A function that returns how many times it has been called in Scheme would look like
(define count
(let ((P 0))
(lambda ()
(set! P (+ 1 P))
P)))
(list (count) (count) (count) (count)) ==> (list 1 2 3 4)
But suppose that we have an expression that looks like this
(map ______ lst)
and we want that to evaluate to
(list 1 2 3 ... n)
where n = (length list)
The problem requires we use a lambda statement in the blank, and we cannot use any auxiliary definitions like (count) in the blank, so
(lambda (x) (count))
is not allowed. Simply replacing (count) with the previous definition like this:
(map
(lambda (x)
((let ((P 0))
(lambda ()
(set! P (+ 1 P))
P))))
L)
doesn't work either.
Any suggestions?
You're very, very close to a correct solution! in the code in the question just do this:
The outermost lambda is erroneous, delete that line and the corresponding closing parenthesis
The innermost lambda is the one that will eventually get passed to the map procedure, so it needs to receive a parameter (even though it's not actually used)
Delete the outermost parenthesis surrounding the let form
It all boils down to this: the lambda that gets passed to map receives a parameter, but also encloses the P variable. The let form defines P only once in the context of the passed lambda, and from that point on the lambda "remembers" the value of P, because for each of the elements in the list the same P is used.
You're 90% of the way there. Use the right-hand-side of your count definition in the blank, and add an (ignored) argument to the function.
(define add-stat-var
(let ( (P '()) )
(lambda (x1)
(if (equal? x1 "ResetStatVar") (set! P '()) (set! P (cons x1 P)))
P
) ;lambda
) ;let
) ;define
(define (test-add-stat-var x)
(let* ( (result '()) )
(set! result (add-stat-var 12))
(set! result (add-stat-var 14))
(set! result (add-stat-var 16))
(display (add-stat-var x)) (newline)
(set! result (add-stat-var "ResetStatVar"))
(display (cdr (add-stat-var x))) (newline)
)
)
Related
DrRacket user.
I'm struggling to understand how this program works.I wrote it myself and it does what it must but I can't understand how.
I define while loops as:
(define (while test body)
(if (test)
(begin
(body)
(while test body))
(void)))
Now I need to write a program that applies the given procedure to each element of a mutable list.
Here what I wrote:
(define (mlist-map-while f x)
(while (lambda() (not (null? x)))
(lambda ()
(set-mcar! x (f (mcar x)))
(set! x (mcdr x))))
(void))
So, defining
list1 (mlist 1 2 3)
and applying
(mlist-map-while (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) list1)
we get '(2 3 4).
The thing that I don't understand is how the first element of the list stays in it, because if it's done how I wrote here
(set! x (mcdr x))
the first procedure that sets -mcar! must be useless and be overlapped with the second. Like in this example:
(define list1 (mlist 1 2 3))
(set-mcar! list1 9)
(set-mcdr! list1 (mcdr list!))
and we lack the first element, but this program somehow leaves it in and gives the desired output. I would like to know how it works and whether there is another way of traversing the given list.
There is a big difference between set-cdr! abd set!. The first alters the pair's cdr pointer, while the latter alters the binding, thus what the name should point to.
In your mlist-map-while the variable x alters the car, then changes what x represents, to be the cdr of x. It never changes the cdr so your binding list1 always points to the first pair while x points to the first, then second, etc...
Thus it's more like this:
(define list1 (mlist 1 2 3))
(define list1-ref list1) ; variable pointing to the same value as list1
(set-mcar! list1-ref 9) ; set-car! changes the pair
(set! list1-ref (mcdr list)) ; set! updates what list1-ref points to
list1 ; ==> (9 2 3)
list-ref ; ==> (2 3)
You can iterate over a list in the same fashion without using set!, with recursion:
(define (fold function init lst)
(if (null? lst)
init
(fold function
(function (car lst) init)
(cdr lst))))
(fold + 0 '(1 2 3)
; ==> 6
(fold cons '() '(1 2 3))
; ==> (3 2 1)
Notice that here we recurse and change what lst is, to be the cdr. Every recursion has its own lst, which is not to be confused with the caller's own. It ends up doing the same as set! in your example, without mutation.
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 started learning Racket today so please be patient :)
What I'm trying is to sum numbers (ages in this case) stored inside a struct.
So I have this:
(define-struct rec (name age)) ; defining the struct of records
(define r1 (make-rec "Joe" 23))
(define r2 (make-rec "Sue" 13))
(define r3 (make-rec "Ann" 44))
(define reclist (list r1 r2 r3)) ; defining a list of records
I found out how to sum integers, this seems a good way to do that:
(define liste (list 1 2 3 4 5))
(define (sum-list l)
(cond
[(empty? l) 0]
[(+ (first l) (sum-list (rest l)))]))
Now, I have been trying to somehow combine these functions in a way that I can grab the age inside each record and then sum them all but to no avail. I tried different loop constructs but the problem is that it never returns a value but a procedure name.
I know, I'm missing something very basic here but I'm stuck anyway.
Since your sum-list function operates only on numbers you need to project your rec list to a number list. This can be done with a map function. The expression (map rec-age reclist) will yield the number list for you.
Altering your code:
(define (sum-list lst . lkey)
(define key (if (null? lkey) values (car lkey)))
(cond
[(empty? lst) 0]
[(+ (key (first lst)) (sum-list (rest lst) key))]))
Alternative tail recursive version
(define (sum-list lst . lkey)
(define key (if (null? lkey) car (compose (car lkey) car)))
(let loop ((acc 0) (lst lst))
(if (null? lst)
acc
(loop (+ acc (key lst))
(cdr lst)))))
Alternate higher order procedure version in one blob:
(define (sum-list lst . lkey)
(define key (if (null? lkey) values (car lkey)))
(foldl (lambda (x acc)
(+ acc (key x)))
0
lst))
Using map to get the values and apply:
(define (sum-list lst . lkey)
(apply +
(if (null? lkey)
lst
(map (car lkey) lst))))
For many elements this might be more effective:
(define (sum-list lst . lkey)
(foldl +
0
(if (null? lkey)
lst
(map (car lkey) lst))))
All work like this:
(sum-list '(1 2 3 4)) ; ==> 10
(sum-list '((1)(2)(3)(4)) car) ; ==> 10
(sum-list reclist rec-age) ; ==> 80
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)))))
I'm writing a program in Lisp(common lisp dialect)..
I want the program to count the number of sublists in a list..
This is what I have written till now:
(defun llength (L)
(cond
((null L) 0)
((list (first L)) (progn (+ (llength (first L)) 1) (llength (rest L))))
((atom (first L)) (llength (rest L)))
)
)
The function returns the error "Unbound variable: LLENGTH" and I don't understand why or how I can fix it..
Any suggestions ?
You have multiple errors in your code.
First of all, list function creates new list, not checking if it is a list. The function you need is listp - "p" at the end means "predicate".
Second, (progn (+ (llength (first L)) 1) (llength (rest L)) will not increase counter. progn performs expressions one by one and returns result of the last expression, other results are just thrown out. progn is there mostly for side effects. What you actually need is addition of all three components: 1 to indicate one found list, result of applying function to the first element and result for applying to the rest. So, this line must be:
((listp (first L)) (+ (llength (first L)) (llength (rest L)) 1))
More errors may exist, please, be careful to indent code correctly - it really helps to reduce them.
When you define a function with the (defun function name (parameters)) call you must then call the function by typing:
(function name (parameters))
Perhaps you were simply typing:
function name (parameters)
Doing this will get you the error you are receiving so be sure to encompass your whole statement in parenthesis.
(defun llength (list)
(cond
((null list) 0)
((listp (first list))
;; 1 + the count of any sub-lists in this sub-list + the
;; count of any sub-lists in the rest of the list.
(+ 1 (llength (first list))
(llength (rest list))))
(t (llength (rest list)))))
Test:
> (llength '(1 2 3 4))
0
> (llength '(1 2 (3 4)))
1
> (llength '(1 2 (3 (4))))
2
> (llength '(1 2 (3 4) (5 6) (7 8) (9 (10 (11)))))
6