I've written some simple loops with recursion and the loop macro but the thing that bothers me is that counting up needs two parameters and counting down doesn't.
Does an example exist?
The start of this question was just how to print something that increments up. The first function 'printsomestuff' was where I started.
(defun printsomestuff (stuff times)
(if (= times 0)
'im-the-return-value
(progn
(print stuff)
(printsomestuff stuff (1- times)))))
(defun counting-down (topnumber)
(if (= topnumber 0)
'done
(progn
(print topnumber)
(counting (- topnumber 1)))))
(defun loopcounting (uptonumber)
(loop for i from 1 to uptonumber
do (print i)))
(defun recurcounting-up (uptonumber)
(let ((incrementer 0))
(if
(= incrementer uptonumber)
'done
(progn
(print incrementer)
(recurcounting-up (+ incrementer 1))))))
(defun recur-counting-up-two (uptonumber startnumber)
(if (> startnumber uptonumber)
'done
(progn
(print startnumber)
(recur-counting-up-two uptonumber (+ startnumber 1)))))
recurcounting-up infinitely loops with 0 because the reset of the incrementer on every function call. That is not what I wanted.
It has nothing to do with whether you're counting up or down. The issue is whether the base case of the recursion can be hard-coded in the function or needs to be supplied as a parameter. In your counting down examples, you always end at 0, so it doesn't need to be a parameter -- you only need a parameter for the current number. But in your counting up example, the ending number can't be put into the code, so it needs that as a second parameter.
If you were always counting up to 100, you could code that just like your counting down examples. Similarly, if you wanted to count down to an arbitrary number, not just 0, you would need two parameters.
To add to what Barmar said (his answer actually answers the question, this is really a comment on it), if you use local functions then you can make the recursive function have only a single parameter. You can even make it count in the appropriate direction. But this is just a hack: if the base case or the step of some recursion is not fixed (ie are not always 0 & 1- say) then you are going to have to provide them.
Counting in either direction in CL:
(defun count/printing (from to)
(let ((next (if (< from to) #'1+ #'1-)))
(labels ((count (i)
(print i)
(if (= i to)
i
(count (funcall next i)))))
(count from))))
and in Racket, which makes it a little more elegant by being a Lisp-1 & having named let:
(define (count/printing from to)
(define next (if (< from to) add1 sub1))
(let count ([i from])
(displayln i)
(if (= i to)
i
(count (next i)))))
My solution looks like this after taking into account tfb's answer.
(defun recur-counting-up-two (uptonumber startnumber)
(if (> startnumber uptonumber)
'done
(progn
(print startnumber)
(recur-counting-up-two uptonumber (+ startnumber 1)))))
(defun count-up (uptonumber)
(recur-counting-up-two uptonumber 0))
It just creates a second toplevel wrapper function with one parameter passed in hard coded.
Although tfb's answer might seem more compact I find this to be more readable from a distance. Less center embedding is always a good thing in a language that does it too much already for readability.
Related
I've written two versions of a lisp function. The main difference between the two is that one is done with recursion, while the other is done with iteration.
Here's the recursive version (no side effects!):
(defun simple-check (counter list)
"This function takes two arguments:
the number 0 and a list of atoms.
It returns the number of times the
atom 'a' appears in that list."
(if (null list)
counter
(if (equal (car list) 'a)
(simple-check (+ counter 1) (cdr list))
(simple-check counter (cdr list)))))
Here's the iterative version (with side effects):
(defun a-check (counter list)
"This function takes two arguments:
the number 0 and a list of atoms.
It returns the number of times the
atom 'a' appears in that list."
(dolist (item list)
(if (equal item 'a)
(setf counter (+ counter 1))
(setf counter (+ counter 0))))
counter)
As far as I know, they both work. But I'd really like to avoid side-effects in the iterative version. Two questions I'd like answered:
Is it possible to avoid side effects and keep iteration?
Assuming the answer to #1 is a yes, what are the best ways to do so?
For completeness, note that Common Lisp has a built-in COUNT:
(count 'a list)
In some ways, the difference between side-effect or no side-effect is a bit blurred. Take the following loop version (ignoring that loop also has better ways):
(loop :for x :in list
:for counter := (if (eq x 'a) (1+ counter) counter)
:finally (return counter))
Is counter set at each step, or is it rebound? I. e., is an existing variable modified (like in setf), or is a new variable binding created (as in a recursion)?
This do version is very much like the recursive version:
(do ((list args (rest list))
(counter 0 (+ counter (if (eq (first list) 'a) 1 0))))
((endp list) counter))
Same question as above.
Now the “obvious” loop version:
(loop :for x :in list
:count (eq x 'a))
There isn't even an explicit variable for the counter. Are there side-effects?
Internally, of course there are effects: environments are created, bindings established, and, especially if there is tail call optimization, even in the recursive version destroyed/replaced at each step.
I see as side effects only effects that affect things outside of some defined scope. Of course, things appear more elegant if you can also on the level of your internal definition avoid the explicit setting of things, and instead use some more declarative expression.
You can also iterate with map, mapcar and friends.
https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/iteration.html
I also suggest a look at remove-if[-not] and other reduce and apply:
(length (remove-if-not (lambda (x) (equal :a x)) '(:a :b :a))) ;; 2
Passing counter to the recursive procedure was a means to enable a tail recursive definition. This is unnecessary for the iterative definition.
As others have pointed out, there are several language constructs which solve the stated problem elegantly.
I assume you are interested in this in a more general sense such as when you cannot find
a language feature that solves a problem directly.
In general, one can maintain a functional interface by keeping the mutation private as below:
(defun simple-check (list)
"return the number of times the symbol `a` appears in `list`"
(let ((times 0))
(dolist (elem list times)
(when (equal elem 'a)
(incf times)))))
I'm trying to reverse a list in scheme and I came up with to the following solution:
(define l (list 1 2 3 4))
(define (reverse lista)
(car (cons (reverse (cdr (cons 0 lista))) 0)))
(display (reverse l))
Although it works I don't really understand why it works.
In my head, it would evaluate to a series of nested cons until cons of () (which the cdr of a list with one element).
I guess I am not understanding the substitution model, could someone explain me why it works?
Obs:
It is supposed to work only in not nested lists.
Taken form SICP, exercise 2.18.
I know there are many similar questions, but as far as I saw, none presented
this solution.
Thank you
[As this happens quite often, I write the answer anyway]
Scheme implementations do have their builtin versions of reverse, map, append etc. as they are specified in RxRS (e.g. https://www.cs.indiana.edu/scheme-repository/R4RS/r4rs_8.html).
In the course of learning scheme (and actually any lisp dialect) it's really valuable to implement them anyway. The danger is, one's definition can collide with the built-in one (although e.g. scheme's define or lisp's label should shadow them). Therefore it's always worth to call this hand-made implementation with some other name, like "my-reverse", "my-append" etc. This way you will save yourself much confusion, like in the following:
(let ([append
(lambda (xs ys)
(if (null? xs)
ys
(cons (car xs) (append (cdr xs) ys))))])
(append '(hello) '(there!)))
-- this one seems to work, creating a false impression that "let" works the same as "letrec". But just change the name to "my-append" and it breaks, because at the moment of evaluating the lambda form, the symbol "my-append" is not yet bound to anything (unlike "append" which was defined as a builtin procedure).
Of course such let form will work in a language with dynamic scoping, but scheme is lexical (with the exception of "define"s), and the reason is referential transparency (but that's so far offtopic that I can only refer interested reader to one of the lambda papers http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai-lab-pubs/AIM-453.pdf).
This reads pretty much the same as the solutions in other languages:
if the list is empty, return an empty list. Otherwise ...
chop off the first element (CAR)
reverse the remainder of the list (CDR)
append (CONS) the first element to that reversal
return the result
Now ... given my understanding from LISP days, the code would look more like this:
(append (reverse (cdr lista)) (list (car lista)))
... which matches my description above.
There are several ways to do it. Here is another:
(define my-reverse
(lambda (lst)
(define helper
(lambda (lst result)
(if (null? lst)
result
(helper (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) result)))))
(helper lst '())))
NOTE: I would like to do this without rackets built in exceptions if possible.
I have many functions which call other functions and may recursively make a call back to the original function. Under certain conditions along the way I want to stop any further recursive steps, and no longer call any other functions and simply return some value/string (the stack can be ignored if the condition is met).. here is a contrived example that hopefully will show what I'm trying to accomplish:
(define (add expr0 expr1)
(cond
[(list? expr0) (add (cadr expr0) (cadr (cdr expr0)))]
[(list? expr1) (add (cadr expr1) (cadr (cdr expr1)))]
[else (if (or (equal? expr0 '0) (equal? expr1 '0))
'(Adding Zero)
(+ expr0 expr1))]
))
If this were my function and I called it with (add (add 2 0) 3), Then the goal would be to simply return the entire string '(Adding Zero) ANYTIME that a zero is one of the expressions, instead of making the recursive call to (add '(Adding Zero) 3)
Is there a way to essentially "break" out of recursion? My problem is that if i'm already deep inside then it will eventually try to evaluate '(Adding Zero) which it doesn't know how to do and I feel like I should be able to do this without making an explicit check to each expr..
Any guidance would be great.
In your specific case, there's no need to "escape" from normal processing. Simply having '(Adding Zero) in tail position will cause your add function to return (Adding Zero).
To create a situation where you might need to escape, you need something a
little more complicated:
(define (recursive-find/collect collect? tree (result null))
(cond ((null? tree) (reverse result))
((collect? tree) (reverse (cons tree result)))
((not (pair? tree)) (reverse result))
(else
(let ((hd (car tree))
(tl (cdr tree)))
(cond ((collect? hd)
(recursive-find/collect collect? tl (cons hd result)))
((pair? hd)
(recursive-find/collect collect? tl
(append (reverse (recursive-find/collect collect? hd)) result)))
(else (recursive-find/collect collect? tl result)))))))
Suppose you wanted to abort processing and just return 'Hahaha! if any node in the tree had the value 'Joker. Just evaluating 'Hahaha! in tail position
wouldn't be enough because recursive-find/collect isn't always used in
tail position.
Scheme provides continuations for this purpose. The easiest way to do it in my particular example would be to use the continuation from the predicate function, like this:
(call/cc
(lambda (continuation)
(recursive-find/collect
(lambda (node)
(cond ((eq? node 'Joker)
(continuation 'Hahaha!)) ;; Processing ends here
;; Otherwise find all the symbols
;; in the tree
(else (symbol? node))))
'(Just 1 arbitrary (tree (stucture) ((((that "has" a Joker in it)))))))))
A continuation represents "the rest of the computation" that is going to happen after the call/cc block finishes. In this case, it just gives you a way to escape from the call/cc block from anywhere in the stack.
But continuations also have other strange properties, such as allowing you to jump back to whatever block of code this call/cc appears in even after execution has left this part of the program. For example:
(define-values a b (call/cc
(lambda (cc)
(values 1 cc))))
(cc 'one 'see-see)
In this case, calling cc jumps back to the define-values form and redefines a and b to one and see-see, respectively.
Racket also has "escape continuations" (call/ec or let/ec) which can escape from their form, but can't jump back into it. In exchange for this limitation you get better performance.
I have some code to find the maximum height and replace it with the associated name. There are separate lists for height and names, each the same length and non-empty.
I can solve this using structural recursion but have to change it into accumulative, and I am unsure how to do that. All the examples I have seen are confusing me. Is anybody able to turn the code into one using accumulative recursion?
(define (tallest names heights)
(cond
[(empty? names) heights]
[(> (first heights) (first (rest heights)))
(cons (first names) (tallest (rest (rest names)) (rest (rest heights))))]
[else (tallest (rest names) (rest heights))]))
First of all, your provided tallest function doesn't actually work (calling (tallest '(Bernie Raj Amy) (list 1.5 1.6 1.7)) fails with a contract error), but I see what you're getting at. What's the difference between structural recursion and accumulative recursion?
Well, structural recursion works by building a structure as a return value, in which one of the values inside that structure is the result of a recursive call to the same function. Take the recursive calculation of a factorial, for example. You might define it like this:
(define (factorial n)
(if (zero? n) 1
(* n (factorial (sub1 n)))))
Visualize how this program would execute for an input of, say, 4. Each call leaves a "hole" in the multiplication expression to be filled in by the result of a recursive subcall. Here's what that would look like, visualized, using _ to represent one of those "holes".
(* 4 _)
(* 3 _)
(* 2 _)
(* 1 _)
1
Notice how a large portion of the work is done only after the final case is reached. Much of the work must be done in the process of popping the calls off the stack as they return because each call depends on performing some additional operation on its subcall's result.
How is accumulative recursion different? Well, in accumulative recursion, we use an extra argument to the function called an accumulator. Rewriting the above factorial function to use an accumulator would make it look like this:
(define (factorial n acc)
(if (zero? n) acc
(factorial (sub1 n) (* acc n))))
Now if we wanted to find the factorial of 4, we'd have to call (factorial 4 1), providing a starting value for the accumulator (I'll address how to avoid that in a moment). If you think about the call stack now, it would look quite different.
Notice how there are no "holes" to be filled in—the result of the factorial function is either the accumulator or a direct call to itself. This is referred to as a tail call, and the recursive call to factorial is referred to as being in tail position.
This turns out to be helpful for a few reasons. First of all, some functions are just easier to express with accumulative recursion, though factorial probably isn't one of them. More importantly, however, Scheme requires that implementations provide proper tails calls (sometimes also called "tail call optimization"), which means that the call stack will not grow in depth when tail calls are made.
There is plenty of existing information about how tail calls work and why they're useful, so I won't repeat that here. What's important to understand is that accumulative recursion involves an accumulator argument, which usually causes the resulting function to be implemented with a tail call.
But what do we do about the extra parameter? Well, we can actually just make a "helper" function that will do the accumulative recursion, but we will provide a function that automatically fills in the base case.
(define (factorial n)
(define (factorial-helper n acc)
(if (zero? n) acc
(factorial-helper (sub1 n) (* acc n))))
(factorial-helper n 1))
This sort of idiom is common enough that Racket provides a "named let" form, which simplifies the above function to this:
(define (factorial n)
(let helper ([n n] [acc 1])
(if (zero? n) acc
(helper (sub1 n) (* acc n)))))
But that's just some syntactic sugar for the same idea.
Okay, so: how does any of this apply to your question? Well, actually, using accumulative recursion makes implementing your problem quite easy. Here's a breakdown of how you'd structure the algorithm:
Just like in your original example, you'd iterate through the list until you get empty. This will form your "base case".
Your accumulator will be simple—it will be the current maximum element you've found.
Upon each iteration, if you find an element greater than the current maximum, that becomes the new accumulator. Otherwise, the accumulator remains the same.
Putting these all together, and here's a simple implementation:
(define (tallest-helper names heights current-tallest)
(cond
[(empty? names)
(car current-tallest)]
[(> (first heights) (cdr current-tallest))
(tallest-helper (rest names) (rest heights)
(cons (first names) (first heights)))]
[else
(tallest-helper (rest names) (rest heights)
current-tallest)]))
This can be further improved in plenty of ways—wrapping it in a function that provides the accumulator's starting value, using named let, removing some of the repetition, etc.—but I'll leave that as an exercise for you.
Just remember: the accumulator is effectively your "working sum". It's your "running total". Understand that, and things should make sense.
I have a recursive function which needs to recurse until it finds a certain result. However in the body of my function after my first recursive call I might do some other calculations or possibly recurse again. But, if I recurse and find the result I'm looking for, then I'd like to just stop out of any recursive I've been doing and return that result to avoid doing unnecessary computations.
In a normal recursive call once you get to the "base case" that gets returned to the function that called, then that gets returned to the one that called it, and so on. I'd like to know how to just return to the very first time the function was called, and not have to return something for all those intermediate steps.
For my basic recursion I could write a function like this:
(defun recurse (x)
(if (= x 10)
(return-from recurse x)
(progn (recurse (+ x 1)) (print "Recursed!")))))
(recurse 1)
It has been written to illustrate what I mean about the function running more computations after a recursive call. And, as written this doesn't even return the value I'm interested in since I do some printings after I've returned the value I care about. (Note: The return-from command is extraneous here as I could just write "x" in its place. It's just there to draw parallels for when I try to return to the top level recursion in my second example below.)
Now, if I want to ditch all those extra "Recursed!" printings I could encase everything in a block and then just return to that block instead:
EDIT: Here is a function wrapper for my original example. This example should be clearer now.
(defun recurse-to-top (start)
(block top-level
(labels ((recurse (x)
(if (= x 10)
(return-from top-level x)
(progn (recurse (+ x 1)) (print "Recursed!")))))
(recurse start))))
And running this block keeps going until 10 "is found" and then returns to from the top-level block with no extraneous printing, just like I wanted. But, this seems like a really clunky way to get this feature. I'd like to know if there's a standard or "best" way for getting this type of behavior.
DEFUN already sets up a lexical block:
(defun recurse (start)
(labels ((recurse-aux (x)
(case x
(10 (return-from recurse x))
(15 x)
(otherwise
(recurse-aux (+ x 1))
(print "Recursed!")))))
(recurse-aux start)))
Older is the use of CATCH and THROW, which is a more dynamic construct and thus allows an exit across functions:
(defun recurse (start)
(catch 'recurse-exit
(recurse-aux start)))
(defun recurse-aux (x)
(case x
(10 (throw 'recurse-exit x))
(15 x)
(otherwise
(recurse-aux (+ x 1))
(print "Recursed!")))))
(recurse-aux start))))
As mentioned by Lars, there are even more way to program control flow like this.
You want some kind of non-local exit. There are a few choices: return-from, go, throw, signal.
Maybe some variation on this?
(defun recurse (x &optional (tag 'done))
(catch tag
(when (= x 10)
(throw 'done x))
(recurse (1+ x) nil)
(print "Cursed!")))
I believe it does what you want, although there may be a lot of needless catching going on.
As always with Lisp, you can imagine there is a perfect language for your problem, and write your program in that language. E.g. something like
(defun recurse (x)
(top-level-block recurse
(when (= x 10)
(return-from-top-level recurse x))
(recurse (1+ x))
(print "Cursed!")))
Then there is just a simple matter of programming to implement the new macros top-level-block and return-from-top-level.
Imperfect sample code follows:
(defmacro top-level-block (name &body body)
`(if (boundp ',name)
(progn ,#body)
(catch ',name
(let ((,name t))
(declare (special ,name))
,#body))))
(defmacro return-from-top-level (name value)
`(throw ',name ,value))