Scheme output has extra parenthesis and periods - list

I started learning Scheme today, and wanted to write a function that would reverse a list (only surface level, nested lists stay in the same order).
Heres the function I made:
(define reverse (lambda (lst)
(if (> (length lst) 0)
(cons (reverse(cdr lst)) (car lst))
'()
)))
I thought it would just continuously add the values before everything after it so in the end it's reversed, but when doing (reverse '(5 12 31 7 98 13)), I should get (13 98 7 31 12 5), but instead I get '((((((() . 13) . 98) . 7) . 31) . 12) . 5). How come it's adding periods and parenthesis instead of adding the number to the list?

(list x y ..... z) list structure is constructed like this in Scheme:
(cons x
(cons y
…
…
(cons z '())))
if you use append instead of cons and put your (car lst) into a list of its own, your code will work:
(define reverse
(lambda (lst)
(if (> (length lst) 0)
;;(cons (reverse (cdr lst)) (car lst) )
(append (reverse (cdr lst)) (list (car lst)))
'()
)))

The list (13 98 7 31 12 5) is a visualization of the pairs (13 . (98 . (7 . (31 . (12 . (5 . ())))))). If the cdr is a pair or the empty list the dot and one set of parens is omitted. The code to create this structure is (cons 13 (cons 98 (cons 7 (cons 31 (cons 12 (cons 5 '())))))) while the structure your function creates is (cons (cons (cons (cons (cons (cons 13 '()) 98) 7) 31) 12) 5).
When iterating a list you always do it in order. eg. (1 2 3) is quite difficult to do in reverse. However when creating lists you always do them from end to beginning. eg. (cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '()))) will have to evaluate the cons with 3 before the one with 2 etc. This can be used for a very efficent reverse using an accumulator:
(define (reverse lst acc)
(if (null? lst)
acc
(reverse (cdr lst)
(cons (car lst) acc))))
So imagine calling this (reverse '(1 2 3) '()):
(reverse '(1 2 3) '()) ; =>
(reverse '(2 3) (cons 1 '())) ; ==>
(reverse '(3) (cons 2 '(1))) ; ==>
(reverse '() (cons 3 '(2 1))) ; ==>
'(3 2 1)

Related

Flatten top-level sublists in Scheme

I am working my first project in scheme and have come across an issue. In part of my requirements, I am required to append all top-level sublists
(e.g. '((1 2)(3 4 (5 6))) -> (1 2 3 4 (5 6)) and '((1 2 3)(4 5)) -> (1 2 3 4 5)
I've managed to get it working down to a single list, but this flattens all levels:
(cond
((null? lst)
lst)
((list? lst)
(append2(append-subs(car lst))(append-subs(cdr lst))))
(else
(cons lst '())))
Variations of this (eg. (else lst) run the error "object 6, passed as first arg to cdr, is not correct type". Another method I attempted is as follows:
(cond
((null? lst)
lst)
((>= (len (cdr lst)) 0)
(append2(append-subs(car (list lst)))(append-subs(cdr (list lst)))))
(else
lst)
Which infinitely loops. I'm at a bit of a stand still, so any help would be greatly appreciated. (Note: Use of functions other than those used here is forbidden. Limited to list, list?, if, cond, null? ...)
Your list '(e1 e2 e3) would be like this:
(cons e1 (cons e2 (cons e3 '())))
or if you like dotted notation:
'(e1 . (e2 . (e3 . ())))
Where en is eiter #f or #t for (list? en) Your assignment is to cons en onto the recursion with the same level while with a list you need to append the two.
Here is a general idea how to implement it with level as an input parameter:
;;; flatten a list a certain levels
;;; level of zero is identity
(define (flatten-level level lst)
(cond ((or (zero? level)
(null? lst))
lst)
;; pair? is faster but will fall through for dotted
((list? (car lst))
(append (flatten-level <??> <??>)
(flatten-level <??> <??>)))
(else
(cons <??>
(flatten-level <??> <??>)))))
(flatten-level 0 '((1 2)(3 (((4 . 3))) (5 (6))) . 7))
; ==> ((1 2) (3 (((4 . 3))) (5 (6))) . 7) (aka identity)
(flatten-level 1 '((1 2)(3 (((4 . 3))) (5 (6))) . 7))
; ==> (1 2 3 (((4 . 3))) (5 (6)) . 7)
(flatten-level 99 '((1 2)(3 (((4 . 3))) (5 (6))) . 7))
; ==> (1 2 3 (4 . 3) 5 6 . 7)
How about appending all elements of the top list:
(define (flatten-top-level lst)
(apply append lst))
Which is practically the definition of append*
If '(a (b) (c f)) is a valid input, (first element not a list) then you can try:
(define (flatten-top-level lst)
(apply append
(map (lambda (e) (if (list? e)
e
(list e))) ;make a list from the non-list element
lst)))
2nd option: Fold it!
(define (flatten-top-level lst)
(foldr append '() lst))
For a list (a b c d) where a, b, c, d are sub-lists; it is equal to:
(append a (append b (append c (append d '()))))
Extra: this is tail recurssive and therefore runs in linear time :)

how to split a list recursively with using conditions in clisp

I am trying to learn clisp and I have started learning how to manipulate lists recursively. I am unsure wether it is my logic or if I am just too unfamiliar with the constructs of lisp, for some I am able to do it i.e. for procedure (separate '(a 1 b 2 c 3 d 4)) => ((1 2 3 4) (a b c d)) by doing
(defun separate (lst)
(if (endp lst)
'(nil nil)
(let ((x (separate (cdr lst))))
(if (numberp (car lst))
(list (cons (car lst)
(car x)))
(list (car x)
(cons (car lst) (cadr x)))))))
but when I do the same approach for another procedure
(greater-than-n '(9 1 8 2 7 3 6 4) 5)
I would expect to get a list : ((9 8 7 6) (1 2 3 4))
but instead I get: ((9 8 7 6))
My program thus far is:
(defun greater-than-n (lst n)
(if (endp lst)
'(() ())
(let ((x (greater-than-n (cdr lst) n)))
(if (> (car lst) n)
(list (cons (car lst)
(car x)))
(list (car x)
(cons (car lst)
(car x)))))))
I appreciate any help or comments.
Your bug is in the
(list (cons (car lst)
(car x)))
form: you are returning a list of 1 element.
PS. Your functions seem like a textbook case for using multiple values instead of a list of values.

Make a function in Scheme to substract two lists

I am quite new with Scheme and with StackOverflow as well!
So, for the first contact I would like to do something simple and easy in Scheme.
I want to define a function that substracts the elements of the introduced list.
For example, the inputs should be: (sub '(4 12 6) '(0 6 3))
And the output should be: (4 6 3)
Thanks!!
What you'll need is to have a base case where you check if either list is empty and evaluate it to the empty list or you make a pair with the calculation of the first element of each list and the recursion for the rest of both lists. Basically you end up with:
(cons (- 4 0) (cons (- 12 6) (cons (- 6 3) '()))) ; ==> (4 6 3)
As an example of a recursive list processing function here is one that negates all elements:
(define (negate-list lst)
(if (null? lst)
'()
(cons (- (car lst))
(negate-list (cdr lst)))))
(negate-list '(1 2 3 4)) ; ==> (-1 -2 -3 -4)
Now there are even more fancy ways to do this. Eg,. you can use tail recursion:
(define (negate-list lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (acc '()))
(if (null? lst)
(reverse acc)
(loop (cdr lst)
(cons (- (car lst)) acc)))))
You can use map:
(define (negate-list lst)
(map - lst))
So there you go. you're half way there.

Scheme Inverse List Function

I defined a function called zip which took two lists as parameters and returned a list of pairs.
(define (zip list1 list2)
(if (null? list1)
'()
(cons (list (cons (car list1) (car list2)))
(zip (cdr list1) (cdr list2)))))
(zip (list 1 3 5) (list 2 4 6))
> (((1 . 2)) ((3 . 4)) ((5 . 6)))
Now I'm basically having trouble writing the inverse function of this. This is what I have so far. This function needs to output a list of two lists. I only attempted at making the first of the two lists to make it easier for myself but the output is not what I want.
(define (unzip u-list)
(if (null? u-list)
'()
(list (car (car (car u-list))) (unzip(cdr u-list)))))
(unzip (zip (list 1 3 5) (list 2 4 6)))
> (1 (3 (5 ())))
Any help would be appreciated...
I believe there's a problem with your implementation of zip, did you notice that you're returning a list of single-element lists of pairs? returning a list of pairs makes more sense:
(define (zip lst1 lst2)
(if (null? lst1)
'()
(cons (cons (car lst1) (car lst2))
(zip (cdr lst1) (cdr lst2)))))
Or even better, let's use the map higher-order function for a shorter, more idiomatic solution:
(define (zip lst1 lst2)
(map cons lst1 lst2))
Regarding unzip: it's easier if we split the problem in parts - let's get the first element of each pair, then the second element of each pair, and finally build a list with the answer. Try this:
(define (unzip lst)
(define (firsts lst)
(if (null? lst)
'()
(cons (caar lst)
(firsts (cdr lst)))))
(define (seconds lst)
(if (null? lst)
'()
(cons (cdar lst)
(seconds (cdr lst)))))
(list (firsts lst) (seconds lst)))
But once again, we're reinventing the wheel. Let's just use built-in functions to write a simpler answer:
(define (unzip lst)
(list (map car lst) (map cdr lst)))
Anyway, now unzip is the inverse of zip:
(zip '(1 3 5) '(2 4 6))
=> '((1 . 2) (3 . 4) (5 . 6))
(unzip '((1 . 2) (3 . 4) (5 . 6)))
=> '((1 3 5) (2 4 6))
As you make it with pairs it's somewhat more difficult but not much:
(define (zip-pair a b)
(map cons a b))
(define (unzip-pair zipped-pair)
(list (map car zipped-pair)
(map cdr zipped-pair)))
zip is usually implemented with apply and map and takes list and produce list of lists, like this:
(define (zip . lists)
(apply map list lists))
(zip '(1 2 3) '(a b c)) ; ==> ((1 a) (2 b) (3 c))
Though this will make lists and not pairs. However a unzip is almost the same except that you will take a list of lists instead of variable number of arguments:
(define (unzip1 zipped-list)
(apply map list zipped-list))
; or reuse zip
(define (unzip1 zipped-list)
(apply zip zipped-list))
(unzip1 '((1 a) (2 b) (3 c))) ; ==> ((1 2 3) (a b c))

Duplicate every found element in a list in Scheme

I want to duplicate every found element in a list. I have the idea but i can't make it right. Sample input is >(pass '(1 2 3 4 4)) will have the output (1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4). Anyone out there help me. Here is my code ..
(define duplicate
(lambda (mylist n)
(cond ((null? mylist) "Not found")
((< n 2) (cons (car mylist)
(duplicate mylist (+ n 1))))
(else
(duplicate (cdr mylist) 0)))))
(define pass
(lambda (mylist)
(duplicate list 0)))
I will appreaciate all valuable comments.
Just a couple of fixes (see the comments) and we're good to go:
(define duplicate
(lambda (mylist n)
(cond ((null? mylist) '()) ; base case must return the empty list
((< n 2) (cons (car mylist)
(duplicate mylist (+ n 1))))
(else
(duplicate (cdr mylist) 0)))))
(define pass
(lambda (mylist)
(duplicate mylist 0))) ; pass myList, not list
Notice that the procedure can be simplified a bit:
(define (pass lst)
(if (null? lst)
'()
(cons (car lst)
(cons (car lst)
(pass (cdr lst))))))
Or even better, using higher-order procedures for a more idiomatic solution:
(define (pass lst)
(foldr (lambda (ele acc) (list* ele ele acc))
'()
lst))
Yet another alternative:
(define (pass lst)
(append-map (lambda (ele) (list ele ele))
lst))
Anyway, it works as expected:
(pass '(1 2 3 4 4))
=> (1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4)
I would do it so:
(define (dup l)
(define (iter l co)
(if (null? l)
(co '())
(iter (cdr l)
(lambda (x)
(co (cons (car l) (cons (car l) x)))))))
(iter l (lambda (x) x)))
(dup '(1 2 3))
It may be simpler to treat duplicate as zipping a list with itself. Then flattening the resulting list.
In Scheme or Racket:
(require srfi/1)
(define (duplicate-list-members lox)
(flatten (zip lox lox)))
Though it runs in O(n) time, profiling may indicate that passing through the list twice is a bottleneck and justify rewriting the function. Or it might not.
Try using map and list
(define (duplicate my-list)
(flatten
(map
(lambda (x)
(list x x))
my-list)))`
Gives requested format:
> (duplicate (list 1 2 3 4 4))
'(1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4)