I am reading the book Practical Common Lisp, and in the footnote5 of chapter22, page284, I saw a code snippet that made me confused.
I know that the variable list and tail have a list structure in common,
but I am confusing that since tail will be assigned the value of 'new' each time during the iteration, why (setf (cdr tail) new) would affect the state of the variable list？
(do ((list nil) (tail nil) (i 0 (1+ i)))
((> i 10) list)
(let ((new (cons i nil)))
(if (null list)
(setf list new)
(setf (cdr tail) new))
(setf tail new)))
;;; => (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
The invariant is that tail is always the last cons cell of list.
On each iteration, a new cons cell is created holding the new value as car. The first time through, list is set to this cons cell, and tail too. In all subsequent iterations, the new cons cell is appended by setting the cdr of the last cell to it, then setting tail to the new cell, to recreate the invariant.
After first iteration:
[ 0 | nil ]
^- list
^- tail
After second:
[ 0 | -]--->[ 1 | nil ]
^- list ^- tail
Third:
[ 0 | -]--->[ 1 | -]--->[ 2 | nil ]
^- list ^- tail
The do form in your example keeps a pointer to the tail cons to make appending an element to the end of the list a cheap operation. Otherwise one would need to traverse the list all the time to find the last cons - for example by using appendor nconc. Another way would be to collect new elements on the head and at the end to reverse the result list.
One would expect that the LOOP macro implements something efficient by transforming a higher level loop expression into efficient code.
The macro form
(loop for i upto 10 collect i)
might expand into something that works internally similar as your do example. The advantage of loop is that you don't need to implement the logic to track the tail, since that's what the macro should do for you.
Related
I am trying to understand the below program to find the Fibonacci series using recursion in Clojure.
(defn fib
[x]
(loop [i '(1 0)]
(println i)
(if (= x (count i))
(reverse i)
(recur
(conj i (apply + (take 2 i))))))) // This line is not clear
For ex for a call fib(4) I get the below output,
(1 0)
(1 1 0)
(2 1 1 0)
(0 1 1 2)
Which as per my inference the conj seems to add the value of (apply + (take 2 i)) to the start of the i. But that is not the behaviour of conj. Can someone help me understand how exactly this works?
That is the behavior of conj, for lists. conj doesn't always add to the end:
(conj '(1) 2) ; '(2 1)
(conj [1] 2) ; [1 2]
The placement of the added element depends on the type of the collection. Since adding to the end of a list is expensive, conj adds to to front instead. It's the same operation (adding to a list), but optimized for the collection being used.
Per Clojure documentation:
The 'addition' may happen at different 'places' depending on the concrete type.
Appending to list happens to beginning of list, appending to vector happens to the end...
See more examples at https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/conj
I'm trying to write a function in ACL2 (specifically ACL2s) that takes in a list and a natural number and returns the item in the list at the given index. So (select (list 1 2 3) 2) would return 3.
Here is my code:
;; select: List x Nat -> All
(defunc select (l n)
:input-contract (and (listp l) (natp n))
:output-contract t
(if (equal 0 n)
(first l)
(select (rest l) (- n 1))))
I'm receiving the following error:
Query: Testing body contracts ...
**Summary of Cgen/testing**
We tested 50 examples across 1 subgoals, of which 48 (48 unique) satisfied
the hypotheses, and found 1 counterexamples and 47 witnesses.
We falsified the conjecture. Here are counterexamples:
[found in : "top"]
-- ((L NIL) (N 0))
Test? found a counterexample.
Body contract falsified in:
-- (ACL2::EXTRA-INFO '(:GUARD (:BODY SELECT)) '(FIRST L))
Any help is much appreciated!
The message seems pretty clear to me: you are trying to get the first element of an empty list, which conflicts with your specification.
Based on this reference, it seems that first expects a non-empty list, whereas car returns nil when your input is nil.
Either you handle the nil case explicitely with an endp test or you use car instead of first.
So i was asked to do a function i LISP that calculates the average of any given numbers. The way i was asked to do this was by using the &rest parameter. so i came up with this :
(defun average (a &rest b)
(cond ((null a) nil)
((null b) a)
(t (+ (car b) (average a (cdr b))))))
Now i know this is incorrect because the (cdr b) returns a list with a list inside so when i do (car b) it never returns an atom and so it never adds (+)
And that is my first question:
How can i call the CDR of a &rest parameter and get only one list instead of a list inside a list ?
Now there is other thing :
When i run this function and give values to the &rest, say (average 1 2 3 4 5) it gives me stackoverflow error. I traced the funcion and i saw that it was stuck in a loop, always calling the function with the (cdr b) witch is null and so it loops there.
My question is:
If i have a stopping condition: ( (null b) a) , shouldnt the program stop when b is null and add "a" to the + operation ? why does it start an infinite loop ?
EDIT: I know the function only does the + operation, i know i have to divide by the length of the b list + 1, but since i got this error i'd like to solve it first.
(defun average (a &rest b)
; ...
)
When you call this with (average 1 2 3 4) then inside the function the symbol a will be bound to 1 and the symbol b to the proper list (2 3 4).
So, inside average, (car b) will give you the first of the rest parameters, and (cdr b) will give you the rest of the rest parameters.
But when you then recursively call (average a (cdr b)), then you call it with only two arguments, no matter how many parameters where given to the function in the first place. In our example, it's the same as (average 1 '(3 4)).
More importantly, the second argument is now a list. Thus, in the second call to average, the symbols will be bound as follows:
a = 1
b = ((3 4))
b is a list with only a single element: Another list. This is why you'll get an error when passing (car b) as argument to +.
Now there is other thing : When i run this function and give values to the &rest, say (average 1 2 3 4 5) it gives me stackoverflow error. I traced the funcion and i saw that it was stuck in a loop, always calling the function with the (cdr b) witch is null and so it loops there. My question is:
If i have a stopping condition: ( (null b) a) , shouldnt the program stop when b is null and add "a" to the + operation ? why does it start an infinite loop ?
(null b) will only be truthy when b is the empty list. But when you call (average a '()), then b will be bound to (()), that is a list containing the empty list.
Solving the issue that you only pass exactly two arguments on the following calls can be done with apply: It takes the function as well as a list of parameters to call it with: (appply #'average (cons a (cdr b)))
Now tackling your original goal of writing an average function: Computing the average consists of two tasks:
Compute the sum of all elements.
Divide that with the number of all elements.
You could write your own function to recursively add all elements to solve the first part (do it!), but there's already such a function:
(+ 1 2) ; Sum of two elements
(+ 1 2 3) ; Sum of three elements
(apply #'+ '(1 2 3)) ; same as above
(apply #'+ some-list) ; Summing up all elements from some-list
Thus your average is simply
(defun average (&rest parameters)
(if parameters ; don't divide by 0 on empty list
(/ (apply #'+ parameters) (length parameters))
0))
As a final note: You shouldn't use car and cdr when working with lists. Better use the more descriptive names first and rest.
If performance is critical to you, it's probably best to fold the parameters (using reduce which might be optimized):
(defun average (&rest parameters)
(if parameters
(let ((accum
(reduce #'(lambda (state value)
(list (+ (first state) value) ;; using setf is probably even better, performance wise.
(1+ (second state))))
parameters
:initial-value (list 0 0))))
(/ (first accum) (second accum)))
0))
(Live demo)
#' is a reader macro, specifically one of the standard dispatching macro characters, and as such an abbreviation for (function ...)
Just define average*, which calls the usual average function.
(defun average* (&rest numbers)
(average numbers))
I think that Rainer Joswig's answer is pretty good advice: it's easier to first define a version that takes a simple list argument, and then define the &rest version in terms of it. This is a nice opportunity to mention spreadable arglists, though. They're a nice technique that can make your library code more convenient to use.
In most common form, the Common Lisp function apply takes a function designator and a list of arguments. You can do, for instance,
(apply 'cons '(1 2))
;;=> (1 . 2)
If you check the docs, though, apply actually accepts a spreadable arglist designator as an &rest argument. That's a list whose last element must be a list, and that represents a list of all the elements of the list except the last followed by all the elements in that final list. E.g.,
(apply 'cons 1 '(2))
;;=> (1 . 2)
because the spreadable arglist is (1 (2)), so the actual arguments (1 2). It's easy to write a utility to unspread a spreadable arglist designator:
(defun unspread-arglist (spread-arglist)
(reduce 'cons spread-arglist :from-end t))
(unspread-arglist '(1 2 3 (4 5 6)))
;;=> (1 2 3 4 5 6)
(unspread-arglist '((1 2 3)))
;;=> (1 2 3)
Now you can write an average* function that takes one of those (which, among other things, gets you the behavior, just like with apply, that you can pass a plain list):
(defun %average (args)
"Returns the average of a list of numbers."
(do ((sum 0 (+ sum (pop args)))
(length 0 (1+ length)))
((endp args) (/ sum length))))
(defun average* (&rest spreadable-arglist)
(%average (unspread-arglist spreadable-arglist)))
(float (average* 1 2 '(5 5)))
;;=> 3.25
(float (average* '(1 2 5)))
;;=> 2.66..
Now you can write average as a function that takes a &rest argument and just passes it to average*:
(defun average (&rest args)
(average* args))
(float (average 1 2 5 5))
;;=> 3.5
(float (average 1 2 5))
;;=> 2.66..
I want my function to print each item in the list and sublist without quotes and return the number of items. The output of the list also needs to be in order, but my function is printing in reverse. I'm not sure why, is there any reasons why? Any suggestions to how I can recursively count the number of items and return that number? In addition why is the last item printed is supposed to be 9.99 instead of 100.999?
Edit: Thanks for the help so far. Just last question: Is there a way to make any output like DAY to be in lower case (day), or is that something that can't be done?
My function:
(defun all-print (inlist)
(cond
((not (listp inlist))
(format t "Error, arg must be a list, returning nil")
())
((null inlist) 0)
((listp (car inlist))
(ffn (append (car inlist)(cdr inlist))))
(t
(format t "~a " (car inlist) (ffn (cdr inlist))))))
My output example:
CL-USER 1 > (all-print (list 5 "night" 3 (list 9 -10) (quote day) -5.9 (* 100.999)))
100.999 -5.9 DAY -10 9 3 night 5
NIL
What it's suppose to output example:
5 night 3 9 -10 day -5.9 9.99 ;print
8 ;returns
It looks like all-print is supposed to be called ffn, since it looks like those are supposed to be recursive calls. In the rest of this answer, I'm just going to use ffn since it's shorter.
Why the output is in reverse
At present, your final cond clause makes the recursive call before doing any printing, because your recursive call is an argument to format:
(format t "~a " (car inlist) (ffn (cdr inlist)))
; ------------ -----------------
; 3rd 4th
All the arguments to format, including the 4th in this case, are evaluated before format is called. The 4th argument here will print the rest of the list, and then format will finally print the first element of the list. Your last cond clause should do the printing, and then make the recursive call:
(cond
…
(t
(format t "~a " (car inlist))
(ffn (cdr inlist))))
Why you get 100.999 rather than 9.99
You're getting 100.999 in your output rather than 9.99 (or something close to it) because the value of (* 100.999) is simply the value of 100.999. I'm guessing that you wanted (* 10 0.999) (note the space between 10 and 0.99). That still won't be quite 9.99 because of floating point arithmetic, though, but it will be close.
How to get the number of elements printed
uselpa's answer provides a good solution here. If you're supposed to return the number of elements printed, then every return value from this function should be a number. You have four cases,
not a list — returning nil is not a great idea. If this can't return a number (e.g., 0), then signal a real error (e.g., with (error "~A is not a list" inlist).
inlist is empty — return 0 (you already do)
(car inlist) is a list — here you make a recursive call to ffn. Since the contract says that it will return a count, you're fine. This is one of the reasons that it's so important in the first case (not a list) that you don't return a non-number; the contract depends on every call that returns returning an number.
In the final case, you print one item, and then make a recursive call to ffn. That recursive call returns the number of remaining elements that are printed, and since you just printed one, you need to add one to it. Thus the final cond clause should actually be something like the following. (Adding one to something is so common that Common Lisp has a 1+ function.)
(cond
…
(t
(format t "~a " (car inlist))
(1+ (ffn (cdr inlist))))) ; equivalent to (+ 1 (ffn (cdr inlist)))
A more efficient solution
We've addressed the issues with your original code, but we can also ask whether there are better approaches to the problem.
Don't append
Notice that when you have input like ((a b c) d e f), you create the list (a b c d e f) and recurse on it. However, you could equivalently recurse on (a b c) and on (d e f), and add the results together. This would avoid creating a new list with append.
Don't check argument types
You're checking that the input is a list, but there's really not much need to do that. If the input isn't a list, then using list processing functions on it will signal a similar error.
A new version
This is somewhat similar to uselpa's answer, but I've made some different choices about how to handle certain things. I use a local function process-element to handle elements from each input list. If the element is a list, then we pass it to print-all recursively, and return the result of the recursive call. Otherwise we return one and print the value. (I used (prog1 1 …) to emphasize that we're returning one, and printing is just a side effect. The main part of print-all is a typical recursion now.
(defun print-all (list)
(flet ((process-element (x)
(if (listp x)
(print-all x)
(prog1 1
(format t "~A " x)))))
(if (endp list)
0
(+ (process-element (first list))
(print-all (rest list))))))
Of course, now that we've pulled out the auxiliary function, the iteration is a bit clearer, and we see that it's actually a case for reduce. You might even choose to do away with the local function, and just use a lambda function:
(defun print-all (list)
(reduce '+ list
:key (lambda (x)
(if (listp x)
(print-all x)
(prog1 1
(format t "~A " x))))))
Here's my suggestion on how to write this function:
(defun all-print (lst)
(if (null lst)
0 ; empty list => length is 0
(let ((c (car lst))) ; bind first element to c
(if (listp c) ; if it's a list
(+ (all-print c) (all-print (cdr lst))) ; recurse down + process the rest of the list
(progn ; else
(format t "~a " c) ; not a list -> print item, then
(1+ (all-print (cdr lst)))))))) ; add 1 and process the rest of the list
then
? (all-print (list 5 "night" 3 (list 9 -10) (quote day) -5.9 (* 100.999)))
5 night 3 9 -10 DAY -5.9 100.999
8
I have been searching everywhere for the following functionality in Lisp, and have gotten nowhere:
find the index of something in a list. example:
(index-of item InThisList)
replace something at a specific spot in a list. example:
(replace item InThisList AtThisIndex) ;i think this can be done with 'setf'?
return an item at a specific index. example:
(return InThisList ItemAtThisIndex)
Up until this point, I've been faking it with my own functions. I'm wondering if I'm just creating more work for myself.
This is how I've been faking number 1:
(defun my-index (findMe mylist)
(let ((counter 0) (found 1))
(dolist (item mylist)
(cond
((eq item findMe) ;this works because 'eq' checks place in memory,
;and as long as 'findMe' was from the original list, this will work.
(setq found nil)
(found (incf counter))))
counter))
You can use setf and nth to replace and retrieve values by index.
(let ((myList '(1 2 3 4 5 6)))
(setf (nth 4 myList) 101); <----
myList)
(1 2 3 4 101 6)
To find by index you can use the position function.
(let ((myList '(1 2 3 4 5 6)))
(setf (nth 4 myList) 101)
(list myList (position 101 myList)))
((1 2 3 4 101 6) 4)
I found these all in this index of functions.
find the index of something in a list.
In Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp, you have the position function:
> (setq numbers (list 1 2 3 4))
(1 2 3 4)
> (position 3 numbers)
2
In Scheme, here's a tail recursive implementation from DrScheme's doc:
(define list-position
(lambda (o l)
(let loop ((i 0) (l l))
(if (null? l) #f
(if (eqv? (car l) o) i
(loop (+ i 1) (cdr l)))))))
----------------------------------------------------
> (define numbers (list 1 2 3 4))
> (list-position 3 numbers)
2
>
But if you're using a list as a collection of slots to store structured data, maybe you should have a look at defstruct or even some kind of Lisp Object System like CLOS.
If you're learning Lisp, make sure you have a look at Practical Common Lisp and / or The Little Schemer.
Cheers!
Answers:
(position item sequence &key from-end (start 0) end key test test-not)
http://lispdoc.com/?q=position&search=Basic+search
(setf (elt sequence index) value)
(elt sequence index)
http://lispdoc.com/?q=elt&search=Basic+search
NOTE: elt is preferable to nth because elt works on any sequence, not just lists
Jeremy's answers should work; but that said, if you find yourself writing code like
(setf (nth i my-list) new-elt)
you're probably using the wrong datastructure. Lists are simply linked lists, so they're O(N) to access by index. You might be better off using arrays.
Or maybe you're using lists as tuples. In that case, they should be fine. But you probably want to name accessors so someone reading your code doesn't have to remember what "nth 4" is supposed to mean. Something like
(defun my-attr (list)
(nth 4 list))
(defun (setf my-attr) (new list)
(setf (nth 4 list) new))
+2 for "Practical Common Lisp". It is a mixture of a Common Lisp Cookbook and a quality Teach Yourself Lisp book.
There's also "Successful Common Lisp" (http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/cover.html and http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html) which seemed to fill a few gaps / extend things in "Practical Common Lisp".
I've also read Paul Graham's "ANSI Common Lisp" which is more about the basics of the language, but a bit more of a reference manual.
I have to agree with Thomas. If you use lists like arrays then that's just going to be slow (and possibly awkward). So you should either use arrays or stick with the functions you've written but move them "up" in a way so that you can easily replace the slow lists with arrays later.