Related
I am working on a complicated macro and have run into a roadblock.
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (body vars on &optional counter name)
`(block o
(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry ,on)
(destructuring-bind
,(apply #'append vars)
(let ((current-band (list ,#(mapcar #'not (apply #'append vars)))))
(for (i 1 ,(length (apply #'append vars)) 2)
(multiple-value-bind
(succ k v) (next-entry)
(if succ
(progn
(setf (nth i current-band) k)
(setf (nth (+ 1 i) current-band) v))
(return-from o nil))))
current-band)
,#body))))
im getting "Evaluation aborted on #<UNDEFINED-FUNCTION NEXT-ENTRY {100229C693}>"
i dont understand why next-entry appears to be invisible to the macro i have created.
I've tried stripping down this to a small replicable example but i couldnt find a minimal scenario without the macro i created where next-entry would be invisible besides this scenario no matter what I tried, i've always managed to find a way to call next-entry in my other examples so im stumped as to why i cannot get it working here
I've tested the for macro ive created and it seems to generally work in most cases but for some reason it cannot see this next-entry variable. How do i make it visible?
In your code there are multiple places where the macro generates bindings in a way that is subject to variable capture (pdf).
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (body vars on &optional counter name)
`(block o ;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry ,on) ;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars)
(let ((current-band ;;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
(list ,#(mapcar #'not (apply #'append vars)))))
(for
(i ;;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
1 ,(length (apply #'append vars)) 2)
(multiple-value-bind (succ k v) ;;; VARIABLE CAPTURE
,(next-entry) ;;; WRONG EVALUATION TIME
(if succ
(progn
(setf (nth i current-band) k)
(setf (nth (+ 1 i) current-band) v))
(return-from o nil))))
current-band)
,#body))))
A simplified example of such a capture is:
`(let ((x 0)) ,#body)
Here above, the x variable is introduced, but if the code is expanded in a context where xis already bound, then body will not be able to reference that former x binding and will always see x bound to zero (you generally don't want this behavior).
Write a function instead
Instead of writing a big macro for this, let's first try understanding what you want to achieve and write instead a higher-order function, ie. a function that calls user-provided functions.
If I understand correctly, your function iterates over a hash-table by bands of entries. I assume vars holds a list of (key value) pairs of symbols, for example ((k1 v1) (k2 v2)). Then, body works on all the key/value pairs in the band.
In the following code, the function map-each-hashtable-band accepts a function, a hash-table, and instead of vars it accepts a size, the width of the band (the number of pairs).
Notice how in your code, you only have one loop, which builds a band using the hash-table iterator. But then, since the macro is named for-each-hashtable-band, I assume you also want to loop over all the bands. The macro with-hash-table-iterator provides an iterator but does not loop itself. That's why here I have two loops.
(defun map-each-hashtable-band (function hash-table band-size)
(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry hash-table)
(loop :named outer-loop :do
(loop
:with key and value and next-p
:repeat band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (next-p key value) (next-entry))
:while next-p
:collect key into current-band
:collect value into current-band
:finally (progn
(when current-band
(apply function current-band))
(unless next-p
(return-from outer-loop)))))))
For example:
(map-each-hashtable-band (lambda (&rest band) (print `(:band ,band)))
(alexandria:plist-hash-table
'(:a 0 :b 1 :c 2 :d 3 :e 4 :f 5 :g 6))
2)
NB. Iterating over a hash-table happens in an arbitrary order, there is no guarantee that you'll see the entries in any particular kind of order, this is implementation-dependant.
With my current version of SBCL this prints the following:
(:BAND (:A 0 :B 1))
(:BAND (:C 2 :D 3))
(:BAND (:E 4 :F 5))
(:BAND (:G 6))
Wrap the function in a macro
The previous function might not be exactly the behavior you want, so you need to adapt to your needs, but once it does what you want, you can wrap a macro around it.
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
`(map-each-hashtable-band (lambda ,(apply #'append vars) ,#body)
,hash-table
,(length vars)))
For example:
(let ((test (alexandria:plist-hash-table '(:a 0 :b 1 :c 2 :d 3 :e 4 :f 5))))
(for-each-hashtable-band ((k1 v1) (k2 v2)) test
(format t "~a -> ~a && ~a -> ~a ~%" k1 v1 k2 v2)))
This prints:
A -> 0 && B -> 1
C -> 2 && D -> 3
E -> 4 && F -> 5
Macro-only solution, for completeness
If you want to have only one, single macro, you can start by inlining the body of the above function in the macro, you don't need to use apply anymore, but instead you need to establish bindings around the body, using destructuring-bind as you did. A first draft would be to simply as follows, but notice that this is not a proper solution:
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
(let ((band-size (length vars)))
`(with-hash-table-iterator (next-entry ,hash-table)
(loop :named outer-loop :do
(loop
:with key and value and next-p
:repeat ,band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (next-p key value) (next-entry))
:while next-p
:collect key into current-band
:collect value into current-band
:finally (progn
(when current-band
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars) current-band
,#body))
(unless next-p
(return-from outer-loop))))))))
In order to be free of variable capture problems with macros, each temporary variable you introduce must be named after a symbol that cannot exist in any context you expand your code. So instead we first unquote all the variables, making the macro definition fail to compile:
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
(let ((band-size (length vars)))
`(with-hash-table-iterator (,next-entry ,hash-table)
(loop :named ,outer-loop :do
(loop
:with ,key and ,value and ,next-p
:repeat ,band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (,next-p ,key ,value) (,next-entry))
:while ,next-p
:collect ,key into ,current-band
:collect ,value into ,current-band
:finally (progn
(when ,current-band
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars) ,current-band
,#body))
(unless ,next-p
(return-from ,outer-loop))))))))
When compiling the macro, the macro is supposed to inject symbols into the code, but here we have a compilation error that says undefined variables:
;; undefined variables: CURRENT-BAND KEY NEXT-ENTRY NEXT-P OUTER-LOOP VALUE
So now, those variables should be fresh symbols:
(defmacro for-each-hashtable-band (vars hash-table &body body)
(let ((band-size (length vars)))
(let ((current-band (gensym))
(key (gensym))
(next-entry (gensym))
(next-p (gensym))
(outer-loop (gensym))
(value (gensym)))
`(with-hash-table-iterator (,next-entry ,hash-table)
(loop :named ,outer-loop :do
(loop
:with ,key and ,value and ,next-p
:repeat ,band-size
:do (multiple-value-setq (,next-p ,key ,value) (,next-entry))
:while ,next-p
:collect ,key into ,current-band
:collect ,value into ,current-band
:finally (progn
(when ,current-band
(destructuring-bind ,(apply #'append vars) ,current-band
,#body))
(unless ,next-p
(return-from ,outer-loop)))))))))
This above is a bit verbose, but you could simplify that.
Here is what the previous for-each-hashtable-band example expands into with this new macro:
(with-hash-table-iterator (#:g1576 test)
(loop :named #:g1578
:do (loop :with #:g1575
and #:g1579
and #:g1577
:repeat 2
:do (multiple-value-setq (#:g1577 #:g1575 #:g1579) (#:g1576))
:while #:g1577
:collect #:g1575 into #:g1574
:collect #:g1579 into #:g1574
:finally (progn
(when #:g1574
(destructuring-bind
(k1 v1 k2 v2)
#:g1574
(format t "~a -> ~a && ~a -> ~a ~%" k1 v1 k2
v2)))
(unless #:g1577 (return-from #:g1578))))))
Each time you expand it, the #:gXXXX variables are different, and cannot possibly shadow existing bindings, so for example, the body can use variables named like current-band or value without breaking the expanded code.
I'm arduously struggling my way through the N-queens problem in SICP (the book; I spent a few days on it -- last question here: Solving Eight-queens in scheme). Here is what I have for the helper functions:
#lang sicp
; the SICP language in Racket already defines this:
; (define nil '()
; boilerplate: filter function and range functions
(define (filter func lst)
(cond
((null? lst)
nil)
(else
(if (func (car lst))
(cons (car lst) (filter func (cdr lst)))
(filter func (cdr lst))))))
(define (range a b)
(if (> a b)
nil
(cons a (range (+ 1 a) b))))
; Selectors/handlers to avoid confusion on the (col, row) notation:
; representing it a position as (col, row), using 1-based indexing
(define (make-position col row) (cons col (list row)))
(define (col p) (car p))
(define (row p) (cadr p))
; adding a new position to a board
(define (add-new-position existing-positions p)
(append existing-positions
(list (make-position (col p) (row p)))))
; The 'safe' function
(define (any? l proc)
(cond ((null? l) #f)
((proc (car l)) #t)
(else (any? (cdr l) proc))))
(define (none? l proc) (not (any? l proc)))
(define (safe? existing-positions p)
(let ((bool (lambda (x) x)) (r (row p)) (c (col p)))
(and
; is the row safe? i.e., no other queen occupies that row?
(none? (map (lambda (p) (= (row p) r)) existing-positions)
bool)
; safe from the diagonal going up
(none? (map (lambda (p) (= r (+ (row p) (- c (col p)))))
existing-positions)
bool)
; safe from the diagonal going down
(none? (map (lambda (p) (= r (- (row p) (- c (col p)))))
existing-positions)
bool))))
And now, with that boilerplate, the actual/monstrous first working version I have of the queens problem:
(define (positions-for-col col size)
(map (lambda (ri) (make-position col ri))
(range 1 size)))
(define (queens board-size)
(define possible-positions '())
(define safe-positions '())
(define all-new-position-lists '())
(define all-positions-list '())
; existing-positions is a LIST of pairs
(define (queen-cols col existing-positions)
(if (> col board-size)
(begin
(set! all-positions-list
(append all-positions-list (list existing-positions))))
(begin
; for the column, generate all possible positions,
; for example (3 1) (3 2) (3 3) ...
(set! possible-positions (positions-for-col col board-size))
; (display "Possible positions: ") (display possible-positions) (newline)
; filter out the positions that are not safe from existing queens
(set! safe-positions
(filter (lambda (pos) (safe? existing-positions pos))
possible-positions))
; (display "Safe positions: ") (display safe-positions) (newline)
(if (null? safe-positions)
; bail if we don't have any safe positions
'()
; otherwise, build a list of positions for each safe possibility
; and recursively call the function for the next column
(begin
(set! all-new-position-lists
(map (lambda (pos)
(add-new-position existing-positions pos))
safe-positions))
; (display "All positions lists: ") (display all-new-position-lists) (newline)
; call itself for the next column
(map (lambda (positions-list) (queen-cols (+ 1 col)
positions-list))
all-new-position-lists))))))
(queen-cols 1 '())
all-positions-list)
(queens 5)
(((1 1) (2 3) (3 5) (4 2) (5 4))
((1 1) (2 4) (3 2) (4 5) (5 3))
((1 2) (2 4) (3 1) (4 3) (5 5))
((1 2) (2 5) (3 3) (4 1) (5 4))
((1 3) (2 1) (3 4) (4 2) (5 5))
To be honest, I think I did all the set!s so that I could more easily debug things (is that common?) How could I remove the various set!s to make this a proper functional-procedure?
As an update, the most 'terse' I was able to get it is as follows, though it still appends to a list to build the positions:
(define (queens board-size)
(define all-positions-list '())
(define (queen-cols col existing-positions)
(if (> col board-size)
(begin
(set! all-positions-list
(append all-positions-list
(list existing-positions))))
(map (lambda (positions-list)
(queen-cols (+ 1 col) positions-list))
(map (lambda (pos)
(add-new-position existing-positions pos))
(filter (lambda (pos)
(safe? existing-positions pos))
(positions-for-col col board-size))))))
(queen-cols 1 nil)
all-positions-list)
Finally, I think here is the best I can do, making utilization of a 'flatmap' function that helps deal with nested lists:
; flatmap to help with reduction
(define (reduce function sequence initializer)
(let ((elem (if (null? sequence) nil (car sequence)))
(rest (if (null? sequence) nil (cdr sequence))))
(if (null? sequence)
initializer
(function elem
(reduce function rest initializer)))))
(define (flatmap proc seq)
(reduce append (map proc seq) nil))
; actual
(define (queens board-size)
(define (queen-cols col existing-positions)
(if (> col board-size)
(list existing-positions)
(flatmap
(lambda (positions-list)
(queen-cols (+ 1 col) positions-list))
(map
(lambda (pos)
(add-new-position existing-positions
pos))
(filter
(lambda (pos)
(safe? existing-positions pos))
(positions-for-col col board-size))))))
(queen-cols 1 nil))
Are there any advantages of this function over the one using set! or is it more a matter of preference (I find the set! one easier to read and debug).
When you are doing the SICP problems, it would be most beneficial if you strive to adhere to the spirit of the question. You can determine the spirit from the context: the topics covered till the point you are in the book, any helper code given, the terminology used etc. Specifically, avoid using parts of the scheme language that have not yet been introduced; the focus is not on whether you can solve the problem, it is on how you solve it. If you have been provided helper code, try to use it to the extent you can.
SICP has a way of building complexity; it does not introduce a concept unless it has presented enough motivation and justification for it. The underlying theme of the book is simplification through abstraction, and in this particular section you are introduced to various higher order procedures -- abstractions like accumulate, map, filter, flatmap which operate on sequences/lists, to make your code more structured, compact and ultimately easier to reason about.
As illustrated in the opening of this section, you could very well avoid the use of such higher programming constructs and still have programs that run fine, but their (liberal) use results in more structured, readable, top-down style code. It draws parallels from the design of signal processing systems, and shows how we can take inspiration from it to add structure to our code: using procedures like map, filter etc. compartmentalize our code's logic, not only making it look more hygienic but also more comprehensible.
If you prematurely use techniques which don't come until later in the book, you will be missing out on many key learnings which the authors intend for you from the present section. You need to shed the urge to think in an imperative way. Using set! is not a good way to do things in scheme, until it is. SICP forces you down a 'difficult' path by making you think in a functional manner for a reason -- it is for making your thinking (and code) elegant and 'clean'.
Just imagine how much more difficult it would be to reason about code which generates a tree recursive process, wherein each (child) function call is mutating the parameters of the function. Also, as I mentioned in the comments, assignment places additional burden upon the programmers (and on those who read their code) by making the order of the expressions have a bearing on the results of the computation, so it is harder to verify that the code does what is intended.
Edit: I just wanted to add a couple of points which I feel would add a bit more insight:
Your code using set! is not wrong (or even very inelegant), it is just that in doing so, you are being very explicit in telling what you are doing. Iteration also reduces the elegance a bit in addition to being bottom up -- it is generally harder to think bottom up.
I feel that teaching to do things recursively where possible is one of the aims of the book. You will find that recursion is a crucial technique, the use of which is inevitable throughout the book. For instance, in chapter 4, you will be writing evaluators (interpreters) where the authors evaluate the expressions recursively. Even much earlier, in section 2.3, there is the symbolic differentiation problem which is also an exercise in recursive evaluation of expressions. So even though you solved the problem imperatively (using set!, begin) and bottom-up iteration the first time, it is not the right way, as far as the problem statement is concerned.
Having said all this, here is my code for this problem (for all the structure and readability imparted by FP, comments are still indispensable):
; the board is a list of lists - a physical n x n board, where
; empty positions are 0 and filled positions are 1
(define (queens board-size)
(let ((empty-board (empty-board-gen board-size))) ; minor modification - making empty-board available to queen-cols
(define (queen-cols k)
(if (= k 0)
(list empty-board)
(filter (lambda (positions) (safe? k positions))
; the flatmap below generates a list of new positions
; by 'adjoining position'- adding 'board-size' number
; of new positions for each of the positions obtained
; recursively from (queen-cols (- k 1)), which have
; been found to be safe till column k-1. This new
; set (list) of positions is then filtered using the
; safe? function to filter out unsafe positions
(flatmap
(lambda (rest-of-queens)
; the map below adds 'board-size' number of new
; positions to 'rest-of-queens', which is an
; element of (queen-cols (- k 1))
(map (lambda (new-row)
(adjoin-position new-row k rest-of-queens))
(enumerate-interval 1 board-size)))
(queen-cols (- k 1))))))
(queen-cols board-size)) ; end of let block
)
; add a column having a queen placed at position (new-row, col).
(define (adjoin-position new-row col rest-queens)
(let ((board-dim (length rest-queens))) ;length of board
; first create a zero 'vector', put a queen in it at position
; 'new-row', then put (replace) this new vector/column at the
; 'col' position in rest-queens
(replace-elem (replace-elem 1 new-row (gen-zero-vector board-dim)) col rest-queens)))
(define (safe? k positions) ; the safe function
(let ((row-pos-k (non-zero-index (item-at-index k positions)))) ; get the row of the queen in column k
(define (iter-check col rem) ;iteratively check if column 'col' of the board is safe wrt the kth column
(let ((rw-col (non-zero-index (car rem)))) ; get the row of 'col' in which a queen is placed
(cond ((= k 1) #t); 1x1 board is always safe
((= col k) #t); if we reached the kth column, we are done
; some simple coordinate geometry
; checks if the row of the queen in col and kth
; column is same, and also checks if the 'slope' of
; the line connecting the queens of the two columns
; is 1 (i.e. if it's a diagonal), if either is true,
; the kth queen is not safe
((or (= row-pos-k rw-col) (= (- k col) (abs (- row-pos-k rw-col)))) #f)
(else (iter-check (+ col 1) (cdr rem)))))) ; check the next column
(iter-check 1 positions))) ; start checking from the first column
; helper functions follow
(define (item-at-index n items) ; given a list, return the nth element
(define (iter idx rem)
(if (= idx n)
(car rem)
(iter (+ idx 1) (cdr rem))))
(iter 1 items))
(define (non-zero-index items)
; gives the first non-zero element from items - used for
; determining the row at which a queen is placed
(define (iter a rem)
(if (> (car rem) 0)
a
(iter (+ a 1) (cdr rem))))
(iter 1 items))
(define (empty-board-gen n) ; the empty board is n lists, each list with n zeros
(map (lambda (x) (map (lambda (y) 0) (enumerate-interval 1 n))) (enumerate-interval 1 n)))
(define (replace-elem new-elem pos items) ; replace item at position pos in items by new-elem, ultimately used for replacing an empty column with a column which has a queen
(define (iter i res rem)
(if (= i pos)
(append res (list new-elem) (cdr rem))
(iter (+ i 1) (append res (list(car rem))) (cdr rem)))) (iter 1 '() items))
(define (gen-zero-vector n) ; generate a list of length n with only zeros as elements
(define (iter a res)
(if (> a n)
res
(iter (+ a 1) (append res (list 0))))) (iter 1 '()))
(define (flatmap proc seq)
(accumulate append '() (map proc seq)))
(define (length items) ; not particularly efficient way for length of a list
(accumulate + 0 (map (lambda (x) 1) items)))
(define (accumulate op null-value seq)
(if (null? seq)
null-value
(op (car seq) (accumulate op null-value (cdr seq)))))
(define (enumerate-interval low high) ; a list of integers from low to hi
(define (iter a b res)
(if (> a b)
res
(iter (+ a 1) b (append res (cons a '())))))
(iter low high '()))
There are many ways to tackle this problem. I'll attempt to write a short and concise solution using Racket-specific procedures, explaining each step of the way. A solution using only the Scheme procedures explained in SICP is also possible, but it'll be more verbose and I'd argue, more difficult to understand.
My aim is to write a functional-programming style solution reusing as many built-in procedures as possible, and avoiding mutation at all costs - this is the style that SICP encourages you to learn. I'll deviate from the template solution in SICP if I think we can get a clearer solution by reusing existing Racket procedures (it follows then, that this code must be executed using the #lang racket language), but I've provided another answer that fits exactly exercise 2.42 in the book, implemented in standard Scheme and compatible with #lang sicp.
First things first. Let's agree on how are we going to represent the board - this is a key point, the way we represent our data will have a big influence on how easy (or hard) is to implement our solution. I'll use a simple representation, with only the minimum necessary information.
Let's say a "board" is a list of row indexes. My origin of coordinates is the position (0, 0), on the top-left corner of the board. For the purpose of this exercise we only need to keep track of the row a queen is in, the column is implicitly represented by its index in the list and there can only be one queen per column. Using my representation, the list '(2 0 3 1) encodes the following board, notice how the queens' position is uniquely represented by its row number and its index:
0 1 2 3
0 . Q . .
1 . . . Q
2 Q . . .
3 . . Q .
Next, let's see how are we going to check if a new queen added at the end of the board is "safe" with respect to the previously existing queens. For this, we need to check if there are any other queens in the same row, or if there are queens in the diagonal lines starting from the new queen's position. We don't need to check for queens in the same column, we're trying to set a single new queen and there aren't any others in this row. Let's split this task in multiple procedures.
; main procedure for checking if a queen in the given
; column is "safe" in the board; there are no more
; queens to the "right" or in the same column
(define (safe? col board)
; we're only interested in the queen's row for the given column
(let ([row (list-ref board (sub1 col))])
; the queen must be safe on the row and on the diagonals
(and (safe-row? row board)
(safe-diagonals? row board))))
; check if there are any other queens in the same row,
; do this by counting how many times `row` appears in `board`
(define (safe-row? row board)
; only the queen we want to add can be in this row
; `curry` is a shorthand for writing a lambda that
; compares `row` to each element in `board`
(= (count (curry equal? row) board) 1))
; check if there are any other queens in either the "upper"
; or the "lower" diagonals starting from the current queen's
; position and going to the "left" of it
(define (safe-diagonals? row board)
; we want to traverse the row list from right-to-left so we
; reverse it, and remove the current queen from it; upper and
; lower positions are calculated starting from the current queen
(let loop ([lst (rest (reverse board))]
[upper (sub1 row)]
[lower (add1 row)])
; the queen is safe after checking all the list
(or (null? lst)
; the queen is not safe if we find another queen in
; the same row, either on the upper or lower diagonal
(and (not (= (first lst) upper))
(not (= (first lst) lower))
; check the next position, updating upper and lower
(loop (rest lst) (sub1 upper) (add1 lower))))))
Some optimizations could be done, for example stopping early if there's more than one queen in the same row or stopping when the diagonals' rows fall outside of the board, but they'll make the code harder to understand and I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader.
In the book they suggest we use an adjoin-position procedure that receives both row and column parameters; with my representation we only need the row so I'm renaming it to add-queen, it simply adds a new queen at the end of a board:
; add a new queen's row to the end of the board
(define (add-queen queen-row board)
(append board (list queen-row)))
Now for the fun part. With all of the above procedures in place, we need to try out different combinations of queens and filter out those that are not safe. We'll use higher-order procedures and recursion for implementing this backtracking solution, there's no need to use set! at all as long as we're in the right mindset.
This will be easier to understand if you read if from the "inside out", try to grok what the inner parts do before going to the outer parts, and always remember that we're unwinding our way in a recursive process: the first case that will get executed is when we have an empty board, the next case is when we have a board with only one queen in position and so on, until we finally have a full board.
; main procedure: returns a list of all safe boards of the given
; size using our previously defined board representation
(define (queens board-size)
; we need two values to perform our computation:
; `queen-col`: current row of the queen we're attempting to set
; `board-size`: the full size of the board we're trying to fill
; I implemented this with a named let instead of the book's
; `queen-cols` nested procedure
(let loop ([queen-col board-size])
; if there are no more columns to try exit the recursion
(if (zero? queen-col)
; base case: return a list with an empty list as its only
; element; remember that the output is a list of lists
; the book's `empty-board` is just the empty list '()
(list '())
; we'll generate queen combinations below, but only the
; safe ones will survive for the next recursive call
(filter (λ (board) (safe? queen-col board))
; append-map will flatten the results as we go, we want
; a list of lists, not a list of lists of lists of...
; this is equivalent to the book's flatmap implementation
(append-map
(λ (previous-boards)
(map (λ (new-queen-row)
; add a new queen row to each one of
; the previous valid boards we found
(add-queen new-queen-row previous-boards))
; generate all possible queen row values for this
; board size, this is similar to the book's
; `enumerate-interval` but starting from zero
(range board-size)))
; advance the recursion, try a smaller column
; position, as the recursion unwinds this will
; return only previous valid boards
(loop (sub1 queen-col)))))))
And that's all there is to it! I'll provide a couple of printing procedures (useful for testing) which should be self-explanatory; they take my compact board representation and print it in a more readable way. Queens are represented by 'o and empty spaces by 'x:
(define (print-board board)
(for-each (λ (row) (printf "~a~n" row))
(map (λ (row)
(map (λ (col) (if (= row col) 'o 'x))
board))
(range (length board)))))
(define (print-all-boards boards)
(for-each (λ (board) (print-board board) (newline))
boards))
We can verify that things work and that the number of solutions for the 8-queens problem is as expected:
(length (queens 8))
=> 92
(print-all-boards (queens 4))
(x x o x)
(o x x x)
(x x x o)
(x o x x)
(x o x x)
(x x x o)
(o x x x)
(x x o x)
As a bonus, here's another solution that works with the exact definition of queens as provided in the SICP book. I won't go into details because it uses the same board representation (except that here the indexes start in 1 not in 0) and safe? implementation of my previous answer, and the explanation for the queens procedure is essentially the same. I did some minor changes to favor standard Scheme procedures, so hopefully it'll be more portable.
#lang racket
; redefine procedures already explained in the book with
; Racket equivalents, delete them and use your own
; implementation to be able to run this under #lang sicp
(define flatmap append-map)
(define (enumerate-interval start end)
(range start (+ end 1)))
; new definitions required for this exercise
(define empty-board '())
(define (adjoin-position row col board)
; `col` is unused
(append board (list row)))
; same `safe?` implementation as before
(define (safe? col board)
(let ((row (list-ref board (- col 1))))
(and (safe-row? row board)
(safe-diagonals? row board))))
(define (safe-row? row board)
; reimplemented to use standard Scheme procedures
(= (length (filter (lambda (r) (equal? r row)) board)) 1))
(define (safe-diagonals? row board)
(let loop ((lst (cdr (reverse board)))
(upper (- row 1))
(lower (+ row 1)))
(or (null? lst)
(and (not (= (car lst) upper))
(not (= (car lst) lower))
(loop (cdr lst) (- upper 1) (+ lower 1))))))
; exact same implementation of `queens` as in the book
(define (queens board-size)
(define (queen-cols k)
(if (= k 0)
(list empty-board)
(filter
(lambda (positions) (safe? k positions))
(flatmap
(lambda (rest-of-queens)
(map (lambda (new-row)
(adjoin-position new-row k rest-of-queens))
(enumerate-interval 1 board-size)))
(queen-cols (- k 1))))))
(queen-cols board-size))
; debugging
(define (print-board board)
(for-each (lambda (row) (display row) (newline))
(map (lambda (row)
(map (lambda (col) (if (= row col) 'o 'x))
board))
(enumerate-interval 1 (length board)))))
(define (print-all-boards boards)
(for-each (lambda (board) (print-board board) (newline))
boards))
The above code is more in spirit with the original exercise, which asked you to implement just three definitions: empty-board, adjoin-position and safe?, thus this was more of a question about data representation. Unsurprisingly, the results are the same:
(length (queens 8))
=> 92
(print-all-boards (queens 4))
(x x o x)
(o x x x)
(x x x o)
(x o x x)
(x o x x)
(x x x o)
(o x x x)
(x x o x)
I am simply trying to make this average function to be tail recursive. I have managed to get my function to work and that took some considerable effort. Afterwards I went to ask my professor if my work was satisfactory and he informed me that
my avg function was not tail recursive
avg did not produce the correct output for lists with more than one element
I have been playing around with this code for the past 2 hours and have hit a bit of a wall. Can anyone help me to identify what I am not understanding here.
Spoke to my professor he was != helpful
(defun avg (aList)
(defun sumup (aList)
(if (equal aList nil) 0
; if aList equals nil nothing to sum
(+ (car aList) (sumup (cdr aList)) )
)
)
(if
(equal aList nil) 0
; if aList equals nil length dosent matter
(/ (sumup aList) (list-length aList) )
)
)
(print (avg '(2 4 6 8 19))) ;39/5
my expected results for my test are commented right after it 39/5
So this is what I have now
(defun avg (aList &optional (sum 0) (length 0))
(if aList
(avg (cdr aList) (+ sum (car aList))
(+ length 1))
(/ sum length)))
(print (avg '(2 4 6 8 19))) ;39/5
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(cond ((null list) (/ sum n))
(t (avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n)))))
which is the same like:
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(if (null list)
(/ sum n)
(avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n))))
or more similar for your writing:
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(if list
(avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n))
(/ sum n)))
(defun avg (lst &optional (sum 0) (len 0))
(if (null lst)
(/ sum len)
(avg (cdr lst) (incf sum (car lst)) (1+ len))))
You could improve your indentation here by putting the entire if-then/if-else statement on the same line, because in your code when you call the avg function recursively the indentation bleeds into the next line. In the first function you could say that if the list if null (which is the base case of the recursive function) you can divide the sum by the length of the list. If it is not null, you can obviously pass the cdr of the list, the sum so far by incrementing it by the car of the list, and then increment the length of the list by one. Normally it would not be wise to use the incf or 1+ functions because they are destructive, but in this case they will only have a localized effect because they only impact the optional sum and len parameters for this particular function, and not the structure of the original list (or else I would have passed a copy of the list).
Another option would be to use a recursive local function, and avoid the optional parameters and not have to compute the length of the list on each recursive call. In your original code it looks like you were attempting to use a local function within the context of your avg function, but you should use the "labels" Special operator to do that, and not "defun":
(defun avg (lst)
(if (null lst)
0
(labels ((find-avg (lst sum len)
(if (null lst)
(/ sum len)
(find-avg (cdr lst) (incf sum (car lst)) len))))
(find-avg lst 0 (length lst))))
I'm not 100% sure if your professor would want the local function to be tail-recursive or if he was referring to the global function (avg), but that is how you could also make the local function tail-recursive if that is an acceptable remedy as well. It's actually more efficient in some ways, although it requires more lines of code. In this case a lambda expression could also work, BUT since they do not have a name tail-recursion is not possibly, which makes the labels Special operator is useful for local functions if tail-recursion is mandatory.
I have to write a recursive macro for list addition in Common Lisp (homework). What I have so far is :
(defmacro matrix-add-row (r1 r2 sum_row)
(if (not (and r1 r2)) `sum_row
(progn
`(matrix-add-row (cdr r1) (cdr r2) (cons sum_row (+ (car r1) (car r2))))
(reverse sum_row)
)
)
)
I call this function with
(matrix-add-row `(1 2) `(3 4) ())
and as an output I get unvaluated code instead of numbers (which leads going to infinite loop).
How to put , ` properly (or call the macro properly)?
Firstly, to me this seems a rather bizarre thing to do with a macro. I assume the point is that you use the macro to transform (matrix-add-row '(1 2) '(3 4)) to an explicit list of sums like (list (+ 1 3) (+ 2 4)).
Also, what you have written has several problems which look like you don't quite understand how the backtick works. So I think the easiest way to help is to solve an example for you.
Since this is homework, I'm going to solve a different (but similar) question. You should be able to take the answer and use it for your example. Suppose I want to solve the following:
Write a macro, diffs, which computes all differences of pairs of successive elements in a list. For example,
(diffs '(1 2 3)) should expand to (list (- 2 1) (- 3 2)), which will then evaluate to (1 1).
Note that my macro won't do the actual subtraction, so I can use it even if I don't know some of the numbers until runtime. (The reason I think this sort of question is a bit weird is that it does need to know the length of the list at compile time).
My solution is going to be used as a macro with one argument but if I want to use recursion I'll need to pass in an accumulator too, which I can start with nil. So I write something like this:
(defmacro diffs (lst &optional accumulator)
...)
Now what do I do with lst? If lst is nil, I want to bottom out and just return the accumulator, with a call to list at the front, which will be code to make my list. Something like this:
(defmacro diffs (lst &optional accumulator)
(cond
((null lst)
;; You could write `(list ,#accumulator) instead, but that seems
;; unnecessarily obfuscated.
(cons 'list accumulator))
(t
(error "Aargh. Unhandled"))))
Let's try it!
CL-USER> (diffs nil)
NIL
Not hugely exciting, but it looks plausible. Now use macroexpand, which just does the expansion without the evaluation:
CL-USER> (macroexpand '(diffs nil))
(LIST)
T
And what if we'd already got some stuff from a recursion?
CL-USER> (macroexpand '(diffs nil ((- a b) (- b c))))
(LIST (- A B) (- B C))
T
Looks good! Now we need to deal with the case when there's an actual list there. The test you want is consp and (for my example) it only makes sense when there's at least two elements.
(defmacro diffs (lst &optional accumulator)
(cond
;; A list of at least two elements
((and (consp lst) (consp (cdr lst)))
(list 'diffs (cdr lst)
(cons (list '- (cadr lst) (car lst)) accumulator)))
;; A list with at most one element
((listp lst)
(cons 'list accumulator))
(t
(error "Aargh. Unhandled"))))
This seems almost to work:
CL-USER> (macroexpand '(diffs (3 4 5)))
(LIST (- 5 4) (- 4 3))
T
but for two problems:
The list comes out backwards
The code is a bit horrible when we actually construct the recursive expansion
Let's fix the second part first by using the backtick operator:
(defmacro diffs (lst &optional accumulator)
(cond
;; A list of at least two elements
((and (consp lst) (consp (cdr lst)))
`(diffs ,(cdr lst)
,(cons `(- ,(cadr lst) ,(car lst)) accumulator)))
;; A list with at most one element
((listp lst)
(cons 'list accumulator))
(t
(error "Aargh. Unhandled"))))
Hmm, it's not actually much shorter, but I think it's clearer.
For the second part, we could proceed by adding each item to the end of the accumulator rather than the front, but that's not particularly quick in Lisp because lists are singly linked. Better is to construct the accumulator backwards and then reverse it at the end:
(defmacro diffs (lst &optional accumulator)
(cond
;; A list of at least two elements
((and (consp lst) (consp (cdr lst)))
`(diffs ,(cdr lst)
,(cons `(- ,(cadr lst) ,(car lst)) accumulator)))
;; A list with at most one element
((listp lst)
(cons 'list (reverse accumulator)))
(t
(error "Aargh. Unhandled"))))
Now we get:
CL-USER> (macroexpand '(diffs (3 4 5)))
(LIST (- 4 3) (- 5 4))
T
Much better!
Two last things. Firstly, I still have an error clause in my macro. Can you see how to trigger it? Can you think of a better behaviour than just outputting an error? (Your macro is going to have to deal with the same problem)
Secondly, for debugging recursive macros like this, I recommend using macroexpand-1 which just unfolds one level at once. For example:
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 '(diffs (3 4 5)))
(DIFFS (4 5) ((- 4 3)))
T
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 *)
(DIFFS (5) ((- 5 4) (- 4 3)))
T
CL-USER> (macroexpand-1 *)
(LIST (- 4 3) (- 5 4))
T
There are two problems with your logic. First you are calling reverse on each iteration instead of at the end of the iteration. Then you are accumulating the new values, through cons, in the cdr of the cons cell as opposed to the car.
Also I don't see why this have to be a macro so using a function.
(defun matrix-add-row (r1 r2 sum-row)
(if (or (endp r1) (endp r2))
(reverse sum-row)
(matrix-add-row (cdr r1)
(cdr r2)
(cons (+ (car r1) (car r2))
sum-row))))
(matrix-add-row '(1 2) '(3 4) ())
;; => (4 6)
UPDATED: The code should compile now without errors or warnings. Sorry about the previous one. The problem I have now is that when a run (or with any other integer)
(NxNqueen-solver 10)
The function getqueencol will return nil because there are no queens on the board in the first place, hence there will be a (= number nil) in the queen-can-be-placed-here because tcol will be nil. I think this will happen everytime there is no queen in the row passed as argument to the queen-can-be-placed-here function.
Please share some advice on how to fix this problem. Thank you in advance.
Here is the code
(defvar *board* (make-array '(10 10) :initial-element nil))
(defun getqueencol (row n)
"Traverses through the columns of a certain row
and returns the column index of the queen."
(loop for i below n
do (if (aref *board* row i)
(return-from getqueencol i))))
(defun print-board (n)
"Prints out the solution, e.g. (1 4 2 5 3),
where 1 denotes that there is a queen at the first
column of the first row, and so on."
(let ((solutionlist (make-list n)))
(loop for row below n
do (loop for col below n
do (when (aref *board* row col)
(setf (nth row solutionlist) col))))
(print solutionlist)))
(defun queen-can-be-placed-here (row col n)
"Returns t if (row,col) is a possible place to put queen, otherwise nil."
(loop for i below n
do (let ((tcol (getqueencol i n)))
(if (or (= col tcol) (= (abs (- row i)) (abs (- col tcol))))
(return-from queen-can-be-placed-here nil)))))
(defun backtracking (row n)
"Solves the NxN-queen problem with backtracking"
(if (< row n)
(loop for i below n
do (when (queen-can-be-placed-here row i n)
(setf (aref *board* row i) 't)
(return-from backtracking (backtracking (+ row 1) n))
(setf (aref *board* row i) 'nil))
(print-board n))))
(defun NxNqueen-solver (k)
"Main program for the function call to the recursive solving of the problem"
(setf *board* (make-array '(k k) :initial-element nil))
(backtracking 0 k))
You say that you compiled your code. That can't be the case, since then you would have see the compiler complaining about errors. You want to make sure that you really compile the code and correct the code, such that it compiles without errors and warnings.
You might want to get rid of the errors/problems in the code (see Renzo's comment) and then look at the algorithmic problem. I makes very little sense to look into an algorithmic problem, when the code contains errors.
SETQ does not introduce a variable, the variable has to be defined somewhere
DEFVAR makes no sense inside a function.
Something like (let (x (sin a)) ...) definitely looks wrong. The syntax of LET requires a pair of parentheses around the bindings list.
RETURN-FROM takes as first argument the name of an existing block to return from. The optional second argument is a return value. Get the syntax right and return from the correct block.
in a call to MAKE-ARRAY specify the default value: (make-array ... :initial-element nil), otherwise it's not clear what it is.
The variable *board* is undefined
Style
in LOOP: for i to (1- n) is simpler for i below n
you don't need to quote NIL and T.
(if (eq foo t) ...) might be simpler written as (if foo ...). Especially if the value of foo is either NIL or T.
(if foo (progn ...)) is simply (when foo ...)
I'm not sure what you are doing to claim that your code compiles. It does not compile.
Every function has compiler warnings. You should check the compiler warnings and fix the problems.
(defun getqueencol (row)
"Traverses through the columns of a certain row
and returns the column index of the queen."
(loop for i below n
do (if (aref board row i)
(return-from getqueencol i))))
The compiler complains:
;;;*** Warning in GETQUEENCOL: N assumed special
;;;*** Warning in GETQUEENCOL: BOARD assumed special
Where is n defined? Where is board coming from?
(defun print-board (board)
"Prints out the solution, e.g. (1 4 2 5 3),
where 1 denotes that there is a queen at the first
column of the first row, and so on."
(let (solutionlist)
(setq solutionlist (make-list n)))
(loop for row below n
do (loop for col below n
do (when (aref board row col)
(setf (nth row solutionlist) col))))
(print solutionlist))
The LET makes no sense. (let (foo) (setq foo bar) ...) is (let ((foo bar)) ...).
Why is solutionlist not defined? Look at the LET... it does not make sense.
Where is n coming from?
(defun queen-can-be-placed-here (row col)
"Returns t if (row,col) is a possible place to put queen, otherwise nil."
(loop for i below n
do (let (tcol)
(setq tcol (getqueencol i)))
(if (or (= col tcol) (= (abs (- row i)) (abs (- col tcol))))
(return-from queen-can-be-placed-here nil))))
where is n coming from? The LET makes no sense.
(defun backtracking (row)
"Solves the NxN-queen problem with backtracking"
(if (< row n)
(loop for i below n
do (when (queen-can-be-placed-here row i)
(setf (aref board row i) 't)
(return-from backtracking (backtracking (+ row 1)))
(setf (aref board row i) 'nil))
(print-board board))))
Where is n coming from? Where is board defined?
(defun NxNqueen-solver (k)
"Main program for the function call to the recursive solving of the problem"
(let (n board)
(setq n k)
(setq board (make-array '(k k) :initial-element nil)))
(backtracking 0))
Why use setq when you have a let? The local variables n and board are unused.
MAKE-ARRAY expects a list of numbers, not a list of symbols.
I propose you use a basic Lisp introduction (Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation - free download) and a Lisp reference (CL Hyperspec).