What's wrong with my tail-recursive sum procedure? My tail-recursive scheme procedure will not run.
Code:
(define (sum term a next b)
(define iter result i)
(if (> i b)
result
(iter (+ result (term i)) (next i))
(iter 0 a )))
(define (increment x)(+ x 1))
(define (sum-square a b)
(sum (lambda(x)(* x x)) a increment b))
(define (sum-int a b)
(define (identity a) a)
(sum identity a increment b))
(sum-int 5 10)
(sum-square 5 10)
Error:
Error: execute: unbound symbol: "result" [sum-int, (anon), sum, (anon), sum-square, sum, (anon)]
You have parentheses problems in sum. Try this:
(define (sum term a next b)
(define (iter result i)
(if (> i b)
result
(iter (+ result (term i)) (next i))))
(iter 0 a))
In particular, notice that this line was wrong, that's not how you define a procedure:
(define iter result i)
And the corresponding closing parentheses is wrong, too. A strict discipline of correctly indenting and formatting the code will make these kind of errors easier to catch, use a good IDE for this.
Related
This is what I have for recursive procedure (repeated f n) that applies the function f n times to an argument:
(define (repeated f count)
(if (= count 1)
f
(lambda (x)
(f ((repeated f (- count 1)) x)))))
E.g. ((repeated sqr 3) 2) returns 256, i.e. (sqr(sqr(sqr 2))).
But I have no idea how to implement repeated as an iterative process using Racket. Any advice is much obliged.
A typical solution for converting a recursive process to an iterative process is to enlist the aid of an accumulator.
Any way you slice it, repeated will have to return a procedure. One solution would use a named let inside the returned procedure that iterates n times, keeping track of the results in an accumulator. Here is a version of repeated that returns a unary procedure; note that there is no input validation here, so calls like ((repeated f 0) 'arg) will lead to trouble.
(define (repeated f n)
(lambda (x)
(let iter ((n n)
(acc x))
(if (= n 1) (f acc)
(iter (- n 1)
(f acc))))))
Named let expressions are very handy for things like this, but you could also define a helper procedure to do the same thing. I will leave that solution as an exercise for OP.
scratch.rkt> ((repeated sqr 3) 2)
256
scratch.rkt> ((repeated add1 8) 6)
14
I think using for/fold makes a cleaner solution
(define ((repeated f n) x)
(for/fold ([acc x]) ([i (in-range n)]) (f acc)))
Using it:
> ((repeated sqr 3) 2)
256
> ((repeated add1 8) 6)
14
Don't understand why
"a"
and
"b"
work in the code ? should we define var
"a"
and
"b"
before
"do"
?
(define v1 3)
(define v2 2)
(do ((a 1 (+ a v1))
(b 2 (+ b v2)))
((>= a b) (if (= a b) 'YES 'NO)))
After (do the local variables for the do loop are defined:
(a 1 (+ a v1)) meaning: define local loop variable a with starting value 1 and assigning (+ a v1) to a at the beginning of a new round
(b 2 (+ b v2)) meaning: define local loop variable b with starting value 2 and assigning (+ b v2) to b at the beginning of a new round
So, a and b are defined in the do loop.
There are no control flow operations other than procedure calls.
do is just a macro. The R5RS report gives an implementation:
(define-syntax do
(syntax-rules ()
((do ((var init step ...) ...)
(test expr ...)
command ...)
(letrec
((loop
(lambda (var ...)
(if test
(begin
(if #f #f)
expr ...)
(begin
command
...
(loop (do "step" var step ...)
...))))))
(loop init ...)))
((do "step" x)
x)
((do "step" x y)
y)))
Your code turns into something like this:
(let loop ((a 1) (b 2))
(if (>= a b)
(if (= a b) 'YES 'NO)
(loop (+ a v1) (+ b v2))))
I know what I want to do, I am having trouble getting there. I am looking for some guidance. I am more or less forcing what I want done and there has to be a better way than the way I am trying to create this function. I currently get an unbound variable error right where I call (set! nadj) and (set! count).
I am trying to make a function where the user inputs a sentence. If more than 25% of that sentence consists of adjectives the function returns false.
This is what I have so far:
(define OK
(lambda (x)
(cond
((adj? (car x))
(set! count (+ count 1)))
((not (adj? (car x))
(set! nadj (+ nadj 1))))
((not (null? (OK (cdr x)))))
((null? x)
(set! sum (+ nadj count)))
;;(set! div (/ count sum))
;;(* 100 div)
;;(< div 25))
((else #f)))))
What I am trying to do is make a counter for the words that are an adjective and a counter for the words that are not. Then I am trying to add all of the words up and divide them by the amount of words that were adjectives. I then want to multiply that by 100 and return true if it is less than 25%. I am not looking for an answer, more or less I just want some guidance.
Here is the adj? function if you need to see it.
(define adjectives '(black brown fast hairy hot quick red slow))
(define adj?
(lambda(x)
(if ( member x adjectives) #t #f)))
I am sure this isn't normal Scheme notation. I program a lot in C++ and Java and I am having a hard time transitioning into Scheme.
You're correct in stating that your solution is not idiomatic Scheme - we try really hard to avoid mutating variables, all those set! operations are frowned upon: we don't really need them. A more idiomatic solution would be to pass along the counters as parameters, as demonstrated in #uselpa's answer. His solution uses explicit recursion via a named let.
We can go one step further, though - the true spirit of functional programming is to reuse existing higher-order procedures and compose them in such a way that they solve our problems. I don't know which Scheme interpreter you're using, but in Racket the OK procedure can be expressed as simply as this:
(define (OK x) ; assuming a non-empty list
(< (/ (count adj? x) ; count the number of adjectives
(length x)) ; divide by the total number of words
0.25)) ; is it less than 25%?
If your Scheme interpreter doesn't provide a count procedure import it from SRFI-1; also it's very easy to implement your own - again, this is in the spirit of functional programming: we want to build generic procedures that are useful in their own right, and easily reused and composed in other contexts:
(define (count pred lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (counter 0))
(cond ((null? lst) counter)
((pred (car lst)) (loop (cdr lst) (+ 1 counter)))
(else (loop (cdr lst) counter)))))
Playing Devil's advocate it's possible to fix your function using an imperative style, as long as we define the variables first (by the way, that was causing the "unbound variable" error) - for example, place a let before the looping function: think of it as a variable declaration that happens before the recursion starts. Also notice that the empty list case must appear first, to avoid accessing an element in an empty list, and don't forget to advance the recursion at each step. This is ugly, but should work:
(define (OK x) ; assuming a non-empty list
; declare the counters outside the function
(let ((adj 0) (nadj 0))
; looping function
(let loop ((x x))
(cond
; is the list empty?
((null? x)
; is the number of adjectives less than 25%?
(< (/ adj (+ adj nadj)) 0.25))
; is current element an adjective?
((adj? (car x))
; increment adj counter
(set! adj (+ adj 1))
; always advance recursion
(loop (cdr x)))
; is current element anything other than an adjective?
(else
; increment nadj counter
(set! nadj (+ nadj 1))
; always advance recursion
(loop (cdr x)))))))
I don't know if you are familiar with the named let, but this comes in handy here:
(define (OK x)
(let loop ((x x) (adj 0) (nadj 0)) ; named let
(cond
((null? x) (< (/ adj (+ adj nadj)) 0.25))
((adj? (car x)) (loop (cdr x) (+ 1 adj) nadj))
(else (loop (cdr x) adj (+ 1 nadj))))))
This is a convenient notation for the following, equivalent code:
(define (OK x)
(define (loop x adj nadj)
(cond
((null? x) (< (/ adj (+ adj nadj)) 0.25))
((adj? (car x)) (loop (cdr x) (+ 1 adj) nadj))
(else (loop (cdr x) adj (+ 1 nadj)))))
(loop x 0 0))
so basically we define an internal function, and what is a loop in a language such as C++ and Java becomes a recursive call (and to add to the confusion, the procedure that gets called recursively is sometimes called loop, as in my example). Since the call is done in tail position, this is just as efficient in Scheme as a classic loop in the languages you mentioned.
Variable assignments are replaced by modifying the parameters of the recursive call, i.e. you usually find no set! procedures in such a simple case.
EDIT an example implementation using set!:
(define OK
(let ((adj 0) (nadj 0))
(lambda (x)
(cond
((null? x) (< (/ adj (+ adj nadj)) 0.25))
(else (if (adj? (car x))
(set! adj (+ 1 adj))
(set! nadj (+ 1 nadj)))
(OK (cdr x)))))))
You can't set an unbound variable, even a global one. Variables refer to locations; setting a variable that doesn't exist anywhere is impossible:
(set! a 1)
;Unbound variable: a ; a doesn't refer to any location yet
(define a)
;Value: a
(list a)
;Unassigned variable: a ; now it does, but it hasn't been assigned a value yet
(set! a 1)
;Value: a
(list a)
;Value: (1)
(set! a 2)
;Value: 1
(list a)
;Value: (2)
There's nothing wrong with localized and encapsulated mutation. Setting a global variable is by definition not localized.
You should have created local bindings (locations) for the variables you intended to use. The basic iteration built-in form do does it for you:
(define (OK x)
(do ((adj 0) (nadj 0))
((null? x) ; loop termination condition
(< (/ adj (+ adj nadj))
0.25)) ; return value form
; loop body
(if (adj? (car x))
(set! adj (+ adj 1))
; else
(set! nadj (+ nadj 1)))
; some other statements maybe...
))
Just another option that sometimes might come handy. Of course the most idiomatic Scheme code is using named let construct. It will also force you to refactor a spaghetti code that you might otherwise write using do. Don't. :)
I have been asked to translate a couple of C functions to scheme for an assignment. My professor very briefly grazed over how Scheme works, and I am finding it difficult to understand. I want to create a function that checks to see which number is greater than the other, then keeps checking every time you input a new number. The issue I am having is with variable declaration. I don't understand how you assign a value to an id.
(define max 1)
(define (x x)
(let maxfinder [(max max)]
(if (= x 0)
0
(if (> max x)
max
((= max x) maxfinder(max))))))
The trouble I keep running into is that I want to initialize max as a constant, and modify x. In my mind this is set up as an infinite loops with an exit when x = 0. If max is > x, which it should not be for the first time through, then set max = to x, and return x. I don't know what to do with the constant max. I need it to be a local variable. Thanks
Parenthesis use is very strict. Besides special forms they are used to call procedures. eg (> max x) calls procedure > with arguments max and x. ((if (> x 3) - +) 6 x) is an example where the if form returns a procedure and the result is called.
((= max x) ...) evaluates (= max x) and since the result is not a procedure it will fail.
maxfinder without parenthesis is just a procedure object.
(max) won't work since max is a number, not a procedure.
As for you problem. You add the extra variables you need to change in the named let. Eg. a procedure that takes a number n and makes a list with number 0-n.
(define (make-numbered-list n)
(let loop ((n n) (acc '()))
(if (zero? n)
acc
(loop (- n 1) (cons n acc)))))
Local variables are just locally bound symbols. This can be rewritten
(define (make-numbered-list n)
(define (loop n acc)
(if (zero? n)
acc
(loop (- n 1) (cons n acc))))
(loop n '()))
Unlike Algol dialects like C you don't mutate variables in a loop, but use recusion to alter them.
Good luck
If i understand you correctly, you are looking for the equivalent of a C function's static variable. This is called a closure in Scheme.
Here's an example implementation of a function you feed numbers to, and which will always return the current maximum:
(define maxfinder
(let ((max #f)) ; "static" variable, initialized to False
(lambda (n) ; the function that is defined
(when (or (not max) (< max n)) ; if no max yet, or new value > max
(set! max n)) ; then set max to new value
max))) ; in any case, return the current max
then
> (maxfinder 1)
1
> (maxfinder 10)
10
> (maxfinder 5)
10
> (maxfinder 2)
10
> (maxfinder 100)
100
So this will work, but provides no mechanism to reuse the function in a different context. The following more generalised version instantiates a new function on every call:
(define (maxfinder)
(let ((max #f)) ; "static" variable, initialized to False
(lambda (n) ; the function that is returned
(when (or (not max) (< max n)) ; if no max yet, or new value > max
(set! max n)) ; then set max to new value
max))) ; in any case, return the current max
use like this:
> (define max1 (maxfinder)) ; instantiate a new maxfinder
> (max1 1)
1
> (max1 10)
10
> (max1 5)
10
> (max1 2)
10
> (max1 100)
100
> (define max2 (maxfinder)) ; instantiate a new maxfinder
> (max2 5)
5
Define a function to determine the maximum between two numbers:
(define (max x y)
(if (> x y) x y))
Define a function to 'end'
(define end? zero?)
Define a function to loop until end? computing max
(define (maximizing x)
(let ((input (begin (display "number> ") (read))))
(cond ((not (number? input)) (error "needed a number"))
((end? input) x)
(else (maximizing (max x input))))))
Kick it off:
> (maximizing 0)
number> 4
number> 1
number> 7
number> 2
number> 0
7
Define a function sum, which takes two numbers, or two real functions, and returns their sum. E.g.
(sum 1 2) => 3
((sum cos exp) 0) => 2
I get that for the sum of two numbers the code would be the following:
(define sum (lambda (x y)
(+ x y)))
But what would be the code for the two real functions...? How would I do this? can anyone please help?
Also how would I do this:
Define a function sum-all which works like sum, but works on a list of numbers or a list of functions. Assume the list contains at least one element.
E.g.
(sum-all (list 1 2 3)) => 6
((sum-all (list cos sin exp)) 0) => 2
Note: this is not homework... I was going through a past midterm.
For the first part of your question, I'll have to agree with PJ.Hades that this is the simplest solution:
(define (sum x y)
(if (and (number? x) (number? y))
(+ x y)
(lambda (n)
(+ (x n) (y n)))))
For the second part, we can make good use of higher-order procedures for writing a simple solution that is a generalization of the previous one:
(define (sum-all lst)
(if (andmap number? lst)
(apply + lst)
(lambda (n)
(apply + (map (lambda (f) (f n)) lst)))))
In both procedures, I'm assuming that all the operands are of the same kind: they're either all-numbers or all-functions, as inferred from the sample code provided in the question.
Do you mean this?
(define (sum a b)
(if (and (number? a) (number? b))
(+ a b)
(lambda (x)
(+ (a x) (b x)))))
(define (sum lst)
(cond
[(empty? lst) 0]
[else (foldr + 0 lst)]))
((lambda (a b) (+ a b)) 4 5)
this how it is done using lambda.
using define we can write as follows
(define (sum a b) (+ a b))
I'm a little rusty with my Scheme, so perhaps there's a better way to do this, but you could do:
(define (sum-all lst)
(define (sum-funcs-helper funcs x)
(if (empty? funcs)
0
(+ ((car funcs) x)
(sum-funcs-helper (cdr funcs) x))))
(if (empty? lst)
0 ;; Beats me what this is supposed to return.
(if (number? (car lst))
(apply + lst)
(lambda (x) (sum-funcs-helper lst x)))))