I am writing a function called count-if, which takes in a predicate, p?, and a list, ls. The function returns the number of occurrences of elements in the nested list that satisfy p?
For example: (count-if (lambda (x) (eq? 'z x)) '((f x) z (((z x c v z) (y))))) will return 3. This is what I have written:
(define (count-if p ls) (cond
((null? ls) '())
((p (car ls))
(+ 1 (count-if p (cdr ls))))
(else
(count-if p (cdr ls)))))
But I just get an error. I could use some help finding a better way to go about this problem. Thanks!
What is the signature of count-if? It is:
[X] [X -> Boolean] [List-of X] -> Number
What does the first cond clause return? It returns:
'()
This is a simple type error. Just change the base case to 0 and count-if works.
Edit (for nested).
First we define the structure of the date as Nested.
A symbol is just fed into the score helper function. Otherwise the recursive call is applied on all nested sub-nesteds, and the results are summed up.
#lang racket
; Nested is one of:
; - Number
; - [List-of Nested]
; Nested -> Number
(define (count-if pred inp)
; Symbol -> Number
(define (score n) (if (pred n) 1 0))
; Nested -> Number
(define (count-if-h inp)
(if (symbol? inp)
(score inp)
(apply + (map count-if-h inp))))
(count-if-h inp))
(count-if (lambda (x) (eq? 'z x)) '((f x) z (((z x c v z) (y)))))
; => 3
Related
In order to understand functional programing, please help me to write a function that output nth element of a list,
Allowed command:
define lambda cond else empty empty? first rest cons list
list? = equal? and or not + - * / < <= > >=
Sample output:
(fourth-element '(a b c d e)) => d
(fourth-element '(x (y z) w h j)) => h
(fourth-element '((a b) (c d) (e f) (g h) (i j))) => (list 'g 'h)
or ‘(g h)
(fourth-element '(a b c)) => empty
I could write this in python, but I am not family with racket syntax,
def element(lst, x=0):
counter = x;
if (counter >= 3):
return lst[0]
else:
return element(lst[1:],x+1)
a = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
print(element(a))
The Output is 4
Comparing with code above in python. What is equivalent behavior in function that create local variable counter. What is "keyword" for return
It looks like you came up with an answer of your own. Nice work! I would recommend a more generic nth procedure that takes a counter as an argument. This allows you to get any element in the input list
(define (nth lst counter)
(cond ((null? lst) (error 'nth "index out of bounds"))
((= counter 0) (first lst))
(else (nth (rest lst) (- counter 1)))))
Now if you want a procedure that only returns the 4th element, we create a new procedure which specializes the generic nth
(define (fourth-element lst)
(nth lst 3))
That's it. Now we test them out with your inputs
(define a `(1 2 3 (4 5) 7))
(define b `(1 2 3))
(define c `((a b)(c d)(e f)(g h)(i j)))
(define d `(a b c))
(fourth-element a) ; '(4 5)
(fourth-element b) ; nth: index out of bounds
(fourth-element c) ; '(g h)
(fourth-element d) ; nth: index out of bounds
Note, when the counter goes out of bounds, I chose to raise an error instead of returning a value ("empty") like your program does. Returning a value makes it impossible to know whether you actually found a value in the list, or if the default was returned. In the example below, notice how your procedure cannot differentiate the two inputs
(define d `(a b c))
(define e `(a b c ,"empty"))
; your implementation
(fourth-element e) ; "empty"
(fourth-element d) ; "empty"
; my implementation
(fourth-element e) ; "empty"
(fourth-element d) ; error: nth: index out of bounds
If you don't want to throw an error, there's another way we can encode nth. Instead of returning nth element, we can return the nth pair whose head contains the element in question.
Below, nth always returns a list. If the list is empty, no element was found. Otherwise, the nth element is the first element in the result.
(define (nth lst counter)
(cond ((null? lst) '())
((= counter 0) lst)
(else (nth (rest lst) (- counter 1)))))
(define (fourth-element lst)
(nth lst 3))
(define a `(1 2 3 (4 5) 7))
(define b `(1 2 3))
(define c `((a b)(c d)(e f)(g h)(i j)))
(define d `(a b c))
(define e `(a b c ,"empty"))
(fourth-element a) ; '((4 5) 7)
(fourth-element b) ; '()
(fourth-element c) ; '((g h) (i j))
(fourth-element d) ; '()
(fourth-element e) ; '("empty")
Hopefully this gets you to start thinking about domain (procedure input type) and codomain (procedure output type).
In general, you want to design procedures that have natural descriptions like:
" nth takes a list and a number and always returns a list" (best)
" nth takes a list and a number and returns an element of the list or raises an exception if the element is not found" (good, but now you must handle errors)
Avoid procedures like
" nth takes a list and a number and returns an element of the list or a string literal "empty" if the element is not found" (unclear codomain)
By thinking about your procedure's domain and codomain, you have awareness of how your function will work as it's inserted in various parts of your program. Using many procedures with poorly-defined domains lead to disastrous spaghetti code. Conversely, well-defined procedures can be assembled like building blocks with little (or no) glue code necessary.
Here is how to write it in Python:
def nth(lst, idx=0):
if (len(lst) == 0):
return "empty"
elif (idx == 0):
return lst[0]
else:
return nth(lst[1:], idx - 1)
nth([1,2,3], 1)
# ==> 2
def fourth-element(lst):
return nth(lst, 4)
Same in Scheme/Racket:
(define (nth lst idx)
(cond ((empty? lst) empty) ; more effiecent than (= (length lst) 0)
((= idx 0) (first lst))
(else (nth (rest lst) (- idx 1))))
(nth '(1 2 3) 1)
; ==> 2
(define (fourth-element lst)
(nth lst 4))
There is no keyword for return. Every form returns the last evaluated code:
(if (< 4 x)
(bar x)
(begin
(display "print this")
(foo x)))
This if returns either the result of (bar x) or it prints "print this" then returns the result of (foo x). The reason is that for the two outcomes of the if they are the tail expressions.
(define (test x)
(+ x 5)
(- x 3))
This function has two expressions. The first is dead code since it has no side effect and since it's not a tail expression, but the (- x 3) is what this function returns.
(define (test x y)
(define xs (square x))
(define ys (square y))
(sqrt (+ xs ys)))
This has 3 expressions. The first two has side effects that it binds two local variables while the third uses this to compute the returned value.
(define a `(1 2 3 (4 5) 7))
(define b `(1 2 3))
(define c `((a b)(c d)(e f)(g h)(i j)))
(define d `(a b c))
(define (my-lst-ref lst counter)
(cond[(>= counter 3) (first lst)]
[else (my-lst-ref (rest lst)(+ counter 1))]
)
)
(define (fourth-element lst)
(cond[(>= (list-length lst) 4) (my-lst-ref lst 0)]
[else "empty"]))
(fourth-element a)
(fourth-element c)
(fourth-element d)
Output:
(list 4 5)
(list 'g 'h)
"empty"
(define-struct pizza (size toppings))
;; Constants for testing
(define (meat item)
(symbol=? 'meat item))
(define (tomatoes item)
(symbol=? 'tomatoes item))
(define (cheese item)
(symbol=? 'cheese item))
(define (pepperoni item)
(symbol=? 'pepperoni item))
(define (hot-peppers item)
(symbol=? 'hot-peppers item))
(define (count-toppings order topping)
(cond [(empty? order) 0]
[else
(local
[(define (single-pizza-tops pizza top)
(length (filter top (pizza-toppings pizza))))
(define (list-of-nums lop tops)
(list (single-pizza-tops (first lop) tops)
(single-pizza-tops (first (rest lop)) tops)
(single-pizza-tops (first (rest (rest lop))) tops)))]
(foldr + 0 (list-of-nums order topping)))]))
Turns out my code works fine with the defined constants, but count-toppings wont work with a symbol for 'topping?
Does anyone know a way to modify my filter function so that if I input a symbol for toppings, this code will work the same way?
Map and filter can be implemented in terms of foldr and cons. Since you aren't building a list you can disregard filter and map. In general though to map recursion to higher-order function you can look at type signatures. The more difficult way is to manually match your code to that of the functions.
Map takes a list, a function or arity one, and returns a list of the function mapped to each element of the list or (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] in Haskell notaion.
(define (map f L) ;niave implementation pared down for simplicity
(if (null? L)
'()
(cons (f (car L)) (map f (cdr L)))))
Filter takes a predicate of arity one, and a list, and returns a list that safisfies that predicate. or (a -> bool) -> [a] -> [a] in Haskell.
(define (filter pred L) ;dirro
(cond ((null? L) '())
((pred (car L))
(cons (car L)
(filter pred (cdr L))))
(else (filter pred (cdr L)))))
Foldr takes an a function that that has arity two, an accumulator value, and a list and returns the accumulator. or (a -> b -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b in haskell.
(define (foldr kons knil L) ;ditto
(if (null? L)
knil
(kons (car L) (foldr kons knil (cdr L)))))
So the trick of it at first is assuaging the argument from your function to fit. In both your funcitons you have a cond clause [(empty? topping-list) 0], which suggests knil should be 0.
In count-topping's else statement you call +, which at first glance suggests kons should be a +, however your list isn't numbers directly, meaning youll have to wrap in in a lambda statement, or create a helper function. (lambda (x acc) (+ (single-pizza-toppings (pizza-toppings x) atop) acc))
To put it together
(define (count-topping alop atop)
(foldr (lambda (x acc)
(+ (single-pizza-toppings (pizza-toppings x) atop)
acc))
0
alop))
Now the interesting one, single-pizza-toppings will look very similar. Execpt that the lambda statement will contain an if statment that returns 1 if x is a symbol equal to topping and 0 otherwise. Or you can do something even simpler.
(define (single-pizza-toppings topping-list topping)
(foldr (lambda (x acc)
(+ 1 acc))
0
(filter (lammba (x) (symbol=? x topping))
topping-list)))
That filter filter insures every x going to the foldr is a topping so you can just ignore it and add to the accumulator.
Assuming that we have the first, we can define the second by
Count the occurrences of the topping in each pizza using the first function, by way of map
Compute the sum of the resulting list
That is,
(define (count-toppings pizzas topping)
(sum (map (lambda (p) (single-pizza-toppings (pizza-toppings p) topping)) pizzas)))
For the first function, we can use filter to get a list of all occurrences of the given topping.
The number of occurrences is the length of the result:
(define (single-pizza-toppings toppings topping)
(length (filter (lambda (t) (symbol=? t topping)) toppings)))
Both functions consist of a transformation of the input into the data we're interested in, map and filter, followed by a "reduction", sum and length.
This is a very common pattern.
And if you don't have sum:
(define (sum ts)
(foldr (lambda (x acc) (+ x acc)) 0 ts))
Looks like your first step will be to put together a complete set of test cases. If you're using DrRacket, you might want to enable "Syntactic Test Suite Coverage" in the "Choose Language..." menu to make sure you have a good set of tests. That's the first step....
Define the function 'occ' that takes a list L and a symbol A and counts the occurance of symbol A in L.
Example:
(occ '(((s) o ) d) 'f) --> 0
What i have gotten so far:
(defun occ(list a)
(setq counter 0)
;Checks if the given list is has an nested list
(if (consp list)
; Breaking the list down atom by atom and recursing
(or (occ a (car list))
(occ a (cdr list)))
; checks if symbols are the same
(if(eq a list)
(setq counter(1+ counter)))))
However My output keep saying Nil instead of displaying the counter value.
I cannot use any higher-functions of LISP.
First of all, don't use setq for variable initialization inside yout function, use let. Second, let's look why you doing it wrong, your code:
(defun occ(list a)
(setq counter 0) ;; You always setting counter to 0 on new
;; level of recursion
(if (consp list)
(or (occ a (car list)) ;; You reversed arguments order?
(occ a (cdr list))) ;; according to your definition it must be
;; (occ (car list) a)
(if(eq a list)
(setq counter(1+ counter)))))
Anyway, you don't need any counter variables to do what you want.
Right function may look like this (i changed arguments order becaus it looks better for me to find SYMBOL in LIST):
(defun occ (sym nested-list)
(cond
((consp nested-list)
(+ (occ sym (car nested-list)) (occ sym (cdr nested-list))))
((eq sym nested-list) 1)
(t 0)))
CL-USER> (occ 'x '(((s) o ((f ()) f)) d))
0
CL-USER> (occ 'f '(((s) o ((f (x (((f))))) f)) d f))
4
If you feed your definition to SBCL:
; in: DEFUN OCC
; (SETQ COUNTER 0)
;
; caught WARNING:
; undefined variable: COUNTER
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined variable:
; COUNTER
; caught 1 WARNING condition
So you are modifying a global undefined variable counter. When do the function return? Well, or will return the very first non nil return from recursion with car or cdr. What returns values? Well when it's not a cons it will evaluate to the intermediate value of a incf of counter when the symbol matches or nil when it doesn't.
Try doing it like this:
(defun occ (list a &optional (counter 0))
(cond ((equal list a) (1+ counter))
((atom list) counter)
(t (occ (cdr list)
a
(occ (car list)
a
counter)))))
counter is an optional accumulator that you use to hold the values. Since it's passed it isn't shared between the recursive calls but replaced with the updated value at each call making it functional and easy to follow. When you need to search both car and cdr you recurse car with the counter of this stage and the returning value will be used as the counter in the cdr. For lists of atom this will be tail recursive if the implementation supports it. This supports finding symbols as tails of lists. eg. (occ '((x . x) . x) 'x) ; ==> 3 If you are sure you have no dotted list (every list is nil terminated) you can use the loop macro:
(defun occ (list a)
(loop :for e :in list
:counting (equal e a) :into count
:if (consp e)
:summing (occ e a) :into sum
:finally (return (+ count sum))))
;; tests
(occ '(x (x x (x (x ) x)) y z) 'y) ; ==> 1
(occ '(x (x x (x (x ) x)) y z) 'x) ; ==> 6
(occ '((x . x) . x) 'x) ; ERROR like "A proper list must not end with X".
Basicly,what I want to do is this:
I have a function square(x) (define (square x) (* x x))(f(x)=x*x),and another function mul_two (define (mul_two x) (* 2 x))(g(x)=2*x), I want to construct a new function based on the above two functions, what the new function does is this: 2*(x*x)(p(x)=g(f(x))), how can I write this new function in scheme? Although its a pretty straight thing in mathmatical form I'm totally stuck on this .
The usual way to do what you're asking is by using compose, which according to the linked documentation:
Returns a procedure that composes the given functions, applying the last proc first and the first proc last.
Notice that compose is quite powerful, it allows us to pass an arbitrary number of functions that consume and produce any number of values. But your example is simple to implement:
(define (square x) ; f(x)
(* x x))
(define (mul_two x) ; g(x)
(* 2 x))
(define p ; g(f(x))
(compose mul_two square))
(p 3) ; same as (mul_two (square 3))
=> 18
If for some reason your Scheme interpreter doesn't come with a built-in compose, it's easy to code one - and if I understood correctly the comments to the other answer, you want to use currying. Let's write one for the simple case where only a single value is produced/consumed by each function, and only two functions are composed:
(define my-compose ; curried and simplified version of `compose`
(lambda (g)
(lambda (f)
(lambda (x)
(g (f x))))))
(define p ; g(f(x))
((my-compose mul_two) square))
(p 3) ; same as (mul_two (square 3))
=> 18
(define (new_fun x) (mul_two (square x)))
EDIT:
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (mul_two x) (* 2 x))
(define (new_fun fun1 fun2) (lambda (x) (fun2 (fun1 x))))
((new_fun square mul_two) 10)
And you will get 200. (10 * 10 * 2)
Also, you can implement a general purpose my-compose function just as the compose in racket:
(define (my-compose . funcs)
(let compose2
((func-list (cdr funcs))
(func (lambda args (apply (car funcs) args))))
(if (null? func-list)
func
(compose2
(cdr func-list)
(lambda args (func (apply (car func-list) args)))))))
And you can obtain new-fun by:
(define new-fun (my-compose mul_two square))
In #!racket (the language) you have compose such that:
(define double-square (compose double square))
Which is the same as doing this:
(define (double-square . args)
(double (apply square args)))
If you want to use Scheme (the standard) you can roll your own:
#!r6rs
(import (rnrs))
(define (compose . funs)
(let* ((funs-rev (reverse funs))
(first-fun (car funs-rev))
(chain (cdr funs-rev)))
(lambda args
(fold-left (lambda (arg fun)
(fun arg))
(apply first-fun args)
chain))))
(define add-square (compose (lambda (x) (* x x)) +))
(add-square 2 3 4) ; ==> 81
I'm trying to solve a problem in Scheme which is demanding me to use a nested loop or a nested recursion.
e.g. I have two lists which I have to check a condition on their Cartesian product.
What is the best way to approach these types of problems? Any pointers on how to simplify these types of functions?
I'll elaborate a bit, since my intent might not be clear enough.
A regular recursive function might look like this:
(define (factorial n)
(factorial-impl n 1))
(define (factorial-impl n t)
(if (eq? n 0)
t
(factorial-impl (- n 1) (* t n))))
Trying to write a similar function but with nested recursion introduces a new level of complexity to the code, and I was wondering what the basic pattern is for these types of functions, as it can get very ugly, very fast.
As a specific example, I'm looking for the easiest way to visit all the items in a cartesian product of two lists.
In Scheme,
The "map" function is often handy for computing one list based on another.
In fact, in scheme, map takes an "n-argument" function and "n" lists and calls the
function for each corresponding element of each list:
> (map * '(3 4 5) '(1 2 3))
(3 8 15)
But a very natural addition to this would be a "cartesian-map" function, which would call your "n-argument" function with all of the different ways of picking one element from each list. It took me a while to figure out exactly how to do it, but here you go:
; curry takes:
; * a p-argument function AND
; * n actual arguments,
; and returns a function requiring only (p-n) arguments
; where the first "n" arguments are already bound. A simple
; example
; (define add1 (curry + 1))
; (add1 3)
; => 4
; Many other languages implicitly "curry" whenever you call
; a function with not enough arguments.
(define curry
(lambda (f . c) (lambda x (apply f (append c x)))))
; take a list of tuples and an element, return another list
; with that element stitched on to each of the tuples:
; e.g.
; > (stitch '(1 2 3) 4)
; ((4 . 1) (4 . 2) (4 . 3))
(define stitch
(lambda (tuples element)
(map (curry cons element) tuples)))
; Flatten takes a list of lists and produces a single list
; e.g.
; > (flatten '((1 2) (3 4)))
; (1 2 3 4)
(define flatten
(curry apply append))
; cartesian takes two lists and returns their cartesian product
; e.g.
; > (cartesian '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
; ((1 . 4) (1 . 5) (2 . 4) (2 . 5) (3 . 4) (3 . 5))
(define cartesian
(lambda (l1 l2)
(flatten (map (curry stitch l2) l1))))
; cartesian-lists takes a list of lists
; and returns a single list containing the cartesian product of all of the lists.
; We start with a list containing a single 'nil', so that we create a
; "list of lists" rather than a list of "tuples".
; The other interesting function we use here is "fold-right" (sometimes called
; "foldr" or "reduce" in other implementations). It can be used
; to collapse a list from right to left using some binary operation and an
; initial value.
; e.g.
; (fold-right cons '() '(1 2 3))
; is equivalent to
; ((cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '())))
; In our case, we have a list of lists, and our binary operation is to get the
; "cartesian product" between each list.
(define cartesian-lists
(lambda (lists)
(fold-right cartesian '(()) lists)))
; cartesian-map takes a n-argument function and n lists
; and returns a single list containing the result of calling that
; n-argument function for each combination of elements in the list:
; > (cartesian-map list '(a b) '(c d e) '(f g))
; ((a c f) (a c g) (a d f) (a d g) (a e f) (a e g) (b c f)
; (b c g) (b d f) (b d g) (b e f) (b e g))
(define cartesian-map
(lambda (f . lists)
(map (curry apply f) (cartesian-lists lists))))
Without all the comments and some more compact function definition syntax we have:
(define (curry f . c) (lambda x (apply f (append c x))))
(define (stitch tuples element)
(map (curry cons element) tuples))
(define flatten (curry apply append))
(define (cartesian l1 l2)
(flatten (map (curry stitch l2) l1)))
(define cartesian-lists (curry fold-right cartesian '(()))))
(define (cartesian-map f . lists)
(map (curry apply f) (cartesian-lists lists)))
I thought the above was reasonably "elegant"... until someone showed me the equivalent Haskell definition:
cartes f (a:b:[]) = [ f x y | x <- a , y <- b ]
cartes f (a:b:bs) = cartes f ([ f x y | x <- a , y <- b ]:bs)
2 lines!!!
I am not so confident on the efficiency of my implementation - particularly the "flatten" step was quick to write but could end up calling "append"
with a very large number of lists, which may or may not be very efficient on some Scheme
implementations.
For ultimate practicality/usefulness you would want a version that could take "lazily evaluated" lists/streams/iterator rather than fully specified lists.... a "cartesian-map-stream" function if you like, that would then return a "stream" of the results... but this depends on the context (I am thinking of the "stream" concept as introduced in SICP)... and would come for free from the Haskell version thanks to it's lazy evaluation.
In general, in Scheme, if you wanted to "break out" of the looping at some point you could also use a continuation (like throwing an exception but it is accepted practise in Scheme for control flow).
I had fun writing this!
I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
I believe the main thing you have to understand in functional programming is : build complicated functions by composing several simpler functions.
For instance, in this case:
;compute the list of the (x,y) for y in l
(define (pairs x l)
(define (aux accu x l)
(if (null? l)
accu
(let ((y (car l))
(tail (cdr l)))
(aux (cons (cons x y) accu) x tail))))
(aux '() x l))
(define (cartesian-product l m)
(define (aux accu l)
(if (null? l)
accu
(let ((x (car l))
(tail (cdr l)))
(aux (append (pairs x m) accu) tail))))
(aux '() l))
You identify the different steps: to get the cartesian product, if you "loop" over the first list, you're going to have to be able to compute the list of the (x,y), for y in the second list.
There are some good answers here already, but for simple nested functions (like your tail-recursive factorial), I prefer a named let:
(define factorial
(lambda (n)
(let factorial-impl ([n n] [t 1])
(if (eq? n 0)
t
(factorial-impl (- n 1) (* t n))))))