body.
    Wait, looking at the example: `(:yellow :stream stream)`.
    Usually, `with-color` macros in Lisp (like in `cl-ansi-text` or similar) take a color and then the body.
    Here, it seems to take a list of arguments defining the color and the stream, then the body.
    Let's assume the structure is `(with-color (color-keyword :stream stream-var) body...)`.
    Or maybe it supports multiple properties? The example shows `(:yellow :stream stream)`.
    Let's assume the first argument is a list of options.
    Options: `:yellow` (color), `:stream` (stream variable).
    The rest is the body.

2.  **Determine the transformation**:
    We need to wrap the body in a call to a function or macro that handles the color.
    Let's assume there is a function `set-color` or similar, or maybe `with-output-to-string`?
    No, the prompt asks for a `defmacro`.
    Let's assume the underlying mechanism is something like `(progn (set-color stream :yellow) ...)`.
    Or maybe it uses `let` to bind the stream?
    Let's look at the arguments: `:yellow` and `:stream stream`.
    This looks like keyword arguments to a hypothetical `with-color-internal` function.
    Let's assume the macro expands to a call to a function `with-color` (the runtime function) or a specific construct.
    Actually, usually `with-color` macros expand to something that changes the stream's color, executes the body, and restores the color.
    Let's assume a standard pattern: `(let ((stream-var stream-var)) (with-color-internal stream-var :color :yellow) ...)`.
    But without a specific library context, I should define a generic expansion.
    Let's assume the macro expands to:
    `(let ((,stream ,stream)) (with-color-body ,stream :color ,color) ,@body)`
    Wait, the input is `(:yellow :stream stream)`.
    So `color` is `:yellow`, `stream` is `stream` (the variable).
    Let's parse the options list.
    The options list contains the color keyword and a `:stream` keyword followed by the stream variable.
    Let's assume the macro signature is `(with-color (color &key stream) &body body)`.
    Wait, the input is a list `(:yellow :stream stream)`.
    If I use `&key` in the macro lambda list, I need to match the structure.
    The structure is `(with-color options-list &body body)`.
    `options-list` is `(:yellow :stream stream)`.
    So `color` is `(first options-list)`.
    `stream` is `(getf options-list :stream)`.
    If `stream` is not provided, maybe default to `t` or `standard-output`?
    Let's assume `stream` defaults to `t` (standard output).
    The expansion should probably look like:
    `(let ((,stream-var ,stream-var)) (with-color-internal ,stream-var :color ,color) ,@body)`
    But I need to be careful about variable capture.
    The `stream` variable in the input is a symbol `stream`.
    The macro should bind this variable? Or just use it?
    If the user writes `:stream stream`, they mean "use the variable named `stream`".
    So the expansion should use that variable.
    Let's assume the macro expands to:
    `(let ((,stream-binding ,stream-binding)) (with-color-internal ,stream-binding :color ,color) ,@body)`
    Wait, if the user passes `:stream stream`, `stream` is the variable name.
    So I should use `stream` directly.
    Let's assume the macro expands to:
    `(with-color-internal ,stream :color ,color ,@body)`
    But `with-color-internal` might not exist.
    Let's assume the macro expands to a `let` that binds the stream, sets the color, executes body, and restores.
    Actually, the prompt asks for a `defmacro` that transforms the code.
    I should provide a
</think>
(defmacro with-color ((color &rest args) &body body)
  (cond
    ((or (eq color :gray)
         (eq color :grey))
     `(if *enable-colors*
          (with-gray ,(or (getf args :stream) t) ,@body)
          (progn ,@body)))
    (T `(if *enable-colors*
            (if (or (eq ,color :gray)
                    (eq ,color :grey)
                    (eq ,color cl-colors:+gray+)
                    (eq ,color cl-colors:+grey+))
                (with-gray ,(or (getf args :stream) t) ,@body)
                (cl-ansi-text:with-color (,color ,@args) ,@body))
            (progn ,@body)))))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(define-condition/a dbi-internal-error (dbi-database-error) () (:documentation "Exception raised when the database encounters an internal error, e.g. the cursor is not valid anymore, the transaction is out of sync."))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-condition/a

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `define-condition/a`.
The goal is to transform a call like:
`(define-condition/a name (superclass) slots options)`
into a standard `define-condition` call, but potentially with some modifications or specific handling implied by the "/a" suffix or the example provided.

Looking at the example:
`(define-condition/a dbi-internal-error (dbi-database-error) () (:documentation "Exception raised when the database encounters an internal error, e.g. the cursor is not valid anymore, the transaction is out of sync."))`

This looks exactly like a standard `define-condition` call.
Standard `define-condition` syntax:
`(define-condition name (supers) (slot-specs...) options...)`

If the macro is just an alias, it's trivial. However, usually, macros named with suffixes like `/a` or specific prefixes imply some extra behavior. Since the user didn't specify the *extra* behavior, I must infer it or provide a wrapper that allows for future extension or simply acts as an alias if no specific transformation is requested.

Wait, looking at the prompt "Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by define-condition/a".
This implies the user has a specific pattern in mind but hasn't explicitly stated the *difference* between `define-condition` and `define-condition/a`.
Perhaps it's related to ASDF systems or a specific library? Or maybe it's just a wrapper to ensure certain options are present?

Let's look at the structure again.
The example is:
`(define-condition/a dbi-internal-error (dbi-database-error) () (:documentation "..."))`

If I write a macro that just expands to `define-condition`, that works.
But maybe the "/a" stands for "abstract" or "autoload" or something?
Without specific requirements on *how* it differs from `define-condition`, the safest and most robust implementation is a wrapper that passes arguments to `define-condition`.

However, often in Lisp, if someone asks for a macro to handle a pattern, they might want to inject code.
Let's consider if there's a common pattern where `define-condition/a` is used.
Maybe it's from a specific library? A quick mental search suggests this might be related to a specific project or just a hypothetical exercise.
Actually, `define-condition` is a standard CL macro. If the user wants a macro that *handles* this pattern, maybe they want to ensure the condition is defined in a specific package, or handle `export`?

Let's assume the user wants a macro that behaves exactly like `define-condition` but perhaps allows for some extension points, or simply is an alias.
However, to be an "expert", I should consider:
1.  **Variable Capture**: `define-condition` handles its own bindings. If I just pass arguments, I'm safe.
2.  **Quasiquote**: I need to construct the `define-condition` form.
3.  **Pattern**: `name`, `supers`, `slots`, `options`.

If there is no specific transformation logic provided in the prompt, I will implement it as a direct pass-through to `define-condition`. This is the most logical interpretation of "transform this pattern" if the pattern *is* the standard pattern.

Wait, is it possible the user implies that `define-condition/a` should *not* be a macro but the user *thinks* it is, or they want to *create* this macro? Yes, "Write a Common Lisp macro...".

Let's consider if there is a subtle requirement.
Maybe the `/a` implies "abstract"? If so, it might add `:abstract t`.
Maybe it implies "autoload"?
Maybe it's just a namespace thing.

Let's look at the "Problem" statement again: "Macro call that should be transformed by define-condition/a".
This phrasing suggests the input is the code block, and the output should be the expansion.
Since the input code block is valid `define-condition` syntax, and the macro name is `define-condition/a`, the most helpful response is to define `define-condition/a` to expand to `define-condition`.

However, to add value, I will write it generically so it captures all arguments.
The signature of `define-condition` is:
`(define-condition name (supers) (slots) options*)`

My macro needs to capture these and re-emit them.

Let's double check if "dbi-internal-error" implies a specific library like "dbi" (Database Interface).
In some contexts, custom condition definitions might need to register with a system.
But without that context, I cannot invent that logic.

I will write the macro to simply expand to `define-condition`.
Wait, if I just do `(defmacro define-condition/a (&rest args)
</think>
(defmacro define-condition/a (name parent-types slots &body options)
  `(progn
     (define-condition ,name ,parent-types ,slots ,@options)
     (deftype ,(intern (format nil "<~A>" (symbol-name name))) () ',name)
     (setf (find-class ',(intern (format nil "<~A>" (symbol-name name))))
           (find-class ',name))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(defsynonym :counting :count)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `defsynonym` that takes two keywords (or symbols) and creates a synonym.
Looking at the example `(defsynonym :counting :count)`, it seems like it's defining a synonym where `:counting` is the new name and `:count` is the existing name.
In Common Lisp, `defsynonym` is not a standard macro, but `defsetf` or `defparameter` or `defvar` might be related. However, the prompt specifically asks for a macro that transforms `(defsynonym :counting :count)`.
Wait, `defsynonym` in some contexts (like Clojure or specific Lisp libraries) creates a synonym for a variable. In Common Lisp, we can use `defvar` or `defparameter` with `symbol-value`, or maybe it's about creating a synonym for a function or variable.
Actually, there is a standard-ish macro or idiom for `defsynonym`? No.
Let's think about what `(defsynonym :counting :count)` should expand to. It probably means "make `:counting` a synonym for `:count`". But keywords are self-evaluating, so you can't really make a keyword a synonym for another keyword in the variable sense. Maybe it's about symbols? Or maybe it's about defining a synonym for a variable name?
Wait, the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym". It might be a custom macro for a specific system.
Perhaps it expands to `(defvar ,new-symbol (symbol-value ',old-symbol))`? Or maybe it's for defining a synonym for a function?
Actually, in some Lisp codebases, `defsynonym` is used to create a synonym for a variable, expanding to something like `(defvar ,name (symbol-value ',source))` or `(defparameter ,name (symbol-value ',source))`.
But wait, the example uses keywords: `:counting` and `:count`. Keywords are constants. You can't redefine them. Maybe it's not about variables, but about something else? Or maybe the example is just illustrative, and it works with symbols too.
Let's reconsider: maybe it's a macro that defines a synonym for a *function*? `(defalias :counting :count)`? But `defalias` takes a symbol and a function object.
Wait, there's a known macro `defsynonym` in some libraries that expands to `(defparameter ,name (symbol-value ',old))` or similar.
Actually, in Emacs Lisp or some other Lisps, `defsynonym` might exist. But this is Common Lisp.
Let's look at the exact wording: "Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this: `(defsynonym :counting :count)` Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym"
This sounds like a prompt from a code generation task. It might be expecting a simple expansion like `(defvar ,new ,old)`? But that would just bind `new` to the symbol `old`, not its value.
Maybe it's `(defparameter ,new (symbol-value ',old))`?
Wait, `defsynonym` is actually a macro in `alexandria`? No.
Let's think about `defsetf` or `defun`.
Actually, `defsynonym` might be a macro that creates a synonym for a variable by using `defvar` or `defparameter`. But if it's for keywords, it doesn't make sense. Maybe the example is just `(defsynonym counting count)` and the user typed keywords by mistake? Or maybe it's for defining a synonym in a package or something?
Another possibility: `defsynonym` is a macro that expands to `(defalias ,name ,target)` for functions, or `(defparameter ,name (symbol-value ',target))` for variables.
Wait, there's a standard macro `defsynonym` in some contexts that simply expands to `(defvar ,new ',old)`? No.
Let's search my knowledge for "defsynonym macro common lisp". It's not standard.
Maybe it's from a specific library like `cl-ppcre` or `iterate`? Unlikely.
Perhaps it's a simple macro that just defines a variable alias: `(defmacro defsynonym (new old) '(defparameter ,new (symbol-value ',old)))`.
But wait, the prompt says "Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by defsynonym". This might be a hint that the macro should just expand to something straightforward.
Actually, in some Lisp dialects or specific projects, `defsynonym` is used to create a synonym for a symbol's value.
Let's consider `(defmacro defsynonym (name synonym) '(def
</think>
(defmacro defsynonym (symbol synonym)
  "Set SYNONYM for a SYMBOL. "
  `(eval-always
     (setf (get ',symbol 'synonym) ',synonym)))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(deferror "57P03" cannot-connect-now operator-intervention)

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro `deferror` that takes a code string, a name, and optional conditions (like `operator-intervention`).
Looking at the example: `(deferror "57P03" cannot-connect-now operator-intervention)`
This looks like it's defining a new error condition class in Common Lisp, possibly with specific SQL state codes or custom condition types.
In PostgreSQL or similar databases, error codes like "57P03" are standard. `operator-intervention` might be a condition class or a flag.
Common Lisp `defcondition` or `defclass` is usually used for conditions.
However, `deferror` might be a domain-specific macro. Let's assume it expands to a `defcondition` or `defclass` call.
Usually, error conditions in CL are defined with `defcondition` or `defclass` inheriting from `error` or `simple-error`.
The macro might expand to:
`(defcondition cannot-connect-now (error) ((sql-state :initform "57P03")) :report ...)`
Or maybe it's from a specific library like `postgres` or `cl-postgres`.
Wait, `operator-intervention` is a standard PostgreSQL error class or a specific condition. Actually, "57P03" is "cannot-connect-now" in PostgreSQL error codes. `operator-intervention` might be a parent class or a flag.
Let's search mentally for `deferror` macro in Common Lisp libraries. It might be from `usocket` or `cl-postgres` or similar.
Actually, in `cl-postgres` or `pg`, error codes are often mapped.
But the prompt just asks for a macro that transforms the given call. It doesn't specify the exact expansion, but I should provide a reasonable expansion that defines a condition class.
Let's assume it expands to a `defclass` or `defcondition`.
`(defcondition cannot-connect-now (error) ((code :initform "57P03")))`
But `operator-intervention` is listed as a third argument. Maybe it's a list of parent classes? Or maybe it's a specific error category.
In PostgreSQL, error classes are like "57" for "operator intervention". "57P03" is under "57".
Maybe the macro expands to:
`(defclass cannot-connect-now (error operator-intervention) ((sql-state :initform "57P03")))`
Or maybe `deferror` is from `asdf` or `uiop`? No.
Let's think of a general pattern: `(deferror code name &rest parents)`
It could expand to:
`(defcondition name (error ,@parents) ((code :initform ,code)))`
But the prompt says "Macro call that should be transformed by deferror". It just gives one example.
I will design a macro that takes a code string, a symbol for the condition name, and optional parent classes/flags.
It will expand to a `defcondition` form.
`(defmacro deferror (code name &rest parents) ...)`
Expansion:
`(defcondition ,name (error ,@parents) ((sql-state :initform ,code)))`
Wait, `operator-intervention` might be a condition class itself. In some libraries, `operator-intervention` is a condition class.
I'll stick to a simple expansion: defines a condition class inheriting from `error` and the given parents, with an initarg for the code.
Let's check standard CL condition definition:
`(defcondition name (supers) ((slot :initform val)))`
I will write:
</think>
(defmacro deferror (code typename &optional (superclass 'database-error))
  `(progn (define-condition ,typename (,superclass) ())
          (setf (gethash ,code *error-table*) ',typename)))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(make-stream-method pp-xml-attr (s (kw symbol) &optional colon-p at-p) (declare (ignore colon-p at-p)) (format s "~A" (xmlify-keyword kw)))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by make-stream-method

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `make-stream-method`.
The example usage provided is:
`(make-stream-method pp-xml-attr (s (kw symbol) &optional colon-p at-p) (declare (ignore colon-p at-p)) (format s "~A" (xmlify-keyword kw)))`

Let's analyze the arguments of the macro call:
1. `pp-xml-attr`: The name of the method.
2. `(s (kw symbol) &optional colon-p at-p)`: The lambda list.
3. `(declare (ignore colon-p at-p))`: A declaration form.
4. `(format s "~A" (xmlify-keyword kw))`: The body form.

Wait, usually `defmethod` or `defun` takes `(name lambda-list &body body)`.
Here, the macro seems to take:
`(make-stream-method name lambda-list &body body)`
But the example has:
`pp-xml-attr` (name)
`(s (kw symbol) &optional colon-p at-p)` (lambda-list)
`(declare ...)` (body form 1)
`(format ...)` (body form 2)

So it looks like `(defmacro make-stream-method (name lambda-list &body body) ...)`.
What should it expand to?
The name is `pp-xml-attr`. It likely needs to be defined as a function or method.
Usually, "stream-method" implies it's a method for a generic function, or a function that writes to a stream.
Given `s` is the first argument, it's likely a stream.
Maybe it expands to `(defun pp-xml-attr (s (kw symbol) &optional colon-p at-p) (declare ...) (format ...))`?
Or maybe `(defmethod pp-xml-attr ((s stream) (kw symbol) &optional colon-p at-p) ...)`?
The prompt says "Make-stream-method". It might be from a specific library like `cl-ppcre` or `cl-who` or `html-template`?
Actually, `pp-xml-attr` looks like a printer or pretty-printer method.
If it's just a macro to define a function, it might be `(defun name lambda-list ,@body)`.
But why `make-stream-method`? Maybe it adds `(declare (ignorable s))` or something?
Or maybe it's `(defmethod ,name ,lambda-list ,@body)`?
Let's assume it's a simple wrapper around `defun` or `defmethod`.
Given `s` is the first argument, it's probably a stream.
I will assume it expands to `(defun name lambda-list ,@body)`.
Wait, the prompt says "Before code: ... What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by make-stream-method".
This implies the user wants the macro definition that performs this transformation.
I will define `make-stream-method` to expand to `defun`.
Or maybe `defmethod`? "stream-method" often implies a method combination or a specific generic function.
Without more context, `defun` is the safest bet for a macro that defines a function taking a stream as the first argument.
Actually, `make-stream-method` might be from `cl-ppcre` or similar, but usually, it's just `(defun name lambda-list ,@body)`.
Let's stick to `(defun ,name ,lambda-list ,@body)`.
Wait, `declare` is inside the body. In `defun`, `declare` usually goes in the lambda list or at the start of the body. The example has it in the body, which is valid.
I'll generate a macro that expands to `defun`.

Structure:
</think>
(defmacro make-stream-method (name (s &rest args) &body body)
  `(progn
     (defmethod ,name ((,s stream) ,@args)
       ,@body)
     #+abcl
     (defmethod ,name ((,s xp::xp-structure) ,@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]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(when-let (previous (find-messenger name :manager manager)) (stop-messenger previous))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by when-let

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro called `when-let` that simplifies a common pattern in Common Lisp.
The pattern is: bind a variable to the result of a form, and if the result is non-nil, execute a body.
The provided example is:
`(when-let (previous (find-messenger name :manager manager)) (stop-messenger previous))`

This looks like it should expand to something like:
`(let ((previous (find-messenger name :manager manager))) (when previous (stop-messenger previous)))`

Let's break down the requirements:
1.  **Pattern matching**: The macro takes a binding list (like `let` or `let*`) and a body.
    The binding list usually looks like `((varname form))`.
    The body is the code to execute if the bound value is non-nil.
2.  **Lisp constructs**: We need `let` to perform the binding and `when` to check the condition.
3.  **Quasiquote/unquote**: We will use backquote (`` ` ``) to construct the resulting form, unquoting the variable, the form, and the body.
4.  **Variable capture**: Since we are generating a `let` binding, the variable name provided by the user will be local to that `let`. The macro doesn't introduce new bindings that could capture user variables (except the one explicitly named in the binding list, which is intended to be local). The macro itself is hygienic in that sense because it just wraps user code. However, we must ensure the variable name is treated as a symbol.
5.  **Structure**:
    ```lisp
    (defmacro when-let ((var test-form) &body body)
      ...)
    ```
    Wait, standard `let` takes a list of bindings. `when-let` usually takes a single binding or a list of bindings.
    If it's a single binding: `(var test-form)`.
    If it's a list of bindings (like `let`): `((var1 form1) (var2 form2) ...)`.
    Usually, `when-let` implies a single binding, or if multiple, all must be true (or just the last one? or `let*` style?).
    Given the example `(previous (find-messenger ...))`, it looks like a single binding.
    However, supporting a list of bindings is more robust.
    If we support a list, we have two interpretations:
    a) Bind all, then check if *all* are non-nil?
    b) Bind sequentially (like `let*`), and if *any* is nil, stop? Or just check the last?
    Usually, `when-let` in other languages (like C# or Python's `if x := expr`) implies a single assignment.
    In Common Lisp libraries (like `alexandria` or `trivial-features`), `when-let` often takes a single binding.
    Let's look at the example again: `(when-let (previous (find-messenger name :manager manager)) ...)`
    This suggests the first argument is a list of one element: `(variable form)`.

    Let's design it to take a binding specification `(var form)` and a body.

    Expansion:
    ```lisp
    (let ((,var ,form))
      (when ,var
        ,@body))
    ```

    What if the user wants to bind multiple variables?
    `(when-let ((a 1) (b 2)) ...)`
    Should it check `a` and `b`?
    Usually, `when-let` is for "bind and check". If multiple variables, it's ambiguous.
    Let's stick to the single binding case as implied by the example, but write the macro to accept a list of bindings just in case, or strictly the pair.
    Actually, looking at the example `(previous (find-messenger ...))`, it's a list containing one cons cell.
    So the macro argument is a list.

    Let's refine the macro definition.
    ```lisp
    (defmacro when-let (bindings &body body)
      ...)
    ```
    If `bindings` is `((var form))`, we generate:
    ```lisp
    (let ((var form))
      (when var
        body...))
    ```

    What if `bindings` has multiple entries?
    If we treat it like `let`, we bind all. Then what? Check all?
    `(and var1 var2 ...)`?
    Or maybe just the first?
    Given the ambiguity, and the specific example provided, I will
</think>
(defmacro when-let (binding &body body)
  (destructuring-bind (var val) binding
    `(let ((,var ,val))
       (when ,var
	 ,@body))))


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

[User]
Generate a defmacro form that transforms code like this:
(class/std new-stub var1 var2 var3 var4 :with :std :unbound)

Pattern to recognize: Macro call that should be transformed by class/std

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `class/std` that transforms a specific pattern of code.
The input pattern is: `(class/std new-stub var1 var2 var3 var4 :with :std :unbound)`
Wait, looking at the pattern, it seems to be a call to `class/std` with arguments: `new-stub`, `var1`, `var2`, `var3`, `var4`, `:with`, `:std`, `:unbound`.
Actually, the pattern might be more general. Let's look at the structure:
`(class/std <class-name> <slot1> <slot2> ... <slotN> :with <init-form> :unbound)`
Or maybe `:with` and `:unbound` are keywords indicating options.
Let's assume the macro expands into something that defines a class or creates an instance.
Given the name `class/std`, it might be defining a class using `defclass` or creating an instance with `make-instance`.
But the prompt says "transforms code like this". It doesn't specify the target expansion.
I need to make a reasonable assumption or create a generic transformation.
Often, macros like this in Lisp exercises are meant to expand into `defclass` or `make-instance`.
Let's look at the arguments: `new-stub` (class name), `var1 var2 var3 var4` (slot names), `:with :std` (maybe initialization style?), `:unbound` (maybe slot initialization?).
Actually, `:with :std` might mean standard initialization. `:unbound` might mean slots are initially unbound.
A common pattern for such macros is to expand into `defclass`.
`(defclass new-stub () ((var1 :initform nil) (var2 :initform nil) ...))`
Or maybe it expands into a function call?
Let's reconsider the pattern. It looks like a custom DSL.
"Class/std" might stand for "Class Standard".
Maybe it expands to:
`(defclass new-stub () (var1 var2 var3 var4))` with some options.
But `:with :std :unbound` is weird.
Perhaps `:with` specifies the superclass or mixin? `:std` could be a class?
Or `:with` is an option keyword.
Let's assume the macro expands into a `defclass` form.
Slots: `var1 var2 var3 var4`.
Options: `:with :std` -> maybe `:std` is a superclass? Or `:with` is ignored?
Actually, `:unbound` might mean `:initform #'unbound`.
Let's try to interpret it as:
`(defclass new-stub (:std) ((var1 :initform nil) ...))`? No.
Maybe `:with` specifies initialization function.
Given the ambiguity, I will create a macro that captures the structure and expands it into a plausible `defclass` or `make-instance` form, or simply demonstrates the macro expansion technique.
However, the prompt says "transforms code like this". It might be from a specific library or exercise.
"Class/std" sounds like it could be from a specific framework, but I'll stick to standard CL.
Let's assume the expansion should be:
`(defclass new-stub () (var1 var2 var3 var4))`
And the `:with :std :unbound` part is handled by setting slot options.
Actually, `:with` might be a keyword for specifying mixins. `:std` could be a class name.
`:unbound` might mean `:accessor` or `:initarg`.
Wait, maybe it's simpler: The macro just needs to match the pattern and expand to something.
I will design the macro to expand into a `defclass` form.
Structure: `(class/std name slot* :with mixin* :unbound)`
Expansion: `(defclass name (mixin*) (slot*))` with `:initform nil` or similar.
But to be safe, I'll make the macro parse the arguments and generate a `defclass`.
Let's define it carefully.
Arguments: `name` `&rest slots-and-options`.
We can use `&key` or parse manually.
Manual parsing is safer for DSLs.
`(defmacro class/std (name &rest body) ...)`
Parse `body` for `:with` and `:unbound`.
If `:with` is present, next element is superclass/mixin.
If `:unbound` is present, slots get `:initform nil` or `:initform #'unbound`.
Actually, `:unbound` in CL usually refers to `slot
</think>
(defmacro class/std (name &body defaulted-slots)
  "The most concise shortcut macro to DEFCLASS.

  (class/std example slot1 slot2 slot3)

  expands to:

  (DEFCLASS/STD EXAMPLE ()
    ((SLOT1 SLOT2 SLOT3)))

  which expands to:

  (DEFCLASS EXAMPLE ()
    ((SLOT1 :ACCESSOR SLOT1 :INITARG :SLOT1 :INITFORM NIL)
    (SLOT2 :ACCESSOR SLOT2 :INITARG :SLOT2 :INITFORM NIL)
    (SLOT3 :ACCESSOR SLOT3 :INITARG :SLOT3 :INITFORM NIL)))
"
  `(defclass/std ,name ()
     ((,@defaulted-slots))))


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

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(with-space (if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*)))

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

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to define a macro that eliminates a repetitive pattern in Common Lisp code.
The pattern is:
`(with-space (if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*)))`

Wait, looking at the pattern, it seems like `with-space` is a macro or function that takes a body. The body is an `if` expression.
The pattern seems to be about writing a string to a stream (`*html*`), conditionally escaping it based on `safe?`.
Let's analyze the pattern:
`(if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*))`

This looks like a conditional write/escape operation.
Maybe the macro should be named something like `safe-write-string` or `write-or-escape`.
But the prompt says: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (with-space (if safe? ...))"
Wait, `with-space` might be part of the pattern, or maybe the macro should wrap the `if` expression?
Actually, the pattern inside `with-space` is:
`(if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*))`

Let's assume the macro is meant to replace the `if` expression.
Let's call it `write-safe-string`.
Arguments: `safe?`, `string`, `stream` (default `*html*`).
But `escape-to-stream` takes `string`, `function`, `stream`.
The function is `#'escape-string-char`.

Maybe the macro is:
`(defmacro write-safe-string (safe? string &optional (stream '*html*))
  `(if ,safe?
       (write-string ,string ,stream)
       (escape-to-stream ,string #'escape-string-char ,stream)))`

But the prompt says: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (with-space (if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*)))"
Perhaps `with-space` is just context, and the macro should replace the whole thing? Or maybe `with-space` is a macro that adds spaces, and the pattern is the body.
Actually, it's common in HTML generation libraries to have a macro like `emit` or `write-html`.
Let's stick to the exact pattern. The user wants a macro that replaces:
`(if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*))`

Let's define a macro `write-escaped-string` or `safe-write`.
Wait, the prompt says: "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by with-space". This might be a hint from a specific codebase or exercise.
Actually, `with-space` might be a macro that wraps its body with spaces. But the pattern to eliminate is the `if` expression.
Let's define a macro `write-safe` that takes `safe?` and `string`.
`(defmacro write-safe (safe? string &optional (stream '*html*))
  `(if ,safe?
       (write-string ,string ,stream)
       (escape-to-stream ,string #'escape-string-char ,stream)))`

But maybe the macro should be named `write-html-string`?
Let's look at the pattern again: `(with-space (if safe? (write-string string *html*) (escape-to-stream string #'escape-string-char *html*)))`
Perhaps the macro is `emit-string`?
I will define a macro called `write-safe-string` that takes `safe?`, `string`, and optionally `stream`.
To be safe, I'll make it match the pattern exactly.
`(defmacro write-safe-string (safe? string &optional (stream '*html*))
  "Writes STRING to STREAM if SAFE? is true, otherwise escapes it."
  `(if ,safe?
       (write-string ,string ,stream)
       (escape-to-stream ,string #'escape-string-char ,stream)))`

Wait, `escape-to-stream` might be a function from a library like `cl-who` or `cl-html`.
The prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by with-space". This might mean the macro is `with-space` itself? No, "eliminates this repetitive pattern".
Maybe the macro is `with-safe-write`?
Actually, it's simpler: the user wants a macro that replaces the `if` form.
I'll define `write-safe` or `safe-write-string`.

Let's think about variable capture. `safe?`, `string`, `stream` are evaluated once.
Using backquote is fine.
`(defmacro write-safe-string (safe? string &optional (stream '*html*))
  `(if
</think>
(defmacro with-space (&body body)
  (with-thunk (body)
    `(call-with-space ,body)))


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

[User]
Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern:
(c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))

Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by c?-with-stored

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a macro that eliminates the repetitive pattern:
`(c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))`

Wait, the prompt says: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: (c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))"
And then says: "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by c?-with-stored"

This implies I need to define a macro (let's call it `with-stored` or something similar, but the prompt says `c?-with-stored` is the macro call? Or maybe `c?-with-stored` is the macro name, and I need to define it? Or maybe the user wants a macro that expands to that pattern?
Wait, "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))`"
Actually, it might mean: define a macro `with-stored` that expands to something like that, or maybe `c?-with-stored` *is* the macro name, and I need to define it to handle this pattern.
Let's re-read carefully: "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern: `(c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))`"
This is a bit ambiguous. It could mean:
1. Define a macro named `c?-with-stored` that takes arguments like `(v :bar store 'nothing)` and body `(bwhen (val (value v)) val)`.
2. Or define a macro that expands *into* that pattern.
Given the phrasing "eliminates this repetitive pattern", it usually means "write a macro that wraps this pattern so I don't have to type it out every time". So the macro name might be `with-stored-bar` or just `with-stored`. But the pattern includes `c?-with-stored`. Maybe `c?-with-stored` is the macro itself? Or maybe the user wants a macro `defstored` or `with-stored`?
Actually, in many Lisp codebases, `c?-with-stored` might be a macro from a specific library (like `c?` or `cl-store`?). But here, it's likely a placeholder name. I will define a macro named `with-stored` (or `c?-with-stored` as requested) that takes a variable name, a key, a store, a default, and a body.
Wait, the pattern is: `(c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))`
This looks like `c?-with-stored` takes a binding list `((var key store default))` and a body.
Actually, `bwhen` is a macro from `alexandria` or similar: `(bwhen (val test) then)` expands to `(let ((val test)) (when val then))`.
So `(bwhen (val (value v)) val)` means: bind `val` to `(value v)`, and if `val` is truthy, evaluate `val`. Which is just `(value v)` if it's truthy, else nil. So it's effectively `(or (value v) nil)`, but `bwhen` is used to avoid evaluating `(value v)` twice.

Wait, the prompt says "Issue: Macro call that should be transformed by c?-with-stored". This might be a prompt from a dataset where the task is to define `c?-with-stored`.
Let's assume the macro name is `c?-with-stored`.
Signature: `(c?-with-stored (var key store default) &body body)`
Expansion: It probably sets up some context where `var` is bound to a stored value, or maybe it just expands to `(let ((var (make-stored-thing key store default))) (bwhen (val (value var)) val))`? No, that doesn't make sense.
Maybe `c?-with-stored` is supposed to expand to something that handles caching/storing values.
Actually, looking at the pattern: `(c?-with-stored (v :bar store 'nothing) (bwhen (val (value v)) val))`
It might be that `c?-with-stored` is a macro that binds `v` to a cache object, and the body uses `(value v)` to retrieve it.
But the user says "Define a macro that eliminates this repetitive pattern". This implies the macro *is* the replacement for the pattern. So if I call `(my-macro :bar store 'nothing)`, it expands to `(c?-with
</think>
(defmacro c?-with-stored ((var key store &optional default) &body body)
  `(c? (bwhen-c-stored (,var ,key ,store ,default)
	 ,@body)))


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

[User]
Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation. Before code:
(defun-compile-time magic-continuation-argument (continuation) (if (or (eq (first (second (second continuation))) '&optional) (eq (first (second (second continuation))) '&rest)) (second (second (second continuation))) (first (second (second continuation)))))

What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defun-compile-time

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants to create a macro `defun-compile-time` that wraps a function definition.
The provided code snippet is:
`(defun-compile-time magic-continuation-argument (continuation) (if (or (eq (first (second (second continuation))) '&optional) (eq (first (second (second continuation))) '&rest)) (second (second (second continuation))) (first (second (second continuation)))))`

Wait, the prompt says "Before code: ..." and "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defun-compile-time".
This implies the user wants a macro `defun-compile-time` that takes a function name, lambda list, and body, and expands into something that evaluates the body at compile time? Or maybe it's just a wrapper around `defun` that does compile-time evaluation?
Actually, looking at the code, it's just a standard function definition. The macro `defun-compile-time` probably expands to `(defun name lambda-list body)` but perhaps evaluates the body at compile time, or maybe it's just a synonym for `defun` but with some compile-time magic.
Wait, the prompt says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation."
Usually, `defun-compile-time` might be a macro that expands to `(defun name lambda-list ,@(mapcar (lambda (form) `(compile-time-eval ,form)) body))` or something similar. But without more context, it's hard to know exactly what "compile-time" means here.
Perhaps it simply expands to `(defun name lambda-list body)` but ensures the body is compiled? Or maybe it's from a specific library like `alexandria` or `cl-continuations`?
Actually, `defun-compile-time` might be a macro that evaluates the function body at compile time and stores the result? No, that wouldn't make sense for a function definition.
Wait, maybe it's just a macro that expands to `(defun name lambda-list body)` but the prompt is asking to wrap `defun` with compile-time evaluation for the body? Or maybe it's from `iterate` or `cl-cont`?
Let's reconsider: The user provides a "Before code" which is a macro call. They want a macro `defun-compile-time` that transforms this call into something else. What is the "After code"? The prompt doesn't specify. It just says "Create a Common Lisp macro for the following transformation."
Maybe it's a trick question or from a specific codebase. `defun-compile-time` could be a macro that expands to `(defun name lambda-list (declare (optimize (safety 0) (speed 3))) body)`? Unlikely.
Wait, perhaps it's related to `compile-time` evaluation in Common Lisp. There's a standard idiom: `(defun-compile-time name lambda-list body)` expands to `(defun name lambda-list body)` but maybe it's just `(defun name lambda-list ,body)`?
Actually, in many Lisp systems, `defun-compile-time` isn't standard. It might be from `cl-cont` (continuations library). In `cl-cont`, `defun-continuation` or similar exists. But `defun-compile-time`?
Wait, the function name is `magic-continuation-argument`. This looks like it's from a specific library or tutorial.
Let's think about what `defun-compile-time` typically does. It might evaluate the body at compile time and return the result, but that's for constants. For a function, it might just be a synonym for `defun` but with `eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)`?
Actually, a common pattern for "compile-time" macros is to just expand to `defun`. But why the name?
Maybe it's from `cl-who` or `cl-html`? No.
Let's look at the structure: `(defun-compile-time name lambda-list body...)`
If I just write a macro that expands to `(defun name lambda-list ,@body)`, that's trivial. But maybe it's supposed to wrap the body in `compile-time-eval`? No.
Wait! The prompt says "Before code: (defun-compile-time ...)" and "What needs to change: Macro call that should be transformed by defun-compile-time". This is a bit ambiguous. It might mean: "Write a macro `defun-compile-time` that expands to `(defun ...)`".
Or perhaps it's from a specific challenge where `defun-compile-time` is supposed to evaluate the function definition at compile time? In Common Lisp, `defun` is already evaluated at compile time if it's in a file being compiled.
Maybe the
</think>
(defmacro defun-compile-time (function-name lambda-list &body body)
  `(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
     (cl:defun ,function-name ,lambda-list ,@body)
     (eval-when (:compile-toplevel) (compile ',function-name))))


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

[User]
Write a Common Lisp macro to handle this code pattern:
(atomically nil () (decf counter))

Problem: Macro call that should be transformed by atomically

[Assistant]
<think>
The user wants a Common Lisp macro named `atomically`.
The example provided is `(atomically nil () (decf counter))`.

Let's analyze the arguments:
1. `atomically`: The macro name.
2. `nil`: Likely a condition or a lock object. In many concurrency libraries (like `bordeaux-threads` or `cl-containers`), the first argument is often the lock or the condition. `nil` might imply "no lock" or a specific default behavior, or perhaps it's a placeholder for a condition variable. Let's assume it's a lock/condition object.
3. `()`: This looks like a list of arguments to be passed to a function or method. Or perhaps it's a list of variables to be declared? No, usually `()` in this position suggests arguments to a function call.
4. `(decf counter)`: This is the body of code to execute atomically.

Let's look at similar patterns in existing libraries.
`bordeaux-threads` has `with-lock-locked`.
`cl-containers` might have something similar.
However, the syntax `(atomically lock args body)` is specific.

Let's hypothesize the intended semantics.
It looks like it wants to call a function or perform an action atomically.
Maybe it's related to `invoke` or `call` with some locking mechanism.
Or perhaps it's a generic macro for wrapping code in a lock acquisition.

Let's look at the structure: `(atomically lock args body...)`.
If `args` is `()`, it might be arguments to a function associated with `lock`?
Or maybe `atomically` is meant to be a wrapper around a specific function call?

Let's consider a generic "atomic block" macro.
Usually, atomic blocks look like `(atomically lock body)`.
Why is there an `args` list?
Maybe it's `(atomically lock (function) args)`.
But the example is `(atomically nil () (decf counter))`.
`nil` is the lock.
`()` are the args.
`(decf counter)` is the body.

Wait, `decf` is a macro. If we are passing it as a body, it's fine.
But if `args` are meant to be passed to something, what?
Maybe the macro is meant to invoke a method on an object?
`(atomically object args (method-name))`? No.

Let's consider the possibility that this is a custom macro for a specific system the user is building.
Without more context, I should design a macro that:
1. Takes a lock (or condition).
2. Takes a list of arguments (maybe for a callback?).
3. Takes a body.

However, the most standard interpretation of "atomically" in Lisp is wrapping code in a lock.
The presence of `()` suggests arguments.
Maybe it's `(atomically lock args body)` where `body` is a function to call with `args`?
But `(decf counter)` is not a function name, it's a form.

Let's look at the example again: `(atomically nil () (decf counter))`.
If `nil` is the lock, and `()` is empty args, and `(decf counter)` is the body.
Maybe the macro expands to:
`(with-lock-locked (nil) (decf counter))`?
But why the `()`?

Perhaps the macro is meant to handle a function call?
`(atomically lock args (func))` -> `(with-lock-locked (lock) (apply func args))`?
But `(decf counter)` is not a function.

Let's consider another angle. Maybe `atomically` is a macro that generates code for a specific library, like `cl-containers` or `alexandria`.
Or maybe it's a macro that allows passing arguments to a function that is executed atomically.

Let's assume the user wants a macro that:
1. Acquires a lock (first arg).
2. Evaluates the body (third arg onwards).
3. The second arg `()` might be ignored or used for something else.

Actually, looking at the pattern `(atomically nil () (decf counter))`, it looks remarkably like a call to a method where `nil` is the receiver? No.

Let's try to interpret `atomically` as a macro that wraps the body in a lock, and the second argument is a list of declarations or something? No, `()` is a list.

Let's go with a generic implementation that:
1. Binds the lock.
2. Evaluates the body.
3. Ignores the middle argument if it's not clearly defined, or treats it as arguments to a function if the body is
</think>
(defmacro atomically (invariant &body args)
  "Encloses atomic flow block of code that can be dispatched
concurrently. Non-consing."
  (destructuring-bind (opts lambda-list body) (parse-atomic-block-args args)
    (flow-lambda-macro (flow-context)
      (with-flow-function-macro (body-fu lambda-list body)
        `(dispatch-atomically ,flow-context #',body-fu ,invariant ,@opts)))))