I have to make a function where I have to count the number of procedures that are not primitive inside a list.
Here are some examples:
(nprocs '(+ (cuadrado 1) (* 2 (inc1 3)))) => 0
(nprocs (+ (cuadrado 1) (* 2 (inc1 3)))) => ERROR
(nprocs (list + (list cuadrado 1) (list * 2 (list inc1 3)))) => 2
I tried this:
(define (cuadrado x) (* x x))
(define inc1 (lambda (x) (+ x 1)))
(define nprocs
(lambda (fun)
(if (list? fun)
(if(procedure? (car fun))
(+ 1 (nprocs (cdr fun)))
(nprocs (cdr fun)))
0)
)
)
This code isn't working, hope someone can help.
Thanks in advance!
A list is composed of cons cells and atoms. Here's the canonical way of processing a list, counting non-primitive procedures on your way:
(define (nprocs sxp)
(cond
; cons cell -> process car and cdr
((pair? sxp) (+ (nprocs (car sxp)) (nprocs (cdr sxp))))
; atom -> is it a procedure that is not a primitive?
((and (procedure? sxp) (not (primitive? sxp))) 1)
; atom, not or procedure or a primitive
(else 0)))
Testing:
> (nprocs '(+ (cuadrado 1) (* 2 (inc1 3))))
0
> (nprocs (list + (list cuadrado 1) (list * 2 (list inc1 3))))
2
The nprocs procedure must traverse a list of lists, testing whether each atom is a procedure that is not primitive, and adding the results of all sublists. This is simpler if we use a cond for the conditions, and use the standard template for traversing a list of lists:
(define (nprocs fun)
(cond ((null? fun) 0)
((not (pair? fun))
(if (and (procedure? fun) (not (primitive? fun))) 1 0))
(else (+ (nprocs (car fun))
(nprocs (cdr fun))))))
It works as long as we pass actual procedures in the list (not just symbols):
(nprocs (list + (list cuadrado 1) (list * 2 (list inc1 3))))
=> 2
If the same non-primitive procedure appears more then once, it'll be counted several times. If that's a problem, it'll be easier to remove the duplicates if we use a more idiomatic solution leveraging built-in higher-order procedures. For example, in Racket:
(define (nprocs fun)
(count (lambda (e) (and (procedure? e) (not (primitive? e))))
(remove-duplicates (flatten fun))))
Related
I've just started learning Racket.
I have written this procedure:
#lang racket
(define split
(lambda (list)
(define plus-list '())
(define minus-list '())
(cond ((null? list) '())
(else
(do ([i (length list) (- i 1)])
((zero? i))
(define l (list-ref list i))
(define item (last-element-on-list l))
(cond ((= (cdr l '+)) (set! plus-list (cons list plus-list)))
((= (cdr l '-)) (set! minus-list (cons list minus-list))))
)
(cons plus-list minus-list)
)
)
)
)
And instead of using (list-ref lst i) inside de do I have defined a variable l:
(define (list-ref lst i) l)
But it seems that I cann't do that, because I get the error:
define: not allowed in an expression context in: (define l (list-ref
lst i))
But there are a lot of define inside the do.
If I remove all the define inside the do, I have to write a lot of code and it is not easier to read and understand:
(define split
(lambda (list)
(define plus-list '())
(define minus-list '())
(cond ((null? list) '())
(else
(do ([i (length list) (- i 1)])
((zero? i))
(cond ((= (cdr (last-element-on-list (list-ref list i)) '+)) (set! plus-list (cons (list-ref list i) plus-list)))
((= (cdr (last-element-on-list (list-ref list i)) '-)) (set! minus-list (cons (list-ref list i) minus-list))))
)
(cons plus-list minus-list)
)
)
)
)
How can I define a variable inside a do?
Reading your other question I see why you write the bolded expressions -
…
(cond ((= (cdr (last-element-on-list (list-ref list i)) '+))
(set! plus-list
(cons (list-ref list i) plus-list)))
((= (cdr (last-element-on-list (list-ref list i)) '-))
(set! minus-list
(cons (list-ref list i) minus-list))))
…
Your input list shown there is –
(define lst
'((n 25 f +)
(s 25 m +)
(ll 20 no -)))
Your split is inspecting the contents of each element of l. split has overstepped its boundaries and now it only works for lists containing elements of this particular structure. Along with set!, lack of else in a cond is typically an indication you're doing something wrong. You also call (cdr (last-element-of-list ...)). If last-element-of-list returns an atom, cdr would throw an error here.
Consider designing split in a more generic way –
(define (split proc l)
(define (loop l true false)
(cond ((null? l)
(cons true false))
((proc (car l))
(loop (cdr l)
(cons (car l) true)
false))
(else
(loop (cdr l)
true
(cons (car l) false)))))
(loop l '() '()))
(split (lambda (x) (> x 5))
'(1 5 3 9 7 0 8 3 2 6 4))
;; '((6 8 7 9) 4 2 3 0 3 5 1)
If our list contains different elements, we can still use the same split procedure –
(split (lambda (x) (eq? '+ (cadr x)))
'((1 +) (1 -) (2 +) (3 +) (2 -) (3 -) (4 +)))
;; '(((4 +) (3 +) (2 +) (1 +)) (3 -) (2 -) (1 -))
I think it's never too early to start learning continuation passing style. Below, return represents our continuation and defaults to cons, the same procedure we used to return the final result in our original implementation. Intuitively, a continuation represents "the next step" of the computation –
(define (split proc l (return cons)) ;; `return` is our continuation
(if (null? l)
;; base case: list is empty, return empty result
(return '() '())
;; inductive case: at least one `x`
(let* ((x (car l))
(bool (proc x)))
(split proc ;; tail recur with our proc
(cdr l) ;; ... a smaller list
(lambda (t f) ;; ... and "the next step"
(if bool ;; if `(proc x)` returned true
(return (cons x t) ;; ... cons the `x` onto the `t` result
f) ;; ... and leave the `f` the same
(return t ;; otherwise leave `t` the same
(cons x f)))))))) ;; ... and cons the `x` onto the `f` result
If we run our split procedure, you'll notice we get the same exact output as above. At first glance it looks like we made a mess of a nice program, however there's one distinct advantage of this implementation. Because the continuation is user-configurable, instead of cons, we could decide an entirely different fate for our two lists, t and f –
(split (lambda (x) (eq? '+ (cadr x)))
'((1 +) (1 -) (2 +) (3 +) (2 -) (3 -) (4 +))
(lambda (plus minus)
(printf "plus: ~a, minus: ~a\n" plus minus)))
;; plus: ((1 +) (2 +) (3 +) (4 +)), minus: ((1 -) (2 -) (3 -))
Note how plus and minus were given the respective results. We didn't have to pick apart an intermediate cons result. More intuitively, we want printf to be "the next step", but we only need to specify the first argument –
(split (lambda (x) (eq? '+ (cadr x)))
'((1 +) (1 -) (2 +) (3 +) (2 -) (3 -) (4 +))
(curry printf "plus: ~a, minus: ~a\n"))
;; plus: ((1 +) (2 +) (3 +) (4 +)), minus: ((1 -) (2 -) (3 -))
Now we've scratched the surface of functional style :D
do loops are not idiomatic Racket. They are inherited from Scheme, and for whatever reason, they don’t permit internal definitions. I have never once used a do loop in Racket, since the for comprehensions are more functional, and they’re just generally easier to work with. Plus, since they originate in Racket, not in Scheme, they support internal definitions as you’d expect.
You could write your split function using for/fold instead of do, which has the added advantage of not needing to use set! (and avoiding the quadratic access time of using list-ref instead of iterating through the list). I’m not completely sure what your split function is supposed to do, as even with the internal definition removed, it does not compile, but here’s my best guess at what you might be attempting to do:
(define (split lst)
(for/fold ([plus-lst '()]
[minus-lst '()])
([l (in-list lst)])
(define item (last l))
(cond
[(equal? item '+)
(values (cons l plus-lst) minus-lst)]
[(equal? item '-)
(values plus-lst (cons l minus-lst))]
[else
(values plus-lst minus-lst)])))
Aside from the obvious restructuring to use for/fold instead of do, this code also makes the following changes over your code:
It uses the built-in last function from racket/list to get the last element of a list.
It uses equal? instead of = to compare symbols, since = is specifically for comparing numbers.
It indents things properly and puts close parentheses in idiomatic locations.
I fixed your code using let, read documentation about let it's heavily used in Scheme/Racket. I haven't used Scheme lately so I couldn't explain it as well as it is in documentation.
Shortly it's local symbol definition/redefinition, and you can use symbol with value only in let body.
Short example on let
(define x 5)
(let ((x 10))
(display x)) # => 10
(display x) # => 5
(let ((y 1))
(display y)) # => 1
(display y) # = => (error) y: undefined
Your code fixed using let
(define split
(lambda (list)
(let ((plus-list '())
(minus-list '()))
(cond ((null? list) '())
(else
(do ([i (length list) (- i 1)])
((zero? i))
(let ((l (list-ref list i))
(item (last-element-on-list l)))
(cond ((= (cdr l '+)) (set! plus-list (cons list plus-list)))
((= (cdr l '-)) (set! minus-list (cons list minus-list))))))
(cons plus-list minus-list))))))
I wish to create a function in Scheme that takes in a predicate and a list of elements, and then outputs two separate lists. One with elements of the original list that MATCH the given predicate, and one with elements that DON'T match it.
The code I have right now I believe should isolate those which match the predicate and output a list of them but the code will not work.
(define tear
(lambda (pred xs)
(cond[(null? xs) '()]
[(list? (car xs))(cons((tear (pred (car xs)))(tear (pred (cdr xs)))))]
[(pred (car xs))(cons((car xs)(tear (pred (cdr xs)))))]
[else tear (pred (cdr xs))])))
(tear number? '(1 2 3 a b c))
The resulting output on my compiler is:
tear: arity mismatch;
the expected number of arguments does not match the given number
expected: 2
given: 1
arguments...:
#f
context...:
/home/jdoodle.rkt:2:4: tear
Command exited with non-zero status 1
Any help/info that you can give would be much appreciated.
Lets fix your code step by step. Adding indentation and whitespace to make it readable:
(define tear
(lambda (pred xs)
(cond
[(null? xs)
'()]
[(list? (car xs))
(cons ((tear (pred (car xs))) (tear (pred (cdr xs)))))]
[(pred (car xs))
(cons ((car xs) (tear (pred (cdr xs)))))]
[else
tear (pred (cdr xs))])))
(tear number? '(1 2 3 a b c))
The first problem I see is a problem of putting parentheses on the inside (around the arguments) of a function call instead on the outside. You do this with cons and with the recursive calls to tear. For instance in tear (pred (cdr xs)) you should move the first paren to before the function. Remember that parentheses in an expression almost always mean a function call in the shape of (function argument ...).
(cons (A B)) should be rewritten to (cons A B)
(tear (Pred Xs)) should be rewritten to (tear Pred Xs)
tear (Pred Xs) should be rewritten to (tear Pred Xs)
With these fixes your code looks like this:
(define tear
(lambda (pred xs)
(cond
[(null? xs)
'()]
[(list? (car xs))
(cons (tear pred (car xs)) (tear pred (cdr xs)))]
[(pred (car xs))
(cons (car xs) (tear pred (cdr xs)))]
[else
(tear pred (cdr xs))])))
(tear number? '(1 2 3 a b c))
;=> (1 2 3)
(tear number? '(1 2 "not a number" 3 4))
;=> (1 2 3 4)
However, it still does something weird when there's a nested list:
(tear list? (list '(1 2 3) "not a list" '(4 5)))
;=error> (() ())
To be consistent it should put the two lists into a list: ((1 2 3) (4 5)). To do that just remove the second cond case:
(define tear
(lambda (pred xs)
(cond
[(null? xs)
'()]
[(pred (car xs))
(cons (car xs) (tear pred (cdr xs)))]
[else
(tear pred (cdr xs))])))
(tear number? '(1 2 3 a b c))
;=> (1 2 3)
(tear list? (list '(1 2 3) "not a list" '(4 5)))
;=> ((1 2 3) (4 5))
It now seems to do exactly half of what you want. You want it to return two lists: one for elements that passed, and one for the elements that failed. It currently is returning just the first list.
The first thing you should do is document how it returns those two lists. Since there are always exactly two, you can return them as multiple values.
;; tear returns two values:
;; - a list of the elements of `xs` that passed `pred`
;; - a list of the elements of `xs` that failed `pred`
There are two parts of using multiple values: returning them and receiving them. Use (values A B) to return them, and (let-values ([(A B) ....]) ....) to match on a result, like the result of a recursive call.
That means every recursive call like this (f .... (tear ....) ....) should become
(let-values ([(A B) (tear ....)])
(values (f .... A ....)
???))
Applying that to your code:
;; tear returns two values:
;; - a list of the elements of `xs` that passed `pred`
;; - a list of the elements of `xs` that failed `pred`
(define tear
(lambda (pred xs)
(cond
[(null? xs)
(values '()
???)]
[(pred (car xs))
(let-values ([(A B) (tear pred (cdr xs))])
(values (cons (car xs) A)
???))]
[else
(let-values ([(A B) (tear pred (cdr xs))])
(values A
???))])))
Now to fill in the ??? holes, use examples.
(tear number? '()) should return two empty lists: () ()
(tear number? '(1 2)) should return a full list and an empty list: (1 2) ()
(tear number? '(a b)) should return an empty list and a full list: () (a b)
The first example corresponds to the first ??? hole, the second example corresponds to the second hole, and so on.
This tells us that the first hole should be filled in with '(), the second hole should be filled in with B, and the third hole should be filled in with (cons (car xs) B).
(define tear
(lambda (pred xs)
(cond
[(null? xs)
(values '() '())]
[(pred (car xs))
(let-values ([(A B) (tear pred (cdr xs))])
(values (cons (car xs) A)
B))]
[else
(let-values ([(A B) (tear pred (cdr xs))])
(values A
(cons (car xs) B)))])))
(tear number? '(1 2 3 a b c))
;=> (1 2 3)
; (a b c)
(tear list? (list '(1 2 3) "not a list" '(4 5)))
;=> ((1 2 3) (4 5))
; ("not a list")
This is a classic fold use-case. You're aggregating the list into two lists :
(define tear (lambda (pred lst)
(fold-right ; Aggregate over lst
(lambda (elem agg)
(let ((accepted (car agg))
(rejected (cadr agg)))
(if (pred elem)
; Create a new agg by adding the current element to the accepted list
`(,(cons elem accepted) ,rejected)
; Or, if the predicate rejected the element,
; Create a new agg by adding the current element to the rejected list
`(,accepted ,(cons elem rejected)))))
`(() ())
lst)))
So, if you use even? as your predicate, you can get:
> (tear even? `(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8))
((2 4 6 8) (1 3 5 7))
Here's another way you can do it using continuation-passing style; this puts the recursive call in tail position.
(define (partition p xs (return list))
(if (null? xs)
(return null null)
(partition p
(cdr xs)
(lambda (t f)
(if (p (car xs))
(return (cons (car xs) t)
f)
(return t
(cons (car xs) f)))))))
(partition number? '())
;; => '(() ())
(partition number? '(a 1 b 2 c 3))
;; => '((1 2 3) (a b c))
(partition list? '(1 2 (3 4) (5 6) 7 8))
;; => '(((3 4) (5 6)) (1 2 7 8))
Above, we make use of Racket's default arguments. Below we show how to define partition using a helper function instead
;; procedure above, renamed to partition-helper
(define (partition-helper p xs return)
...)
;; new procedure without optional parameter
(define (partition p xs)
;; call helper with default continuation, list
(partition-helper p xs list))
Comments may help distill some of the style's mysterious nature
;; default continuation is `list`, the list constructor procedure
(define (partition p xs (return list))
(if (null? xs)
;; base case: empty list; return the empty result
(return null null)
;; inductive case: at least one x; recur on the tail...
(partition p
(cdr xs)
;; ...specifying how to continue the pending computation
(lambda (t f)
(if (p (car xs))
;; if predicate passes, cons x onto the t result
(return (cons (car xs) t)
f)
;; otherwise cons x onto the f result
(return t
(cons (car xs) f)))))))
#WillNess asks why we delay evaluating the predicate; I don't have a reason other than I think the readability above is pretty good. We can alter the implementation to check the predicate right away, if we please. The impact here is very subtle. If you don't see it, I encourage you to play pen-and-paper evaluator and compare the two processes to understand it.
;; default continuation is `list`, the list constructor procedure
(define (partition p xs (return list))
(if (null? xs)
;; base case: empty list; return the empty result
(return null null)
;; inductive case: at least one x; recur on the tail...
(partition p
(cdr xs)
;; ...specifying how to continue the pending computation
(if (p (car xs))
(lambda (t f)
;; if predicate passes, cons x onto the t result
(return (cons (car xs) t)
f))
(lambda (t f)
;; otherwise cons x onto the f result
(return t
(cons (car xs) f)))))))
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)
I am trying to write a code using SCHEME that takes two arguments, for example '(2 1 3) & '(a b c) and gives a list '(b a c). My code is not working either recursive or iterative. Any help!!
(define project
(lambda (list1 list2 list3 n b index)
(define n (length(list1)))
(let ((i n))
(for-each (i)
(cond
((null? list1) (display "empty"))
(else
(define n (car list1))
(define index (- n 1))
(define b (list-ref list2 index))
(define list3 (cons list3 b))
(define list1 (cdr list1))
list3 ))))))
(define (rearrange order l)
(cond ((number? order) (rearrange (list order) l))
((list? order) (map (lambda (num) (list-ref l (- num 1))) order))
(else 'bad-order)))
If you need order to be 'complex' (like '(1 (2 3) 4)) then use this:
(define (listify thing)
(cond ((null? thing) '())
((pair? thing) (apply append (map listify thing)))
(else (list thing))))
> (listify 10)
(10)
> (listify '(1 (2 3) 4))
(1 2 3 4)
>
and then
(define (rearrange order l)
(map (lambda (num) (list-ref l (- num 1)))
(listify order)))
Here's a version that handles arbitrarily-nested lists: first, a nested-map that is like map but handles nested lists:
(define (nested-map func tree)
(if (list? tree)
(map (lambda (x)
(nested-map func x))
tree)
(func tree)))
Then, we create a mapper to use with it (using list-ref if the list is shorter than 16 elements, otherwise copying to a vector first for better scalability):
(define (rearrange indices lst)
(define mapper (if (< (length lst) 16)
(lambda (i)
(list-ref lst (- i 1)))
(let ((vec (list->vector lst)))
(lambda (i)
(vector-ref vec (- i 1))))))
(nested-map mapper indices))
Notice how, after the mapper is defined, the function is simply a single call to nested-map. Easy! :-D
First that came to mind:
(define (rearrange order symbols)
(define (element i list)
(if (= i 1)
(car list)
(element (- i 1) (cdr list))))
(define (iter order output)
(if (null? order)
output
(iter (cdr order)
(append output (list (element (car order) symbols))))))
(iter order '()))
Better solution:
(define (rearrange order symbols)
(define (nth-element i list)
(if (= i 1)
(car list)
(nth-element (- i 1) (cdr list))))
(map (lambda (x) (nth-element x symbols)) order))
Here's a simple version for un-nested lists:
(define (arrange idx lst)
(map (lambda (i) (list-ref lst i)) idx))
(arrange '(1 0 2) '(a b c))
=> '(b a c)
If you need to use nested lists, flatten comes in handy:
(define (arrange idx lst)
(map (lambda (i) (list-ref lst i)) (flatten idx)))
(arrange '(1 (0 2)) '(a b c))
=> '(b a c)
Note that I use 0-based indexes, as is the custom in Scheme.
Here's what I have so far:
(defun append-all(x L)
(if (null L)
L
(cons (append (car L) x) (append-all x (cdr L))))
)
)
Output:
(append-all '3 '((1) (2 1) (2)))
((1 . 3) (2 1 . 3) (2 . 3))
Want:
((1 3) (2 1 3) (2 3))
This is a helper function, so the fact that it is a linked list seems to be causing me problems.
Thanks
edit: fixed recursive call
In your code, change this part:
(append (car L) x)
To this:
(append (car L) (list x))
It wasn't working before because append should receive two lists as parameters, not a list and an element.
(defun append-all (item list)
"Appends ITEM to each sublist of LIST"
(flet ((circular-list (item)
(let ((list2 (list item)))
(nconc list2 list2))))
(mapcar #'append
list
(circular-list (list item)))))
If you'd rather not do the recursion yourself, this should also work:
(defun append-all (x L)
(mapcar #'(lambda (l) (append l (list x))) L))
I am learning clisp, but it can work.
(defun append-all (x L)
(flet (
(append-item (alist) (append alist (list x))))
(mapcar #'append-item L)))
(print (append-all '3 '((1) (2 1) (2))))