I want to define a function, which converts the elements of a list in to float.
Thats's my solution, which does not work:
(defun intofloat (list)
(cond
((null liste) nil)
((equal (first list) 'id)
(float (first list)))
(t (intofloat (rest list)))))
Maybe there is someone who could help me!
Thanks!
If you are able to use mapcar, this is truly trivial.
* (mapcar #'float '(1 2 3))
(1.0 2.0 3.0)
If you are not allowed to use mapcar, then you should break your problem down and redefine that function first.
(defun my-map (f lst)
(if (null lst)
nil
(let ((hd (car lst))
(tl (cdr lst)))
(cons (funcall f hd) (my-map f tl)))))
Related
(define (nth n lst)
(if (= n 1)
(car lst)
(nth (- n 1)
(cdr lst) )))
is an unsafe partial function, n may go out of range. An error can be helpful,
(define (nth n lst)
(if (null? lst)
(error "`nth` out of range")
(if (= n 1)
(car lst)
(nth (- n 1)
(cdr lst) ))))
But what would a robust Scheme analogue to Haskell's Maybe data type look like?
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
nth :: Int -> [a] -> Maybe a
nth _ [] = Nothing
nth 1 (x : _) = Just x
nth n (_ : xs) = nth (n - 1) xs
Is just returning '() adequate?
(define (nth n lst)
(if (null? lst) '()
(if (= n 1)
(car lst)
(nth (- n 1)
(cdr lst) ))))
It's easy to break your attempt. Just create a list that contains an empty list:
(define lst '((1 2) () (3 4)))
(nth 2 lst)
-> ()
(nth 100 lst)
-> ()
The key point that you're missing is that Haskell's Maybe doesn't simply return a bare value when it exists, it wraps that value. As you said, Haskell defines Maybe like so:
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
NOT like this:
data Maybe a = Nothing | a
The latter is the equivalent of what you're doing.
To get most of the way to a proper Maybe, you can return an empty list if the element does not exist, as you were, but also wrap the return value in another list if the element does exist:
(define (nth n lst)
(if (null? lst) '()
(if (= n 1)
(list (car lst)) ; This is the element, wrap it before returning.
(nth (- n 1)
(cdr lst) ))))
This way, your result will be either an empty list, meaning the element did not exist, or a list with only one element: the element you asked for. Reusing that same list from above, we can distinguish between the empty list and a non-existant element:
(define lst '((1 2) () (3 4)))
(nth 2 lst)
-> (())
(nth 100 lst)
-> ()
Another way to signal, that no matching element was found, would be to use multiple return values:
(define (nth n ls)
(cond
((null? ls) (values #f #f))
((= n 1) (values (car ls) #t))
(else (nth (- n 1) ls))))
This comes at the expense of being a little bit cumbersome for the users of this function, since they now have to do a
(call-with-values (lambda () (nth some-n some-list))
(lambda (element found?)
... whatever ...))
but that can be alleviated by using some careful macrology. R7RS specifies the let-values syntax.
(let-values (((element found?) (nth some-n some-list)))
... whatever ...)
There are several ways to do this.
The direct equivalent would be to mimic the Miranda version:
#!r6rs
(library (sylwester maybe)
(export maybe nothing maybe? nothing?)
(import (rnrs base))
;; private tag
(define tag-maybe (list 'maybe))
;; exported tag and features
(define nothing (list 'nothing))
(define (maybe? v)
(and (pair? v)
(eq? tag-maybe (car v))))
(define (nothing? v)
(and (maybe? v)
(eq? nothing (cdr v))))
(define (maybe v)
(cons tag-maybe v)))
How to use it:
#!r6rs
(import (rnrs) (sylwester maybe))
(define (nth n lst)
(cond ((null? lst) (maybe nothing))
((zero? n) (maybe (car lst)))
(else (nth (- n 1) (cdr lst)))))
(nothing? (nth 2 '()))
; ==> #t
Exceptions
(define (nth n lst)
(cond ((null? lst) (raise 'nth-nothing))
((zero? n) (car lst))
(else (nth (- n 1) (cdr lst)))))
(guard (ex
((eq? ex 'nth-nothing)
"nothing-value"))
(nth 1 '())) ; ==> "nothing-value"
Default value:
(define (nth n lst nothing)
(cond ((null? lst) nothing)
((zero? n) (car lst))
(else (nth (- n 1) (cdr lst)))))
(nth 1 '() '())
; ==> '()
Deault value derived from procedure
(define (nth index lst pnothing)
(cond ((null? lst) (pnothing))
((zero? n) (car lst))
(else (nth (- n 1) (cdr lst)))))
(nth 1 '() (lambda _ "list too short"))
; ==> "list too short"
Combination of exception and default procedure
Racket, a Scheme decent, often has a default value option that defaults to an exception or a procedure thunk. It's possible to mimic that behavior:
(define (handle signal rest)
(if (and (not (null? rest))
(procedure? (car rest)))
((car rest))
(raise signal)))
(define (nth n lst . nothing)
(cond ((null? lst) (handle 'nth-nothing nothing))
((zero? n) (car lst))
(else (nth (- n 1) (cdr lst)))))
(nth 1 '() (lambda () 5)) ; ==> 5
(nth 1 '()) ; exception signalled
As a non-lisper I really can't say how idiomatic this is, but you could return the Church encoding of an option type:
(define (nth n ls)
(cond
((null? ls) (lambda (default f) default))
((= n 1) (lambda (default f) (f (car ls))))
(else (nth (- n 1) ls))))
But that's about as complicated to use as #Dirk's proposal. I'd personally prefer to just add a default argument to nth itself.
Can someone show me the error in this code please?
I want to generalize the member function to support nested lists. I need to search thing inside the nested list and return the rest of the list when I found thing. I don't really understand whats wrong with the code below.
(define (memberk thing lis)
(cond
((null? lis) #f)
((list? (car lis))
(cons (memberk thing (car lis))
(memberk thing (cdr lis))))
(else
(if (equal? (car lis) thing)
lis
(memberk thing (cdr lis))))))
Expexted output: (memberk 3 '(1 4 (3 1) 2)) = '((3 1) 2)
Actual output from the code above: '((3 1) . #f)
So how I see this you would like the top level cons that has the key found somewhere in car. I'm thinking something like:
(define (memberk needle lst)
(define (found? haystack)
(or (equal? needle haystack)
(and (pair? haystack)
(or (found? (car haystack))
(found? (cdr haystack))))))
(let loop ((lst lst))
(cond ((null? lst) #f)
((found? (car lst)) lst)
(else (loop (cdr lst))))))
(memberk '(a) '(a b (b (a) c) c d)) ; ==> ((b (a) c) c d)
Something like this?
It is a bit unclear what you want - since there is only one test case.
(define (memberk thing lis)
(cond
[(null? lis)
#f]
[(and (cons? (car lis)) (memberk thing (car lis)))
=> (λ (found) (cons found (cdr lis)))]
[(equal? (car lis) thing)
lis]
[else
(memberk thing (cdr lis))]))
I found this lisp function while I was googling
(defun filter (lst items-to-filter)
(cond ((null lst) nil)
((member (car lst) items-to-filter) #1=(filter (cdr lst) items-to-filter))
(t (cons (car lst) #1#))))
It's just set difference, but this is the first time i see #1= and #1#, syntax. I think I understand what it means just by looking at the code, but I am not too sure. I think the #1= is used to label an expression so as not to retype it later when needed, one can just refer to it by #index#, in this case index=1. I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this. What are these constructs called, if there's a reference for them, and if they are widely used in modern lisp code. Thanks
To see it in written source code is very very unusual. Most of the time you see it in data. It is used to create or print shared data items in s-expressions. This way you can also read or print circular s-expressions.
You could use it for easier creation of repeated code, but usually one writes functions or macros for that. Functions have the advantage that they save code space - unless they are inlined.
CL-USER 3 > (pprint '(defun filter (lst items-to-filter)
(cond ((null lst) nil)
((member (car lst) items-to-filter)
#1=(filter (cdr lst) items-to-filter))
(t (cons (car lst) #1#)))))
(DEFUN FILTER (LST ITEMS-TO-FILTER)
(COND ((NULL LST) NIL)
((MEMBER (CAR LST) ITEMS-TO-FILTER)
(FILTER (CDR LST) ITEMS-TO-FILTER))
(T
(CONS (CAR LST) (FILTER (CDR LST) ITEMS-TO-FILTER)))))
As you see above the printer does not print it that way. Why is that?
There is a global variable *print-circle* which controls it. For above example it was set to NIL. Let's change that:
CL-USER 4 > (setf *print-circle* t)
T
CL-USER 5 > (pprint '(defun filter (lst items-to-filter)
(cond ((null lst) nil)
((member (car lst) items-to-filter)
#1=(filter (cdr lst) items-to-filter))
(t (cons (car lst) #1#)))))
(DEFUN FILTER (LST ITEMS-TO-FILTER)
(COND ((NULL LST) NIL)
((MEMBER (CAR LST) ITEMS-TO-FILTER)
#1=(FILTER (CDR LST) ITEMS-TO-FILTER))
(T
(CONS (CAR LST) #1#))))
So this shows that one can read and print such s-expressions in Common Lisp
Sharing some source code data structures is more common in computed code:
CL-USER 22 > (defmacro add-1-2-3 (n) `(,n 1 2 3))
ADD-1-2-3
CL-USER 23 > (walker:walk-form '(+ (add-1-2-3 4) (add-1-2-3 5)))
(+ (4 . #1=(1 2 3)) (5 . #1#))
I have tried many times but I still stuck in this problem, here is my input:
(define *graph*
'((a . 2) (b . 2) (c . 1) (e . 1) (f . 1)))
and I want the output to be like this: ((2 a b) (1 c e f))
Here is my code:
(define group-by-degree
(lambda (out-degree)
(if (null? (car (cdr out-degree)))
'done
(if (equal? (cdr (car out-degree)) (cdr (car (cdr out-degree))))
(list (cdr (car out-degree)) (append (car (car out-degree))))
(group-by-degree (cdr out-degree))))))
Can you please show me what I have done wrong cos the output of my code is (2 a). Then I think the idea of my code is correct.
Please help!!!
A very nice and elegant way to solve this problem, would be to use hash tables to keep track of the pairs found in the list. In this way we only need a single pass over the input list:
(define (group-by-degree lst)
(hash->list
(foldl (lambda (key ht)
(hash-update
ht
(cdr key)
(lambda (x) (cons (car key) x))
'()))
'#hash()
lst)))
The result will appear in a different order than the one shown in the question, but nevertheless it's correct:
(group-by-degree *graph*)
=> '((1 f e c) (2 b a))
If the order in the output list is a problem try this instead, it's less efficient than the previous answer, but the output will be identical to the one in the question:
(define (group-by-degree lst)
(reverse
(hash->list
(foldr (lambda (key ht)
(hash-update
ht
(cdr key)
(lambda (x) (cons (car key) x))
'()))
'#hash()
lst))))
(group-by-degree *graph*)
=> '((2 a b) (1 c e f))
I don't know why the lambda is necessary; you can directly define a function with (define (function arg1 arg2 ...) ...)
That aside, however, to put it briefly, the problen is that the cars and cdrs are messed up. I couldn't find a way to tweak your solution to work, but here is a working implementation:
; appends first element of pair into a sublist whose first element
; matches the second of the pair
(define (my-append new lst) ; new is a pair
(if (null? lst)
(list (list (cdr new) (car new)))
(if (equal? (car (car lst)) (cdr new))
(list (append (car lst) (list (car new))))
(append (list (car lst)) (my-append new (cdr lst)))
)
)
)
; parses through a list of pairs and appends them into the list
; according to my-append
(define (my-combine ind)
(if (null? ind)
'()
(my-append (car ind) (my-combine (cdr ind))))
)
; just a wrapper for my-combine, which evaluates the list backwards
; this sets the order right
(define (group-by-degree out-degree)
(my-combine (reverse out-degree)))
Given a list of numbers, say, (1 3 6 10 0), how do you compute differences (xi - xi-1), provided that you have x-1 = 0 ?
(the result in this example should be (1 2 3 4 -10))
I've found this solution to be correct:
(define (pairwise-2 f init l)
(first
(foldl
(λ (x acc-data)
(let ([result-list (first acc-data)]
[prev-x (second acc-data)])
(list
(append result-list (list(f x prev-x)))
x)))
(list empty 0)
l)))
(pairwise-2 - 0 '(1 3 6 10 0))
;; => (1 2 3 4 -10)
However, I think there should be more elegant though no less flexible solution. It's just ugly.
I'm new to functional programming and would like to hear any suggestions on the code.
Thanks.
map takes multiple arguments. So I would just do
(define (butlast l)
(reverse (cdr (reverse l))))
(let ((l '(0 1 3 6 10)))
(map - l (cons 0 (butlast l)))
If you want to wrap it up in a function, say
(define (pairwise-call f init l)
(map f l (cons init (butlast l))))
This is of course not the Little Schemer Way, but the way that avoids writing recursion yourself. Choose the way you like the best.
I haven't done scheme in dog's years, but this strikes me as a typical little lisper type problem.
I started with a base definition (please ignore misplacement of parens - I don't have a Scheme interpreter handy:
(define pairwise-diff
(lambda (list)
(cond
((null? list) '())
((atom? list) list)
(t (pairwise-helper 0 list)))))
This handles the crap cases of null and atom and then delegates the meat case to a helper:
(define pairwise-helper
(lambda (n list)
(cond
((null? list) '())
(t
(let ([one (car list)])
(cons (- one n) (pairwise-helper one (cdr list))))
))))
You could rewrite this using "if", but I'm hardwired to use cond.
There are two cases here: null list - which is easy and everything else.
For everything else, I grab the head of the list and cons this diff onto the recursive case. I don't think it gets much simpler.
After refining and adapting to PLT Scheme plinth's code, I think nearly-perfect solution would be:
(define (pairwise-apply f l0 l)
(if (empty? l)
'()
(let ([l1 (first l)])
(cons (f l1 l0) (pairwise-apply f l1 (rest l))))))
Haskell tells me to use zip ;)
(define (zip-with f xs ys)
(cond ((or (null? xs) (null? ys)) null)
(else (cons (f (car xs) (car ys))
(zip-with f (cdr xs) (cdr ys))))))
(define (pairwise-diff lst) (zip-with - (cdr lst) lst))
(pairwise-diff (list 1 3 6 10 0))
; gives (2 3 4 -10)
Doesn't map finish as soon as the shortest argument list is exhausted, anyway?
(define (pairwise-call fun init-element lst)
(map fun lst (cons init-element lst)))
edit: jleedev informs me that this is not the case in at least one Scheme implementation. This is a bit annoying, since there is no O(1) operation to chop off the end of a list.
Perhaps we can use reduce:
(define (pairwise-call fun init-element lst)
(reverse (cdr (reduce (lambda (a b)
(append (list b (- b (car a))) (cdr a)))
(cons (list init-element) lst)))))
(Disclaimer: quick hack, untested)
This is the simplest way:
(define (solution ls)
(let loop ((ls (cons 0 ls)))
(let ((x (cadr ls)) (x_1 (car ls)))
(if (null? (cddr ls)) (list (- x x_1))
(cons (- x x_1) (loop (cdr ls)))))))
(display (equal? (solution '(1)) '(1))) (newline)
(display (equal? (solution '(1 5)) '(1 4))) (newline)
(display (equal? (solution '(1 3 6 10 0)) '(1 2 3 4 -10))) (newline)
Write out the code expansion for each of the example to see how it works.
If you are interested in getting started with FP, be sure to check out How To Design Program. Sure it is written for people brand new to programming, but it has tons of good FP idioms within.
(define (f l res cur)
(if (null? l)
res
(let ((next (car l)))
(f (cdr l) (cons (- next cur) res) next))))
(define (do-work l)
(reverse (f l '() 0)))
(do-work '(1 3 6 10 0))
==> (1 2 3 4 -10)