Unlike RFCs, we don't capitalize every instance of one of the above keywords when it is used.

Permission comes from the owners of your project.

Forgiveness is requested in a comment near the point of guideline violation, and is granted by your code reviewer. The original comment should be signed by you, and the reviewer should add a signed approval to the comment at review time.

Some of these guidelines are motivated by universal principles of good programming. Some guidelines are motivated by technical peculiarities of Common Lisp. Some guidelines were once motivated by a technical reason, but the guideline remained after the reason subsided. Some guidelines, such those about as comments and indentation, are based purely on convention, rather than on clear technical merit. Whatever the case may be, you must still follow these guidelines, as well as other conventional guidelines that have not been formalized in this document.

You MUST follow conventions. They are important for readability. When conventions are followed by default, violations of the convention are a signal that something notable is happening and deserves attention. When conventions are systematically violated, violations of the convention are a distracting noise that needs to be ignored.

Conventional guidelines are indoctrination. Their purpose is to make you follow the mores of the community, so you can more effectively cooperate with existing members. It is still useful to distinguish the parts that are technically motivated from the parts that are mere conventions, so you know when best to defy conventions for good effect, and when not to fall into the pitfalls that the conventions are there to help avoid.

A lot of our code was written before these guidelines existed. You should fix violations as you encounter them in the course of your normal coding.

You must not fix violations en masse without warning other developers and coordinating with them, so as not to make the merging of large branches more difficult than it already is.

• File and directory structure
• Packages and modularity
• Threads and locking
• How to add configurable components
• CLOS style: initforms, slot and accessor names, etc.
• Recommendations on max number of slots per class.
• More concrete examples of good code:
  • exceptions
  • transactions, with retry
  • XML
  • typing
  • encapsulation / abstraction
  • class and slot names
  • etc.
• When (not) to use conditional compilation:
  • modifying the product
  • conditional debugging/console output/etc.
  • "temporarily" commenting-out blocks of code
  • etc.

Most of these are obvious.

Usability by the customer means that the system has to do what the customer requires; it has to handle the customer's transaction volumes, uptime requirements; etc.

For the Lisp efficiency point, given two options of equivalent complexity, pick the one that performs better. (This is often the same as the one that conses less, i.e. allocates less storage from the heap.)

Given two options where one is more complex than the other, pick the simpler option and revisit the decision only if profiling shows it to be a performance bottleneck.

However, avoid premature optimization. Don't add complexity to speed up something that runs rarely, since in the long run, it matters less whether such code is fast.

If your work affects other groups, might be reusable across groups, adds new components, has an impact on other groups (including QA or Ops), or otherwise isn't purely local, you must write it up using at least a couple of paragraphs, and get a design approval from the other parties involved before starting to write code — or be ready to scratch what you have when they object.

If you don't know or don't care about these issues, ask someone who does.

• You MUST NOT start a new library unless you established that none is already available that can be fixed or completed into becoming what you need. That's a rule against the NIH syndrome ("Not Invented Here"), which is particularly strong amongst Lisp hackers.
• Whichever library, old or new, you pick, you MUST get permission to incorporate third-party code into the code base. You must discuss the use of such library in the appropriate mailing-list, and have your code reviewed by people knowledgeable in the domain and/or the Lisp library ecosystem (if any). Please be ready to argue why this particular solution makes sense as compared to other available libraries.
• Some libraries are distributed under licenses not compatible with the software you're writing, and must not be considered available for use. Be aware of these issues, or consult with people who are.

Use your judgment to distinguish general-purpose versus business-specific code, and open-source the general-purpose parts, while keeping the business-specific parts a trade secret.

Open-Sourcing code has many advantages, including being able to leverage third parties for development, letting the development of features be user-directed, and keeping you honest with respect to code quality. Whatever code you write, you will have to maintain anyway, and make sure its quality is high enough to sustain use in production. There should therefore be no additional burden to Open-Sourcing, even of code that (at least initially) is not directly usable by third parties.

• All code changes must be reviewed. You should expect that your code will be reviewed by other hackers, and that you will be assigned other hackers' code to review. Part of the review criteria will be that code obeys the coding standards in this document.
• You must write and check-in tests for new code that you write and old bugs you fix. There must be a unit test for every API function, and any previously failing case. Your work is not truly done until this activity is complete. Estimating tasks must include the time it takes to produce such tests.
• Your code must compile without any compilation error or warning messages whatsoever. If the compiler issues warnings that should be ignored, muffle those warnings using the UIOP:WITH-MUFFLED-COMPILER-CONDITIONS and UIOP:*UNINTERESTING-COMPILER-CONDITIONS* framework (part of UIOP, part of ASDF 3), either around the entire project, or around individual files (using ASDF's :around-compile hooks).
• All code should be checked in an appropriate source control system, in a way that allows for complete reproducibility of build, test and execution of the code that is, has been or may be deployed.
• You must run the "precheckin" tests, and each component must pass its unit tests successfully before you commit any code.
• You should incorporate code coverage into your testing process. Tests are not sufficient if they do not cover all new and updated code; code that for whatever reason cannot be included in coverage results should be clearly marked as such including the reason.
• Many people develop on branches. You must get permission to undertake mass-changes (e.g. mass reindentations) so that we can coordinate in advance, and give branch residents time to get back on the mainline

If you're not sure, consult a dictionary, Google for alternative spellings, or ask a local expert.

Here are examples of choosing the correct spelling:

• Use "complimentary" in the sense of a meal or beverage that is not paid for by the recipient, not "complementary".
• Use "existent" and "nonexistent", not "existant". Use "existence", not "existance".
• Use "hierarchy" not "heirarchy".
• Use "precede" not "preceed".
• Use "weird", not "wierd".

Here are examples of choosing the shorter spelling:

• Use "canceled", not "cancelled"
• Use "queuing", not "queueing".
• Use "signaled", not "signalled";
• Use "traveled", not "travelled".
• Use "aluminum", not "aluminium"
• Use "oriented", not "orientated"
• Use "color", not "colour"
• Use "behavior", not "behaviour"

Make appropriate exceptions for industry standard nomenclature/jargon, including plain misspellings. For instance:

• Use "referer", not "referrer", in the context of the HTTP protocol.

Some line length restriction is better than none at all. While old text terminals used to make 80 columns the standard, these days, allowing 100 columns seems better, since good style encourages the use of descriptive variables and function names.

Common Lisp indentation in Emacs is provided by the cl-indent library. The latest version of cl-indent is packaged with SLIME (under contrib/slime-cl-indent.el). After installing SLIME, set up Emacs to load SLIME automatically using these instructions, adding slime-indentation to the list of contrib libraries to be loaded in the call to slime-setup.

Ideally, use the default indentation settings provided by slime-indentation. If necessary, customize indentation parameters to maintain a consistent indentation style throughout an existing project. Parameters can be customized using the :variables setting in define-common-lisp-style. Indentation of specific forms can be customized using the :indentation setting of define-common-lisp-style. This is particularly useful when creating forms that behave like macros or special operators that are indented differently than standard function calls (e.g. defun, labels, or let). Add a hook to 'lisp-mode-hook that calls common-lisp-set-style to set the appropriate style automatically.

Use indentation to make complex function applications easier to read. When an application does not fit on one line or the function takes many arguments, consider inserting newlines between the arguments so that each one is on a separate line. However, do not insert newlines in a way that makes it hard to tell how many arguments the function takes or where an argument form starts and ends.

Every source file should begin with a brief description of the contents of that file.

After that description, every file should start the code itself with an (in-package :package-name) form.

After that in-package form, every file should follow with any file-specific (declaim (optimize ...)) declaration that is not covered by an ASDF :around-compile hook.

You should not include authorship information at the top of a file: better information is available from version control, and such a mention will only cause confusion and grief. Indeed, whoever was the main author at the time such a mention was included might not be who eventually made the most significant contributions to the file, and even less who is responsible for the file at the moment.

You should not include copyright information in individual source code files. An exception is made for files meant to be disseminated as standalone.

You should include one blank line between top-level forms, such as function definitions. Exceptionally, blank lines can be omitted between simple, closely related defining forms of the same kind, such as a group of related type declarations or constant definitions.

Blank lines can be used to separate parts of a complicated function. Generally, however, you should break a large function into smaller ones instead of trying to make it more readable by adding vertical space. If you can't, you should document with a ;; comment what each of the separated parts of the function does.

You should strive to keep top-level forms, including comments but excluding the documentation string, of appropriate length; preferrably short. Forms extending beyond a single page should be rare and their use should be justfied. This applies to each of the forms in an eval-when, rather than to the eval-when itself. Additionally, defpackage forms may be longer, since they may include long lists of symbols.

You must not include extra horizontal whitespace before or after parentheses or around symbols.

You must not place right parentheses by themselves on a line. A set of consecutive trailing parentheses must appear on the same line.

You should use only one space between forms.

You should not use spaces to vertically align forms in the middle of consecutive lines. An exception is made when the code possesses an important yet otherwise not visible symmetry that you want to emphasize.

You must align nested forms if they occur across more than one line.

The convention is that the body of a binding form is indented two spaces after the form. Any binding data before the body is usually indented four spaces. Arguments to a function call are aligned with the first argument; if the first argument is on its own line, it is aligned with the function name.

An exception to the rule against lonely parentheses is made for an eval-when form around several definitions; in this case, include a comment ; eval-when after the closing parenthesis.

You must set your editor to avoid inserting tab characters in the files you edit. Tabs cause confusion when editors disagree on how many spaces they represent. In Emacs, do (setq-default indent-tabs-mode nil).

Unless some bit of code is painfully self-explanatory, document it with a documentation string (also known as docstring).

Documentation strings are destined to be read by the programmers who use your code. They can be extracted from functions, types, classes, variables and macros, and displayed by programming tools, such as IDEs, or by REPL queries such as (describe 'foo); web-based documentation or other reference works can be created based on them. Documentation strings are thus the perfect locus to document your API. They should describe how to use the code (including what pitfalls to avoid), as opposed to how the code works (and where more work is needed), which is what you'll put in comments.

Supply a documentation string when defining top-level functions, types, classes, variables and macros. Generally, add a documentation string wherever the language allows.

For functions, the docstring should describe the function's contract: what the function does, what the arguments mean, what values are returned, what conditions the function can signal. It should be expressed at the appropriate level of abstraction, explaining the intended meaning rather than, say, just the syntax. In documentation strings, capitalize the names of Lisp symbols, such as function arguments. For example, "The value of LENGTH should be an integer."

A long docstring may usefully begin with a short, single-sentence summary, followed by the larger body of the docstring.

When the name of a type is used, the symbol may be quoted by surrounding it with a back quote at the beginning and a single quote at the end. Emacs will highlight the type, and the highlighting serves as a cue to the reader that M-. will lead to the symbol's definition.

Every method of a generic function should be independently documented when the specialization affects what the method does, beyond what is described in its generic function's docstring.

When you fix a bug, consider whether what the fixed code does is obviously correct or not; if not, you must add a comment explaining the reason for the code in terms of fixing the bug. Adding the bug number, if any, is also recommended.

Comments are explanations to the future maintainers of the code. Even if you're the only person who will ever see and touch the code, even if you're either immortal and never going to quit, or unconcerned with what happens after you leave (and have your code self-destruct in such an eventuality), you may find it useful to comment your code. Indeed, by the time you revisit your code, weeks, months or years later, you will find yourself a different person from the one who wrote it, and you will be grateful to that previous self for making the code readable.

You must comment anything complicated so that the next developer can understand what's going on. (Again, the "hit by a truck" principle.)

Also use comments as a way to guide those who read the code, so they know what to find where.

• File headers and important comments that apply to large sections of code in a source file should begin with four semicolons.
• You should use three semicolons to begin comments that apply to just one top-level form or small group of top-level forms.
• Inside a top-level form, you should use two semicolons to begin a comment if it appears between lines.
• You should use one semicolon if it is a parenthetical remark and occurs at the end of a line. You should use spaces to separate the comment from the code it refers to so the comment stands out. You should try to vertically align consecutive related end-of-line comments.

You should include a space between the semicolon and the text of the comment.

When a comment is a full sentence, you should capitalize the initial letter of the first word and end the comment with a period. In general, you should use correct punctuation.

For comments requiring special attention, such as incomplete code, todo items, questions, breakage, and danger, include a TODO comment indicating the type of problem, its nature, and any notes on how it may be addressed.

The comments begin with TODO in all capital letters, followed by the name, e-mail address, or other identifier of the person with the best context about the problem referenced by the TODO. The main purpose is to have a consistent TODO that can be searched to find out how to get more details upon request. A TODO is not a commitment that the person referenced will fix the problem. Thus when you create a TODO, it is almost always your name that is given.

When signing comments, you should use your username (for code within the company) or full email address (for code visible outside the company), not just initials.

Be specific when indicating times or software releases in a TODO comment and use YYYY-MM-DD format for dates to make automated processing of such dates easier, e.g., 2038-01-20 for the end of the 32-bit signed time_t.

For code that uses unobvious forms to accomplish a task, you must include a comment stating the purpose of the form and the task it accomplishes.

You should design your Domain Specific Language to be easy to read and understand by people familiar with the domain.

You must properly document all your Domain Specific Language.

Sometimes, your DSL is designed for terseness. In that case, it is important to document what each program does, if it's not painfully obvious from the context.

Notably, when you use regular expressions (e.g. with the CL-PPCRE package), you MUST ALWAYS put in a comment (usually a two-semicolon comment on the previous line) explaining, at least basically, what the regular expression does, or what the purpose of using it is. The comment need not spell out every bit of the syntax, but it should be possible for someone to follow the logic of the code without actually parsing the regular expression.

Use lower case for all symbols. Consistently using lower case makes searching for symbol names easier and is more readable.

Note that Common Lisp is case-converting, and that the symbol-name of your symbols will be upper case. Because of this case-converting, attempts to distinguish symbols by case are defeated, and only result in confusion. While it is possible to escape characters in symbols to force lower case, you should not use this capability unless this is somehow necessary to interoperate with third-party software.

Place hyphens between all the words in a symbol. If you can't easily say an identifier out loud, it is probably badly named.

You must not use "/" or "." instead of "-" unless you have a well-documented overarching reason to, and permission from other hackers who review your proposal.

See the section on Spelling and Abbreviations for guidelines on using abbreviations.

There are conventions in Common Lisp for the use of punctuation in symbols. You should not use punctuation in symbols outside these conventions.

Unless the scope of a variable is very small, do not use overly short names like i and zq.

You should name a variable according to the high-level concept that it represents, not according to the low-level implementation details of how the concept is represented.

Thus, you should avoid embedding data structure or aggregate type names, such as list, array, or hash-table inside variable names, unless you're writing a generic algorithm that applies to arbitrary lists, arrays, hash-tables, etc. In that case it's perfectly OK to name a variable list or array.

Indeed, you should be introducing new abstract data types with DEFCLASS or DEFTYPE, whenever a new kind of intent appears for objects in your protocols. Functions that manipulate such objects generically may then use variables the name of which reflect that abstract type.

For example, if a variable's value is always a row (or is either a row or NIL), it's good to call it row or first-row or something like that. It is alright is row has been DEFTYPE'd to STRING — precisely because you have abstracted the detail away, and the remaining salient point is that it is a row. You should not name the variable STRING in this context, except possibly in low-level functions that specifically manipulate the innards of rows to provide the suitable abstraction.

Be consistent. If a variable is named row in one function, and its value is being passed to a second function, then call it row rather than, say, value (this was a real case).

The names of global constants should start and end with plus characters.

Global variable names should start and end with asterisks (also known in this context as earmuffs).

In some projects, parameters that are not meant to be usually modified or bound under normal circumstances (but may be during experimentation or exceptional situations) should start (but do not end) with a dollar sign. If such a convention exists within your project, you should follow it consistently. Otherwise, you should avoid naming variables like this.

Common Lisp does not have global lexical variables, so a naming convention is used to ensure that globals, which are dynamically bound, never have names that overlap with local variables. It is possible to fake global lexical variables with a differently named global variable and a DEFINE-SYMBOL-MACRO. You should not use this trick, unless you first publish a library that abstracts it away.

You should name boolean-valued functions and variables with a trailing "P" or "-P", to indicate they are predicates. Generally, you should use "P" when the rest of the function name is one word and "-P" when it is more than one word.

A rationale for this convention is given in the CLtL2 chapter on predicates.

For uniformity, you should follow the convention above, and not one of the alternatives below.

An alternative rule used in some existing packages is to always use "-P". Another alternative rule used in some existing packages is to always use "?". When you develop such a package, you must be consistent with the rest of the package. When you start a new package, you should not use such an alternative rule without a very good documented reason.

When naming a symbol (external or internal) in a package, you should not include the package name as a prefix within the name of the symbol. Naming a symbol this way makes it awkward to use from a client package accessing the symbol by qualifying it with a package prefix, where the package name then appears twice (once as a package prefix, another time as a prefix within the symbol name).

An exception to the above rule would be to include a prefix for the names of variables that would otherwise be expected to clash with variables in packages that use the current one. For instance, ASDF exports a variable *ASDF-VERBOSE* that controls the verbosity of ASDF only, rather than of the entire Lisp program.

Lisp packages are used to demarcate namespaces. Usually, each system has its own namespace. A package has a set of external symbols, which are intended to be used from outside the package, in order to allow other modules to use this module's facilities.

The internal symbols of a package should never be referred to from other packages. That is, you should never have to use the double-colon :: construct. (e.g. QUAKE::HIDDEN-FUNCTION). If you need to use double-colons to write real production code, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

As an exception, unit tests may use the internals of the package being tested. So when you refactor, watch out for internals used by the package's unit tests.

The :: construct is also useful for very temporary hacks, and at the REPL. But if the symbol really is part of the externally-visible definition of the package, export it.

You may find that some internal symbols represent concepts you usually want to abstract away and hide under the hood, yet at times are necessary to expose for various extensions. For the former reason, you do not want to export them, yet for the latter reason, you have to export them. The solution is to have two different packages, one for your normal users to use, and another for the implementation and its extenders to use.

Each package is one of two types:

• Intended to be included in the :use specification of other packages. If package A "uses" package B, then the external symbols of package B can be referenced from within package A without a package prefix. We mainly use this for low-level modules that provide widely-used facilities.
• Not intended to be "used". To reference a facility provided by package B, code in package A must use an explicit package prefix, e.g. B:DO-THIS.

If you add a new package, it should always be of the second type, unless you have a special reason and get permission. Usually a package is designed to be one or the other, by virtue of the names of the functions. For example, if you have an abstraction called FIFO, and it were in a package of the first type you'd have functions named things like FIFO-ADD-TO and FIFO-CLEAR-ALL. If you used a package of the second type, you'd have names like ADD-TO and CLEAR-ALL, because the callers would be saying FIFO:ADD-TO and FIFO:CLEAR-ALL. (FIFO:FIFO-CLEAR-ALL is redundant and ugly.)

Another good thing about packages is that your symbol names won't "collide" with the names of other packages, except the ones your packages "uses". So you have to stay away from symbols that are part of the Lisp implementation (since you always "use" that) and that are part of any other packages you "use", but otherwise you are free to make up your own names, even short ones, and not worry about some else having used the same name. You're isolated from each other.

Your package must not shadow (and thus effectively redefine) symbols that are part of the Common Lisp language. There are certain exceptions, but they should be very well-justified and extremely rare:

• If you are explicitly replacing a Common Lisp symbol by a safer or more featureful version.
• If you are defining a package not meant to be "used", and have a good reason to export a symbol that clashes with Common Lisp, such as log:error and log:warn and so on.

Lisp is best used as a "mostly functional" language.

Avoid modifying local variables, try rebinding instead.

Avoid creating objects and the SETFing their slots. It's better to set the slots during initialization.

Make classes as immutable as possible, that is, avoid giving slots setter functions if at all possible.

Using a mostly functional style makes it much easier to write concurrent code that is thread-safe. It also makes it easier to test the code.

Common Lisp systems are not required to implement function calls from tail positions without leaking stack space — which is known as proper tail calls (PTC), tail call elimination (TCE), or tail call optimization (TCO). This means that indefinite recursion through tail calls may quickly blow out the stack, which hampers functional programming. Still, most serious implementations (including SBCL and CCL) do implement proper tail calls, but with restrictions:

• The (DECLARE (OPTIMIZE ...)) settings must favor SPEED enough and not favor DEBUG too much, for some compiler-dependent meanings of "enough" and "too much". (For instance, in SBCL, you should avoid (SPEED 0) and (DEBUG 3) to achieve proper tail calls.)
• There should not be dynamic bindings around the call (even though some Scheme compilers are able to properly treat such dynamic bindings, called parameters in Scheme parlance).

For compatibility with all compilers and optimization settings, and to avoid stack overflow when debugging, you should prefer iteration or the built in mapping functions to relying on proper tail calls.

If you do rely on proper tail calls, you must prominently document the fact, and take appropriate measures to ensure an appropriate compiler is used with appropriate optimization settings. For fully portable code, you may have to use trampolines instead.

Using Lisp "special" (dynamically bound) variables as implicit arguments to functions should be used sparingly, and only in cases where it won't surprise the person reading the code, and where it offers significant benefits.

Indeed, each special variable constitutes state. Developers have to mentally track the state of all relevant variables when trying to understand what the code does and how it does it; tests have to be written and run with all relevant combinations; to isolate some activity, care has to be taken to locally bind all relevant variables, including those of indirectly used modules. They can hide precious information from being printed in a backtrace. Not only is there overhead associated to each new variable, but interactions between variables can make the code exponentially more complex as the number of such variables increases. The benefits have to match the costs.

Note though that a Lisp special variable is not a global variable in the sense of a global variable in, say, BASIC or C. As special variables can be dynamically bound to a local value, they are much more powerful than global value cells where all users necessarily interfere with each other.

Good candidates for such special variables are items for which "the current" can be naturally used as prefix, such as "the current database connection" or "the current business data source". They are singletons as far as the rest of the code is concerned, and often passing them as an explicit argument does not add anything to the readability or maintainability of the source code in question.

They can make it easier to write code that can be refactored. If you have a request processing chain, with a number of layers that all operate upon a "current" request, passing the request object explicitly to every function requires that every function in the chain have a request argument. Factoring out code into new functions often requires that these functions also have this argument, which clutters the code with boilerplate.

You should treat special variables as though they are per-thread variables. By default, you should leave a special variable with no top-level binding at all, and each thread of control that needs the variable should bind it explicitly. This will mean that any incorrect use of the variable will result in an "unbound variable" error, and each thread will see its own value for the variable. Variables with a default global value should usually be locally bound at thread creation time. You should use suitable infrastructure to automate the appropriate declaration of such variables.

There are several styles for dealing with assignment and side-effects; whichever a given package is using, keep using the same consistently when hacking said package. Pick a style that makes sense when starting a new package.

Regarding multiple assignment in a same form, there are two schools: the first style groups as many assignments as possible into a single SETF or PSETF form thus minimizing the number of forms with side-effects; the second style splits assignments into as many individual SETF (or SETQ, see below) forms as possible, to maximize the chances of locating forms that modify a kind of place by grepping for (setf (foo .... A grep pattern must actually contain as many place-modifying forms as you may use in your programs, which may make this rationale either convincing or moot depending on the rest of the style of your code. You should follow the convention used in the package you are hacking. We recommend the first convention for new packages.

Regarding SETF and SETQ, there are two schools: this first regards SETQ as an archaic implementation detail, and avoids it entirely in favor of SETF; the second regards SETF as an additional layer of complexity, and avoids it in favor of SETQ whenever possible (i.e. whenever the assigned place is a variable or symbol-macro). You should follow the convention used in the package you are hacking. We recommend the first convention for new packages.

In the spirit of a mostly pure functional style, which makes testing and maintenance easier, we invite you to consider how to do things with the fewest assignments required.

• ASSERT should be used ONLY to detect internal bugs. Code should ASSERT invariants whose failure indicates that the software is itself broken. Incorrect input should be handled properly at runtime, and must not cause an assertion violation. The audience for an ASSERT failure is a developer. Do not use the data-form and argument-form in ASSERT to specify a condition to signal. It's fine to use them to print out a message for debugging purposes (and since it's only for debugging, there's no issue of internationalization).
• CHECK-TYPE, ETYPECASE are also forms of assertion. When one of these fails, that's a detected bug. You should prefer to use CHECK-TYPE over (DECLARE (TYPE ...)) for the inputs of functions.
• Your code should use assertions and type checks liberally. The sooner a bug is discovered, the better! Only code in the critical path for performance and internal helpers should eschew explicit assertions and type checks.
• Invalid input, such as files that are read but do not conform to the expected format, should not be treated as assertion violations. Always check to make sure that input is valid, and take appropriate action if it is not, such as signalling a real error.
• ERROR should be used to detect problems with user data, requests, permissions, etc., or to report "unusual outcomes" to the caller.
• ERROR should always be called with an explicit condition type; it should never simply be called with a string. This enables internationalization.
• Functions that report unusual outcomes by signaling a condition should say so explicitly in their contracts (their textual descriptions, in documentation and docstrings etc.). When a function signals a condition that is not specified by its contract, that's a bug. The contract should specify the condition class(es) clearly. The function may then signal any condition that is a type-of any of those conditions. That is, signaling instances of subclasses of the documented condition classes is fine.
• Complex bug-checks may need to use ERROR instead of ASSERT.
• When writing a server, you must not call WARN. Instead, you should use the appropriate logging framework.
• Code must not call SIGNAL. Instead, use ERROR or ASSERT.
• Code should not use THROW and CATCH; instead use the restart facility.
• Code should not generically handle all conditions, e.g. type T, or use IGNORE-ERRORS. Instead, let unknown conditions propagate to the standard ultimate handler for processing.
• There are a few places where handling all conditions is appropriate, but they are rare. The problem is that handling all conditions can mask program bugs. If you do need to handle "all conditions", you MUST handle only ERROR, not T and not SERIOUS-CONDITION. (This is notably because CCL's process shutdown depends on being able to signal process-reset and have it handled by CCL's handler, so we must not interpose our own handler.)
• (error (make-condition 'foo-error ...)) is equivalent to (error 'foo-error ...) — code must use the shorter form.
• Code should not signal conditions from inside the cleanup form of UNWIND-PROTECT (unless they are always handled inside the cleanup form), or otherwise do non-local exits from cleanup handlers outside of the handler e.g. INVOKE-RESTART.
• Do not clean up by resignaling. If you do that, and the condition is not handled, the stack trace will halt at the point of the resignal, hiding the rest. And the rest is the part we really care about! ;; Bad (handler-case (catch 'ticket-at (etd-process-blocks)) (error (c) (reset-parser-values) (error c))) ;; Better (unwind-protect (catch 'ticket-at (etd-process-blocks)) (reset-parser-values))

If your function is using a special variable as an implicit argument, it's good to put in a CHECK-TYPE for the special variable, for two reasons: to clue in the person reading the code that this variable is being used implicitly as an argument, and also to help detect bugs.

Using (declare (type ...)) is the least-desirable mechanism to use because, as Scott McKay puts it:

The fact is, (declare (type ...)) does different things depending on the compiler settings of speed, safety, etc. In some compilers, when speed is greater than safety, (declare (type ...)) will tell the compiler "please assume that these variables have these types" without generating any type-checks. That is, if some variable has the value 1432 in it, and you declare it to be of type string, the compiler might just go ahead and use it as though it's a string.

Moral: don't use (declare (type ...)) to declare the contract of any API functions, it's not the right thing. Sure, use it for "helper" functions, but not API functions.

You should, of course, use appropriate declarations in internal low-level functions where these declarations are used for optimization. When you do, however, see our recommendations for Unsafe Operations.

When a generic function is intended to be called from other modules (other parts of the code), there should be an explicit DEFGENERIC form, with a :DOCUMENTATION string explaining the generic contract of the function (as opposed to its behavior for some specific class). It's generally good to do explicit DEFGENERIC forms, but for module entry points it is mandatory.

When the argument list of a generic function includes &KEY, the DEFGENERIC should always explicitly list all of the keyword arguments that are acceptable, and explain what they mean. (Common Lisp does not require this, but it is good form, and it may avoid spurious warnings on SBCL.)

You should avoid SLOT-VALUE and WITH-SLOTS, unless you absolutely intend to circumvent any sort of method combination that might be in effect for the slot. Rare exceptions include INITIALIZE-INSTANCE and PRINT-OBJECT methods and accessing normally hidden slots in the low-level implementation of methods that provide user-visible abstractions. Otherwise, you should use accessors, WITH-ACCESSORS

Accessor names generally follow a convention of <protocol-name>-<slot-name>, where a "protocol" in this case loosely indicates a set of functions with well-defined behavior.

No implication of a formal "protocol" concept is necessarily intended, much less first-class "protocol" objects. However, there may indeed be an abstract CLOS class or an Interface-Passing Style interface that embodies the protocol. Further (sub)classes or (sub)interfaces may then implement all or part of a protocol by defining some methods for (generic) functions in the protocol, including readers and writers.

For example, if there were a notional protocol called is pnr with accessors pnr-segments and pnr-passengers, then the classes air-pnr, hotel-pnr and car-pnr could each reasonably implement methods for pnr-segments and pnr-passengers as accessors.

By default, an abstract base class name is used as the notional protocol name, so accessor names default to <class-name>-<slot-name>; while such names are thus quite prevalent, this form is neither required nor even preferred. In general, it contributes to "symbol bloat", and in many cases has led to a proliferation of "trampoline" methods.

Accessors named <slot-name>-of should not be used.

Explicit DEFGENERIC forms should be used when there are (or it is anticipated that there will be) more than one DEFMETHOD for that generic function. The reason is that the documentation for the generic function explains the abstract contract for the function, as opposed to explaining what an individual method does for some specific class(es).

You must not use generic functions where there is no notional protocol. To put it more concretely, if you have more than one generic function that specializes its Nth argument, the specializing classes should all be descendants of a single class. Generic functions must not be used for "overloading", i.e. simply to use the same name for two entirely unrelated types.

More precisely, it's not really whether they descend from a common superclass, but whether they obey the same "protocol". That is, the two classes should handle the same set of generic functions, as if there were an explicit DEFGENERIC for each method.

Here's another way to put it. Suppose you have two classes, A and B, and a generic function F. There are two methods for F, which dispatch on an argument being of types A and B. Is it plausible that there might be a function call somewhere in the program that calls F, in which the argument might sometimes, at runtime, be of class A and other times be of class B? If not, you probably are overloading and should not be using a single generic function.

We allow one exception to this rule: it's OK to do overloading if the corresponding argument "means" the same thing. Typically one overloading allows an X object, and the other allows the name of an X object, which might be a symbol or something.

You must not use MOP "intercessory" operations at runtime. You should not use MOP "intercessory" operations at compile-time. At runtime, they are at worst a danger, at best a performance issue. At compile-time, it is usually cleaner that macros should set things up the right way in one pass than have to require a second pass of fixups through intercession; but sometimes, fixups are necessary to resolve forward references, and intercession is allowed then. MOP intercession is a great tool for interactive development, and you may enjoy it while developping and debugging; but you should not use it in normal applications.

If a class definition creates a method as a :READER, :WRITER, or :ACCESSOR, do not redefine that method. It's OK to add :BEFORE, :AFTER, and :AROUND methods, but don't override the primary method.

In methods with keyword arguments, you must always use &KEY, even if the method does not care about the values of any keys, and you should never use &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS. As long as a keyword is accepted by any method of a generic function, it's OK to use it in the generic function, even if the other methods of the same generic function don't mention it explicitly. This is particularly important for INITIALIZE-INSTANCE methods, since if you did use &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS, it would disable error checking for misspelled or wrong keywords in MAKE-INSTANCE calls!

A typical PRINT-OBJECT method might look like this:

Macros bring syntactic abstraction, which is a wonderful thing. It helps make your code clearer, by describing your intent without getting bogged in implementation details (indeed abstracting those details away). It helps make your code more concise and more readable, by eliminating both redundancy and irrelevant details. But it comes at a cost to the reader, which is learning a new syntactic concept for each macro. And so it should not be abused.

The general conclusion is that there shouldn't be any recognizable design pattern in a good Common Lisp program. The one and only pattern is: use the language, which includes defining and using syntactic abstractions.

Existing macros must be used whenever they make code clearer by conveying intent in a more concise way, which is often. When a macro is available in your project that expresses the concept you're using, you must not write the expansion rather than use the macro.

New macros should be defined as appropriate, which should be seldom, for common macros have already been provided by the language and its various libraries, and your program typically only needs few new ones relative to its size.

You should follow the OAOOM rule of thumb for deciding when to create a new abstraction, whether syntactic or not: if a particular pattern is used more than twice, it should probably be abstracted away. A more refined rule to decide when to use abstraction should take into account the benefit in term of number of uses and gain at each use, to the costs in term of having to get used to reading the code. For syntactic abstractions, costs and benefits to the reader is usually more important than costs and benefits to the writer, because good code is usually written once and read many times by many people (including the same programmer who has to maintain the program after having forgotten it). Yet the cost to the writer of the macro should also be taken into account; however, in doing so it should rather be compared to the cost of the programmer writing other code instead that may have higher benefits.

Using Lisp macros properly requires taste. Avoid writing complicated macros unless the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. It takes more effort for your fellow developers to learn your macro, so you should only use a macro if the gain in expressiveness is big enough to justify that cost. As usual, feel free to consult your colleagues if you're not sure, since without a lot of Lisp experience, it can be hard to make this judgment.

You must never use a macro where a function will do. That is, if the semantics of what you are writing conforms to the semantics of a function, then you must write it as a function rather than a macro.

You must not transform a function into a macro for performance reasons. If profiling shows that you have a performance problem with a specific function FOO, document the need and profiling-results appropriately, and (declaim (inline foo)).

You can also use a compiler-macro as a way to speed up function execution by specifying a source-to-source transformation. Beware that it interferes with tracing the optimized function.

When you write a macro-defining macro (a macro that generates macros), document and comment it particularly clearly, since these are harder to understand.

You must not install new reader macros without a consensus among the developers of your system. Reader macros must not leak out of the system that uses them to clients of that system or other systems used in the same project. You must use software such as cl-syntax or named-readtables to control how reader macros are used. This clients who desire it may use the same reader macros as you do. In any case, your system must be usable even to clients who do not use these reader macros.

If your macro has a parameter that is a Lisp form that will be evaluated when the expanded code is run, you should name the parameter with the suffix -form. This convention helps make it clearer to the macro's user which parameters are Lisp forms to be evaluated, and which are not. The common names body and end are exceptions to this rule.

You should follow the so-called CALL-WITH style when it applies. This style is explained at length in http://random-state.net/log/3390120648.html. The general principle is that the macro is strictly limited to processing the syntax, and as much of the semantics as possible is kept in normal functions. Therefore, a macro WITH-FOO is often limited to generating a call to an auxiliary function CALL-WITH-FOO with arguments deduced from the macro arguments. Macro &body arguments are typically wrapped into a lambda expression of which they become the body, which is passed as one of the arguments of the auxiliary function.

The separation of syntactic and semantic concerns is a general principle of style that applies beyond the case of WITH- macros. Its advantages are many. By keeping semantics outside the macro, the macro is made simpler, easier to get right, and less subject to change, which makes it easier to develop and maintain. The semantics is written in a simpler language — one without staging — which also makes it easier to develop and maintain. It becomes possible to debug and update the semantic function without having to recompile all clients of the macro. The semantic function appears in the stack trace which also helps debug client functions. The macro expansion is made shorter and each expansion shares more code with other expansions, which reduces memory pressure which in turn usually makes things faster. It also makes sense to write the semantic functions first, and write the macros last as syntactic sugar on top. You should use this style unless the macro is used in tight loops where performance matters; and even then, see our rules regarding optimization.

Any functions (closures) created by the macro should be named, which can be done using FLET. This also allows you to declare the function to be of dynamic extent (if it is — and often it is; yet see below regarding DYNAMIC-EXTENT).

If a macro call contains a form, and the macro expansion includes more than one copy of that form, the form can be evaluated more than once, and code it contains macro-expanded and compiled more than once. If someone uses the macro and calls it with a form that has side effects or that takes a long time to compute, the behavior will be undesirable (unless you're intentionally writing a control structure such as a loop). A convenient way to avoid this problem is to evaluate the form only once, and bind a (generated) variable to the result. There is a very useful macro called ALEXANDRIA:ONCE-ONLY that generates code to do this. See also ALEXANDRIA:WITH-GENSYMS, to make some temporary variables in the generated code. Note that if you follow our CALL-WITH style, you typically expand the code only once, as either an argument to the auxiliary function, or the body of a lambda passed as argument to it; you therefore avoid the above complexity.

When you write a macro with a body, such as a WITH-xxx macro, even if there aren't any parameters, you should leave space for them anyway. For example, if you invent WITH-LIGHTS-ON, do not make the call to it look like (defmacro with-lights-on (&body b) ...). Instead, do (defmacro with-lights-on (() &body b) ...). That way, if parameters are needed in the future, you can add them without necessarily having to change all the uses of the macro.

Lisp evaluation happens at several times, some of them interleaved. Be aware of them when writing macros. EVAL-WHEN considered harmful to your mental health.

In summary of the article linked above, unless you're doing truly advanced macrology, the only valid combination in an EVAL-WHEN is to include all of (eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) ...)

You must use (eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute) ...) whenever you define functions, types, classes, constants, variables, etc., that are going to be used in macros.

It is usually an error to omit the :execute, because it prevents LOADing the source rather than the fasl. It is usually an error to omit the :load-toplevel (except to modify e.g. readtables and compile-time settings), because it prevents LOADing future files or interactively compiling code that depends on the effects that happen at compile-time, unless the current file was COMPILE-FILEd within the same Lisp session.

Regarding variables, note that because macros may or may not be expanded in the same process that runs the expanded code, you must not depend on compile-time and runtime effects being either visible or invisible at the other time. There are still valid uses of variables in macros:

• Some variables may hold dictionaries for some new kind of definition and other meta-data. If such meta-data is to be visible at runtime and/or in other files, you must make sure that the macro expands into code that will register the definitions to those meta-data structures at load-time, in addition to effecting the registration at compile-time. Typically, your top-level definitions expand to code that does the registration. if your code doesn't expand at the top-level, you can sometimes use LOAD-TIME-VALUE for good effect. In extreme cases, you may have to use ASDF-FINALIZERS:EVAL-AT-TOPLEVEL.
• Some variables may hold temporary data that is only used at compile-time in the same file, and can be cleaned up at the end of the file's compilation. Predefined such variables would include *readtable* or compiler-internal variables holding the current optimization settings. You can often manage existing and new such variables using the :AROUND-COMPILE hooks of ASDF.

The #. standard read-macro will read one object, evaluate the object, and have the reader return the resulting value.

You must not use it where other idioms will do, such as using EVAL-WHEN to evaluate side-effects at compile-time, using a regular macro to return an expression computed at compile-time, using LOAD-TIME-VALUE to compute it at load-time.

Read-time evaluation is often used as a quick way to get something evaluated at compile time (actually "read time" but it amounts to the same thing). If you use this, the evaluation MUST NOT have any side effects and MUST NOT depend on any variable global state. The #. should be treated as a way to force "constant-folding" that a sufficiently-clever compiler could have figure out all by itself, when the compiler isn't sufficiently-clever and the difference matters.

Another use of #. is to expand the equivalent of macros in places that are neither expressions nor (quasi)quotations, such as lambda-lists. However, if you find yourself using it a lot, it might be time to instead define macros to replace your consumers of lambda-lists with something that recognizes an extension.

Whenever you are going to use #., you should consider using DEFCONSTANT and its variants, possibly in an EVAL-WHEN, to give the value a name explaining what it means.

Places where it is actually appropriate to use EVAL are so few and far between that you must consult with your reviewers; it's easily misused.

If your code manipulates symbols at runtime and needs to get the value of a symbol, use SYMBOL-VALUE, not EVAL.

Often, what you really need is to write a macro, not to use EVAL.

You may be tempted to use EVAL as a shortcut to evaluating expressions in a safe subset of the language. But it often requires more scrutiny to properly check and sanitize all possible inputs to such use of EVAL than to build a special-purpose evaluator. You must not use EVAL in this way at runtime.

Places where it is OK to use EVAL are:

• The implementation of an interactive development tool.
• The build infrastructure.
• Backdoors that are part of testing frameworks. (You MUST NOT have such backdoors in production code.)
• Macros that fold constants at compile-time.
• Macros that register definitions to meta-data structures; the registration form is sometimes evaluated at compile-time as well as included in the macro-expansion, so it is immediately available to other macros.

Note that in the latter case, if the macro isn't going to be used at the top-level, it might not be possible to make these definitions available as part of the expansion. The same phenomenon may happen in a DEFTYPE expansion, or in helper functions used by macros. In these cases, you may actually have to use ASDF-FINALIZERS:EVAL-AT-TOPLEVEL in your macro. It will not only EVAL your definitions at macro-expansion time for immediate availability, it will also save the form aside, for inclusion in a (ASDF-FINALIZERS:FINAL-FORMS) that you need to include at the end of the file being compiled (or before the form is needed). This way, the side-effects are present when loading the fasl without having compiled it as well as while compiling it; in either case, the form is made available at load-time. ASDF-FINALIZERS ensures that the form is present, by throwing an error if you omit it.

You must not use INTERN at runtime. Not only does it cons, it either creates a permanent symbol that won't be collected or gives access to internal symbols. This creates opportunities for memory leaks, denial of service attacks, unauthorized access to internals, clashes with other symbols.

You must not INTERN a string just to compare it to a keyword; use STRING= or STRING-EQUAL.

You must not use UNINTERN at runtime. It can break code that relies on dynamic binding. It makes things harder to debug. You must not dynamically intern any new symbol, and therefore you need not dynamically unintern anything.

You may of course use INTERN at compile-time, in the implementation of some macros. Even so, it is usually more appropriate to use abstractions on top of it, such as ALEXANDRIA:SYMBOLICATE or ALEXANDRIA:FORMAT-SYMBOL to create the symbols you need.

NIL can have several different interpretations:

• "False." In this case, use NIL. You should test for false NIL using the operator NOT or using the predicate function NULL.
• "Empty-list." In this case, use '(). (Be careful about quoting the empty-list when calling macros.) You should use ENDP to test for the empty list when the argument is known to be a proper list, or with NULL otherwise.
• A statement about some value being unspecified. In this case, you may use NIL if there is no risk of ambiguity anywhere in your code; otherwise you should use an explicit, descriptive symbol.
• A statement about some value being known not to exist. In this case, you should use an explicit, descriptive symbol instead of NIL.

You must not introduce ambiguity in your data representations that will cause headaches for whoever has to debug code. If there is any risk of ambiguity, you should use an explicit, descriptive symbol or keyword for each case, instead of using NIL for either. If you do use NIL, you must make sure that the distinction is well documented.

In many contexts, instead of representing "I don't know" as a particular value, you should instead use multiple values, one for the value that is known if any, and one to denote whether the value was known or found.

When working with database classes, keep in mind that NIL need not always map to 'NULL' (and vice-versa)! The needs of the database may differ from the needs of the Lisp.

Even though back in 1958, LISP was short for "LISt Processing", its successor Common Lisp has been a modern programming language with modern data structures since the 1980s. You must use the proper data structures in your programs.

You must not abuse the builtin (single-linked) LIST data structure where it is not appropriate, even though Common Lisp makes it especially easy to use it.

You must only use lists when their performance characteristics is appropriate for the algorithm at hand: sequential iteration over the entire contents of the list.

An exception where it is appropriate to use lists is when it is known in advance that the size of the list will remain very short (say, less than 16 elements).

List data structures are often (but not always) appropriate for macros and functions used by macros at compile-time: indeed, not only is source code passed as lists in Common Lisp, but the macro-expansion and compilation processes will typically walk over the entire source code, sequentially, once. (Note that advanced macro systems don't directly use lists, but instead use abstract syntax objects that track source code location and scope; however there is no such advanced macro system in Common Lisp at this time.)

Another exception where it is appropriate to use lists is for introducing literal constants that will be transformed into more appropriate data structures at compile-time or load-time. It is a good to have a function with a relatively short name to build your program's data structures from such literals.

In the many cases when lists are not the appropriate data structure, various libraries such as cl-containers or lisp-interface-library provide plenty of different data structures that should fulfill all the basic needs of your programs. If the existing libraries are not satisfactory, see above about Using Libraries and Open-Sourcing Code.

You should avoid using a list as anything besides a container of elements of like type. You must not use a list as method of passing multiple separate values of different types in and out of function calls. Sometimes it is convenient to use a list as a little ad hoc structure, i.e. "the first element of the list is a FOO, and the second is a BAR", but this should be used minimally since it gets harder to remember the little convention. You must only use a list that way when destructuring the list of arguments from a function, or creating a list of arguments to which to APPLY a function.

The proper way to pass around an object comprising several values of heterogeneous types is to use a structure as defined by DEFSTRUCT or DEFCLASS.

You should use multiple values only when function returns a small number of values that are meant to be destructured immediately by the caller, rather than passed together as arguments to further functions.

You should not return a condition object as one of a set of multiple values. Instead, you should signal the condition to denote an unusual outcome.

You should signal a condition to denote an unusual outcome, rather than relying on a special return type.

Use FIRST to access the first element of a list, SECOND to access the second element, etc. Use REST to access the tail of a list. Use ENDP to test for the end of the list.

Use CAR and CDR when the cons cell is not being used to implement a proper list and is instead being treated as a pair of more general objects. Use NULL to test for NIL in this context.

The latter case should be rare outside of alists, since you should be using structures and classes where they apply, and data structure libraries when you want trees.

Exceptionally, you may use CDADR and other variants on lists when manually destructuring them, instead of using a combination of several list accessor functions. In this context, using CAR and CDR instead of FIRST and REST also makes sense. However, keep in mind that it might be more appropriate in such cases to use higher-level constructs such as DESTRUCTURING-BIND or OPTIMA:MATCH.

ELT has O(n) behavior when used on lists. If you are to use random element access on an object, use arrays and AREF instead.

The exception is for code outside the critical path where the list is known to be small anyway.

Using lists as representations of sets is a bad idea unless you know the lists will be small, for accessors are O(n) instead of O(log n). For arbitrary big sets, use balanced binary trees, for instance using lisp-interface-library.

If you still use lists as sets, you should not UNION lists just to search them.

Indeed, UNION not only conses unnecessarily, but it can be O(n^2) on some implementations, and is rather slow even when it's O(n).

The Lisp system we primarily use, SBCL, is very picky and signals a condition whenever a constant is redefined to a value not EQL to its previous setting. You must not use DEFCONSTANT when defining variables that are not numbers, characters, or symbols (including booleans and keywords). Instead, consistently use whichever alternative is recommended for your project.

Open-Source libraries may use ALEXANDRIA:DEFINE-CONSTANT for constants other than numbers, characters and symbols (including booleans and keywords). You may use the :TEST keyword argument to specify an equality predicate.

Note that with optimizing implementations, such as SBCL or CMUCL, defining constants this way precludes any later redefinition short of UNINTERNing the symbol and recompiling all its clients. This may make it "interesting" to debug things at the REPL or to deploy live code upgrades. If there is a chance that your "constants" are not going to be constant over the lifetime of your server processes after taking into consideration scheduled and unscheduled code patches, you should consider using DEFPARAMETER or DEFVAR instead, or possibly a variant of DEFINE-CONSTANT that builds upon some future library implementing global lexicals rather than DEFCONSTANT. You may keep the +plus+ convention in these cases to document the intent of the parameter as a constant.

Also note that LOAD-TIME-VALUE may help you avoid the need for defined constants.

You should avoid using &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS, since it blurs the contract of a function. Almost any real function (generic or not) allows a certain fixed set of keywords, as far as its caller is concerned, and those are part of its contract. If you are implementing a method of a generic function, and it does not need to know the values of some of the keyword arguments, you should explicitly (DECLARE (IGNORE ...)) all the arguments that you are not using. You must not use &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS unless you explicitly want to disable checking of allowed keys for all methods when invoking the generic function on arguments that match this particular method. Note that the contract of a generic function belongs in the DEFGENERIC, not in the DEFMETHOD which is basically an "implementation detail" of the generic function as far as the caller of the generic is concerned.

A case where &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS is appropriate is when you write a wrapper function to other some other functions that may vary (within the computation or during development), and pass around a plist as a &REST argument.

You should avoid using &AUX arguments.

You should avoid having both &OPTIONAL and &KEY arguments, unless it never makes sense to specify keyword arguments when the optional arguments are not all specified. You must not have non-NIL defaults to your &OPTIONAL arguments when your function has both &OPTIONAL and &KEY arguments.

For maximum portability of a library, it is good form that DEFMETHOD definitions should (DECLARE (IGNORABLE ...)) all the required arguments that they are not using. Indeed, some implementations will issue a warning if you (DECLARE (IGNORE ...)) those arguments, whereas other implementations will issue a warning if you fail to (DECLARE (IGNORE ...)) them. (DECLARE (IGNORABLE ...)) works on all implementations.

You should avoid excessive nesting of binding forms inside a function. If your function ends up with massive nesting, you should probably break it up into several functions or macros. If it is really a single conceptual unit, consider using a macro such as FARE-UTILS:NEST to at least reduce the amount of indentation required. It is bad form to use NEST in typical short functions with 4 or fewer levels of nesting, but also bad form not to use it in the exceptional long functions with 10 or more levels of nesting. Use your judgment and consult your reviewers.

Use WHEN and UNLESS when there is only one alternative. Use IF when there are two alternatives and COND when there are several.

However, don't use PROGN for an IF clause — use COND, WHEN, or UNLESS.

Note that in Common Lisp, WHEN and UNLESS return NIL when the condition is not met. You may take advantage of it. Nevertheless, you may use an IF to explicitly return NIL if you have a specific reason to insist on the return value. You may similarly include a fall-through clause (t nil) as the last in your COND, or (otherwise nil) as the last in your CASE, to insist on the fact that the value returned by the conditional matters and that such a case is going to be used. You should omit the fall-through clause when the conditional is used for side-effects.

You should prefer AND and OR when it leads to more concise code than using IF, COND, WHEN or UNLESS, and there are no side-effects involved. You may also use an ERROR as a side-effect in the final clause of an OR.

You should only use CASE and ECASE to compare numbers, characters or symbols (including booleans and keywords). Indeed, CASE uses EQL for comparisons, so strings, pathnames and structures may not compare the way you expect, and 1 will differ from 1.0.

You should use ECASE and ETYPECASE in preference to CASE and TYPECASE. It is better to catch erroneous values early.

You should not use CCASE or CTYPECASE at all. At least, you should not use them in server processes, unless you have quite robust error handling infrastructure and make sure not to leak sensitive data this way. These are meant for interactive use, and can cause interesting damage if they cause data or control to leak to attackers.

You must not use gratuitous single quotes in CASE forms. This is a common error:

'BAR there is (QUOTE BAR), meaning this leg of the case will be executed if X is QUOTE... and ditto for the second leg (though QUOTE will be caught by the first clause). This is unlikely to be what you really want.

In CASE forms, you must use otherwise instead of t when you mean "execute this clause if the others fail". You must use ((t) ...) when you mean "match the symbol T" rather than "match anything". You must also use ((nil) ...) when you mean "match the symbol NIL" rather than "match nothing".

Therefore, if you want to map booleans NIL and T to respective symbols :BAR and :QUUX, you should avoid the former way and do it the latter way:

Lisp provides four general equality predicates: EQ, EQL, EQUAL, and EQUALP, which subtly vary in semantics. Additionally, Lisp provides the type-specific predicates =, CHAR=, CHAR-EQUAL, STRING=, and STRING-EQUAL. Know the distinction!

You should use EQL to compare objects and symbols for identity.

You must not use EQ to compare numbers or characters. Two numbers or characters that are EQL are not required by Common Lisp to be EQ.

When choosing between EQ and EQL, you should use EQL unless you are writing performance-critical low-level code. EQL reduces the opportunity for a class of embarrassing errors (i.e. if numbers or characters are ever compared). There may a tiny performance cost relative to EQ, although under SBCL, it often compiles away entirely. EQ is equivalent to EQL and type declarations, and use of it for optimization should be treated just like any such unsafe operations.

You should use CHAR= for case-dependent character comparisons, and CHAR-EQUAL for case-ignoring character comparisons.

You should use STRING= for case-dependent string comparisons, and STRING-EQUAL for case-ignoring string comparisons.

A common mistake when using SEARCH on strings is to provide STRING= or STRING-EQUAL as the :TEST function. The :TEST function is given two sequence elements to compare. If the sequences are strings, the :TEST function is called on two characters, so the correct tests are CHAR= or CHAR-EQUAL. If you use STRING= or STRING-EQUAL, the result is what you expect, but in some Lisp implementations it's much slower. CCL (at least as of 8/2008) creates a one-character string upon each comparison, for example, which is very expensive.

Also, you should use :START and :END arguments to STRING= or STRING-EQUAL instead of using SUBSEQ; e.g. (string-equal (subseq s1 2 6) s2) should instead be (string-equal s1 s2 :start1 2 :end1 6) This is preferable because it does not cons.

You should use ZEROP, PLUSP, or MINUSP, instead of comparing a value to 0 or 0.0.

You must not use exact comparison on floating point numbers, since the vague nature of floating point arithmetic can produce little "errors" in numeric value. You should compare absolute values to a threshhold.

You must use = to compare numbers, unless you really mean for 0, 0.0 and -0.0 to compare unequal, in which case you should use EQL. Then again, you must not usually use exact comparison on floating point numbers.

Monetary amounts should be using decimal (rational) numbers to avoid the complexities and rounding errors of floating-point arithmetic. Libraries such as wu-decimal may help you; once again, if this library is not satisfactory, see above about Using Libraries and Open-Sourcing Code.

You should simpler forms such as DOLIST or DOTIMES instead of LOOP in simple cases when you're not going to use any of the LOOP facilities such as bindings, collection or block return.

Use the WITH clause of LOOP when it will avoid a level of nesting with LET. You may use LET if it makes it clearer to return one of bound variables after the LOOP, rather than use a clumsy FINALLY (RETURN ...) form.

In the body of a DOTIMES, do not set the iteration variable. (CCL will issue a compiler warning if you do.)

Most systems use unadorned symbols in the current package as LOOP keywords. Other systems use actual :keywords from the KEYWORD package as LOOP keywords. You must be consistent with the convention used in your system.

When writing a server, code must not send output to the standard streams such as *STANDARD-OUTPUT* or *ERROR-OUTPUT*. Instead, code must use the proper logging framework to output messages for debugging. We are running as a server, so there is no console!

Code must not use PRINT-OBJECT to communicate with a user — PRINT-OBJECT is for debugging purposes only. Modifying any PRINT-OBJECT method must not break any public interfaces.

You should not use a sequence of WRITE-XXX where a single FORMAT string could be used. Using format allows you to parameterize the format control string in the future if the need arises.

You should use WRITE-CHAR to emit a character rather than WRITE-STRING to emit a single-character string.

You should not use (format nil "~A" value); you should use PRINC-TO-STRING instead.

You should use ~<Newline> or ~@<Newline> in format strings to keep them from wrapping in 100-column editor windows, or to indent sections or clauses to make them more readable.

You should not use STRING-UPCASE or STRING-DOWNCASE on format control parameters; instead, it should use "~:@(~A~)" or "~(~A~)".

Be careful when using the FORMAT conditional directive. The parameters are easy to forget.

No parameters, e.g. "~[Siamese~;Manx~;Persian~] Cat"

Take one format argument, which should be an integer. Use it to choose a clause. Clause numbers are zero-based. If the number is out of range, just print nothing. You can provide a default value by putting a ":" in front of the last ";". E.g. in "~[Siamese~;Manx~;Persian~:;Alley~] Cat", an out-of-range arg prints "Alley".

: parameter, e.g. "~:[Siamese~;Manx~]"

Take one format argument. If it's NIL, use the first clause, otherwise use the second clause.

@ parameter, e.g. "~@[Siamese ~a~]"

If the next format argument is true, use the choice, but do NOT take the argument. If it's false, take one format argument and print nothing. (Normally the clause uses the format argument.)

# parameter, e.g. "~#[ none~; ~s~; ~s and ~s~]"

Use the number of arguments to format as the number to choose a clause. The same as no parameters in all other ways. Here's the full hairy example: "Items:~#[ none~; ~S~; ~S and ~S~:;~@{~#[~; and~] ~S~^ ,~}~]."

In a language with automatic storage management (such as Lisp or Java), the colloquial phrase "memory leak" refers to situation where storage that is not actually needed nevertheless does not get deallocated, because it is still reachable.

You should be careful that when you create objects, you don't leave them reachable after they are no longer needed!

Here's a particular trap-for-the-unwary in Common Lisp. If you make an array with a fill pointer, and put objects in it, and then set the fill pointer back to zero, those objects are still reachable as far as Lisp goes (the Common Lisp spec says that it's still OK to refer to the array entries past the end of the fill pointer).

Don't cons (i.e., allocate) unnecessarily. Garbage collection is not magic. Excessive allocation is usually a performance problem.

Common Lisp implementations often provide backdoors to compute some operations faster in an unsafe way. For instance, some libraries provide arithmetic operations that are designed to be used with fixnums only, and yield the correct result faster if provided proper arguments. The downside is that the result of such operations is incorrect in case of overflow, and can have undefined behavior when called with anything but fixnums.

More generally, unsafe operations will yield the correct result faster than would the equivalent safe operation if the arguments satisfy some invariant such as being of the correct type and small enough; however if the arguments fail to satisfy the required invariants, then the operation may have undefined behavior, such as crashing the software, or, which is sometimes worse, silently giving wrong answers. Depending on whether the software is piloting an aircraft or other life-critical device, or whether it is accounting for large amounts money, such undefined behavior can kill or bankrupt people. Yet proper speed can sometimes make the difference between software that's unusably slow and software that does its job, or between software that is a net loss and software that can yield a profit.

You must not define or use unsafe operations without both profiling results indicating the need for this optimization, and careful documentation explaining why it is safe to use them. Unsafe operations should be restricted to internal functions; you should carefully documented how unsafe it is to use these functions with the wrong arguments. You should only use unsafe operations inside functions internal to a package and you should document the use of the declarations, since calling the functions with arguments of the wrong type can lead to undefined behavior. Use check-type in functions exported from a package to sanitize input arguments, so that internal functions are never passed illegal values.

On some compilers, new unsafe operations can usually be defined by combining type declarations with an OPTIMIZE declaration that has sufficiently high SPEED and low SAFETY. In addition to providing more speed for production code, such declarations may more helpful than check-type assertions for finding bugs at compile-time, on compilers that have type inference. These compilers may interpret those declarations as assertions if you switch to safer and slower optimize settings; this is good to locate a dynamic error in your code during development, but is not to be used for production code since it defeats the purpose of declarations as a performance trick.

DYNAMIC-EXTENT declarations are a particular case of unsafe operations.

The purpose of a DYNAMIC-EXTENT declaration is to improve performance by reducing garbage collection in cases where it appears to be obvious that an object's lifetime is within the "dynamic extent" of a function. That means the object is created at some point after the function is called, and the object is always inaccessible after the function exits by any means.

By declaring a variable or a local function DYNAMIC-EXTENT, the programmer asserts to Lisp that any object that is ever a value of that variable or the closure that is the definition of the function has a lifetime within the dynamic extent of the (innermost) function that declares the variable.

The Lisp implementation is then free to use that information to make the program faster. Typically, Lisp implementations can take advantage of this knowledge to stack-allocate:

• The lists created to store &REST parameters.
• Lists, vectors and structures allocated within a function.
• Closures.

If the assertion is wrong, i.e. if the programmer's claim is not true, the results can be catastrophic: Lisp can terminate any time after the function returns, or it can hang forever, or — worst of all — it can produce incorrect results without any runtime error!

Even if the assertion is correct, future changes to the function might introduce a violation of the assertion. This increases the danger.

In most cases, such objects are ephemeral. Modern Lisp implementations use generational garbage collectors, which are quite efficient under these circumstances.

Therefore, DYNAMIC-EXTENT declarations should be used sparingly. You must only use them if:

1. There is some good reason to think that the overall effect on performance is noticeable, and
2. It is absolutely clear that the assertion is true.
3. It is quite unlikely that the code will be changed in ways that cause the declaration to become false.

Point (1) is a special case of the principle of avoiding premature optimization. An optimization like this only matters if such objects are allocated at a very high rate, e.g. "inside an inner loop".

Note that is relatively easy to ascertain that a function will not escape the dynamic extent of the current call frame by analyzing where the function is called and what other functions it is passed to; therefore, you should somewhat wary of declaring a function DYNAMIC-EXTENT, but this is not a high-stress declaration. On the other hand, it is much harder to ascertain that none of the objects ever bound or assigned to that variable and none of their sub-objects will escape the dynamic extent of the current call frame, and that they still won't in any future modification of a function. Therefore, you should be extremely wary of declaring a variable DYNAMIC-EXTENT.

It's usually hard to predict the effect of such optimization on performance. When writing a function or macro that is part of a library of reusable code, there's no a priori way to know how often the code will run. Ideally, tools would be available to discover the availability and suitability of using such an optimization based on running simulations and test cases, but in practice this isn't as easy as it ought to be. It's a tradeoff. If you're very, very sure that the assertion is true (that any object bound to the variable and any of its sub-objects are only used within the dynamic extent of the specified scope), and it's not obvious how much time will be saved and it's not easy to measure, then it may be better to put in the declaration than to leave it out. (Ideally it would be easier to make such measurements than it actually is.)

You should use REDUCE instead of APPLY and a consed-up list, where the semantics of the first operator argument otherwise guarantees the same semantics. Of course, you must use APPLY if it does what you want and REDUCE doesn't. For instance:

This is preferable because it does not do extra consing, and does not risk going beyond CALL-ARGUMENTS-LIMIT on implementations where that limit is small, which could blow away the stack on long lists (we want to avoid gratuitous non-portability in our code).

However, you must be careful not to use REDUCE in ways that needlessly increase the complexity class of the computation. For instance, (REDUCE 'STRCAT ...) is O(n^2) when an appropriate implementation is only O(n). Moreover, (REDUCE 'APPEND ...) is also O(n^2) unless you specify :FROM-END T. In such cases, you MUST NOT use REDUCE, and you MUST NOT use (APPLY 'STRCAT ...) or (APPLY 'APPEND ...) either. Instead you MUST use proper abstractions from a suitable library (that you may have to contribute to) that properly handles those cases without burdening users with implementation details. See for instance UIOP:REDUCE/STRCAT.

You should almost never use NCONC. You should use APPEND when you don't depend on any side-effect. You should use ALEXANDRIA:APPENDF when you need to update a variable. You should probably not depend on games being played with the CDR of the current CONS cell (which some might argue is suggested but not guaranteed by the specification); if you do, you must include a prominent comment explaining the use of NCONC; and you should probably reconsider your data representation strategy.

By extension, you should avoid MAPCAN or the NCONC feature of LOOP. You should instead respectively use ALEXANDRIA:MAPPEND and the APPEND feature of LOOP.

NCONC is very seldom a good idea, since its time complexity class is no better than APPEND, its space complexity class also is no better than APPEND in the common case where no one else is sharing the side-effected list, and its bug complexity class is way higher than APPEND.

If the small performance hit due to APPEND vs. NCONC is a limiting factor in your program, you have a big problem and are probably using the wrong data structure: you should be using sequences with constant-time append (see Okasaki's book, and add them to lisp-interface-library), or more simply you should be accumulating data in a tree that will get flattened once in linear time after the accumulation phase is complete.

You may only use NCONC, MAPCAN or the NCONC feature of LOOP in low-level functions where performance matters, where the use of lists as a data structure has been vetted because these lists are known to be short, and when the function or expression the result of which are accumulated explicitly promises in its contract that it only returns fresh lists (in particular, it can't be a constant quote or backquote expression). Even then, the use of such primitives must be rare, and accompanied by justifying documentation.

The former, which reads as (FUNCTION FUN), refers to the function object, and is lexically scoped. The latter, which reads as (QUOTE FUN), refers to the symbol, which when called uses the global FDEFINITION of the symbol.

When using functions that take a functional argument (e.g., MAPCAR, APPLY, :TEST and :KEY arguments), you should use the #' to refer to the function, not just single quote.

An exception is when you explicitly want dynamic linking, because you anticipate that the global function binding will be updated.

Another exception is when you explicitly want to access a global function binding, and avoid a possible shadowing lexical binding. This shouldn't happen often, as it is usually a bad idea to shadow a function when you will want to use the shadowed function; just use a different name for the lexical function.

You must consistently use either #'(lambda ...) or (lambda ...) without #' everywhere. Unlike the case of #'symbol vs 'symbol, it is only a syntactic difference with no semantic impact, except that the former works on Genera and the latter doesn't. You must use the former style if your code is intended as a library with maximal compatibility to all Common Lisp implementations; otherwise, it is optional which style you use. #' may be seen as a hint that you're introducing a function in expression context; but the lambda itself is usually sufficient hint, and concision is good. Choose wisely, but above all, consistently with yourself and other developers, within a same file, package, system, project, etc.

Note that if you start writing a new system in a heavily functional style, you may consider using lambda-reader, a system that lets you use the unicode character λ instead of LAMBDA. But you must not start using such a syntactic extension in an existing system without getting permission from other developers.

It is surprisingly hard to properly deal with pathnames in Common Lisp.

ASDF 3 comes with a portability library UIOP that makes it much easier to deal with pathnames portably — and correctly — in Common Lisp. You should use it when appropriate.

First, be aware of the discrepancies between the syntax of Common Lisp pathnames, which depends on which implementation and operating system you are using, and the native syntax of pathnames on your operating system. The Lisp syntax may involves quoting of special characters such as #\. and #\*, etc., in addition to the quoting of #\\ and #\" within strings. By contrast, your operating system's other system programming languages (shell, C, scripting languages) may only have one layer of quoting, into strings.

Second, when using MERGE-PATHNAMES, be wary of the treatment of the HOST component, which matters a lot on non-Unix platforms (and even on some Unix implementations). You probably should be using UIOP:MERGE-PATHNAMES* or UIOP:SUBPATHNAME instead of MERGE-PATHNAMES, especially if your expectations for relative pathnames are informed by the way they work in Unix or Windows; otherwise you might hit weird bugs whereby on some implementations, merging a relative pathnames with an absolute pathname results in overriding the absolute pathname's host and replace it with the host from the value of *DEFAULT-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS* at the time the relative pathname was created.

Third, be aware that DIRECTORY is not portable across implementations in how it handles wildcards, sub-directories, symlinks, etc. There again, UIOP provides several common abstractions to deal with pathnames, but only does so good a job. For a complete portable solution, use IOLib — though its Windows support lags behind.

LOGICAL-PATHNAMEs are not a portable abstraction, and should not be used in portable code. Many implementations have bugs in them, when they are supported at all. SBCL implements them very well, but strictly enforces the limitations on characters allowed by the standard, which restricts their applicability. Other implementations allow arbitrary characters in such pathnames, but in doing so are not being conformant, and are still incompatible with each other in many ways. You should use other pathname abstractions, such as ASDF:SYSTEM-RELATIVE-PATHNAME or the underlying UIOP:SUBPATHNAME and UIOP:PARSE-UNIX-NAMESTRING.

Finally, be aware that paths may change between the time you build the Lisp image for your application, and the time you run the application from its image. You should be careful to reset your image to forget irrelevant build-time paths and reinitialize any search path from current environment variables. ASDF for instance requires you to reset its paths with UIOP:CLEAR-CONFIGURATION. UIOP provides hooks to call functions before an image is dumped, from which to reset or makunbound relevant variables.

Most Common Lisp implementations can't optimize based on a SATISFIES type, but many of them offer simple optimizations based on a type of the form (AND FOO (SATISFIES BAR-P)) where the first term of the AND clause describes the structure of the object without any SATISFIES and the second term is the SATISFIES.

However, AND in the DEFTYPE language isn't a left-to-right short-circuit operator as in the expression language; it is a symmetrical connector that allows for reordering subterms and doesn't guarantee short-circuiting. Therefore, in the above example, you cannot rely on the test for INTEGERness to protect the function PRIME-NUMBER-P from being supplied non-integer arguments to test for being of instances of the type. Implementations may, and some will, invoke SATISFIES-specified function at compile-time to test various relevant objects.

That is why any function specified in a SATISFIES clause MUST accept objects of any type as argument to the function, and MUST be defined within an EVAL-WHEN (as well as any variable it uses or function it calls):

In particular, the above means that the example used in the Common Lisp Standard is erroneous: (and integer (satisfies evenp)) is not a safe, conformant type specifier to use, because EVENP will throw an error rather than return NIL when passed a non-integer as an argument.

Finally, there is a catch when your DEFTYPE code expands to a SATISFIES with a dynamically generated function:

• You cannot control when implementations will or will not expand a DEFTYPE.
• The expansion itself cannot contain a function definition or any code in the expression language.
• You cannot control when the expansion is used, it may happen in a different process that didn't expand the definition.

Therefore, you cannot merely create the function as a side-effect of expansion using EVAL at type-expansion time. The solution is to use ASDF-FINALIZERS:EVAL-AT-TOPLEVEL instead. See the very last point in the discussion about EVAL.

Common Lisp is hard to satisfy.