I'm new to CHICKEN and Scheme. In my quest to understanding tail recursion, I wrote:
(define (recsum x) (recsum-tail x 0))
(define (recsum-tail x accum)
(if (= x 0)
accum
(recsum-tail (- x 1) (+ x accum))))
This does what I expect it to. However, this seems a little repetitive; having an optional argument should make this neater. So I tried:
(define (recsum x . y)
(let ((accum (car y)))
(if (= x 0)
accum
(recsum (- x 1) (+ x accum)))))
However, in CHICKEN (and maybe in other scheme implementations), car cannot be used against ():
Error: (car) bad argument type: ()
Is there another way to implement optional function arguments, specifically in CHICKEN 5?
I think you're looking for a named let, not for optional procedure arguments. It's a simple way to define a helper procedure with (possibly) extra parameters that you can initialize as required:
(define (recsum x)
(let recsum-tail ((x x) (accum 0))
(if (= x 0)
accum
(recsum-tail (- x 1) (+ x accum)))))
Of course, we can also implement it with varargs - but I don't think this looks as elegant:
(define (recsum x . y)
(let ((accum (if (null? y) 0 (car y))))
(if (= x 0)
accum
(recsum (- x 1) (+ x accum)))))
Either way, it works as expected:
(recsum 10)
=> 55
Chicken has optional arguments. You can do it like this:
(define (sum n #!optional (acc 0))
(if (= n 0)
acc
(sum (- n 1) (+ acc n))))
However I will vote against using this as it is non standard Scheme. Chicken say they support SRFI-89: Optional positional and named parameters, but it seems it's an earlier version and the egg needs to be redone. Anyway when it is re-applied this should work:
;;chicken-install srfi-89 # install the egg
(use srfi-89) ; imports the egg
(define (sum n (acc 0))
(if (= n 0)
acc
(sum (- n 1) (+ acc n))))
Also your idea of using rest arguments work. However keep in mind that the procedure then will build a pair on the heap for each iteration:
(define (sum n . acc-lst)
(define acc
(if (null? acc-lst)
0
(car acc-lst)))
(if (= n 0)
acc
(sum (- n 1) (+ acc n))))
All of these leak internal information. Sometimes it's part of the public contract to have an optional parameter, but in this case it is to avoid writing a few more lines. Usually you don't want someone to pass a second argument and you should keep the internals private. The better way would be to use named let and keep the public contract as is.
(define (sum n)
(let loop ((n n) (acc 0))
(if (= n 0)
acc
(loop (- n 1) (+ acc n))))
Related
I am reading sicp, there's a problem (practice 1.29), I write a scheme function to solve the the question, but it seems that the recursive call of the function get the wrong answer. Really strange to me. The code is following:
(define simpson
(lambda (f a b n)
(let ((h (/ (- b a) n))
(k 0))
(letrec
((sum (lambda (term start next end)
(if (> start end)
0
(+ (term start)
(sum term (next start) next end)))))
(next (lambda (x)
(let ()
(set! k (+ k 1))
(+ x h))))
(term (lambda (x)
(cond
((= k 0) (f a))
((= k n) (f b))
((even? k) (* 2
(f x)))
(else (* 4
(f x)))))))
(sum term a next b)))))
I didn't get the right answer.
For example, if I try to call the simpson function like this:
(simpson (lambda (x) x) 0 1 4)
I expected to get the 6, but it returned 10 to me, I am not sure where the error is.It seems to me that the function "sum" defined inside of Simpson function is not right.
If I rewrite the sum function inside of simpson using the iteration instead of recursive, I get the right answer.
You need to multiply the sum with h/3:
(* 1/3 h (sum term a next b))
Here is what I have done so far:
(define sumOdd
(lambda(n)
(cond((> n 0)1)
((odd? n) (* (sumOdd n (-(* 2 n) 1)
output would look something like this:
(sumOdd 1) ==> 1
(sumOdd 4) ==> 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 ==> 16
(sumOdd 5) ==> 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 ==> 25
This is what I am trying to get it to do: find the sum of the first N odd positive integers
I can not think of a way to only add the odd numbers.
To elaborate further on the sum-odds problem, you might solve it in terms of more abstract procedures that in combination accumulates the desired answer. This isn't necessarily the easiest solution, but it is interesting and captures some more general patterns that are common when processing list structures:
; the list of integers from n to m
(define (make-numbers n m)
(if (= n m) (list n) ; the sequence m..m is (m)
(cons n ; accumulate n to
(make-numbers (+ n 1) m)))) ; the sequence n+1..m
; the list of items satisfying predicate
(define (filter pred lst)
(if (null? lst) '() ; nothing filtered is nothing
(if (pred (car lst)) ; (car lst) is satisfactory
(cons (car lst) ; accumulate item (car lst)
(filter pred (cdr lst))) ; to the filtering of rest
(filter pred (cdr lst))))) ; skip item (car lst)
; the result of combining list items with procedure
(define (build-value proc base lst)
(if (null? lst) base ; building nothing is the base
(proc (car lst) ; apply procedure to (car lst)
(build-value proc base (cdr lst))))) ; and to the building of rest
; the sum of n first odds
(define (sum-odds n)
(if (negative? n) #f ; negatives aren't defined
(build-value + ; build values with +
0 ; build with 0 in base case
(filter odd? ; filter out even numbers
(make-numbers 1 n))))) ; make numbers 1..n
Hope this answer was interesting and not too confusing.
Let's think about a couple of cases:
1) What should (sumOdd 5) return? Well, it should return 5 + 3 + 1 = 9.
2) What should (sumOdd 6) return? Well, that also returns 5 + 3 + 1 = 9.
Now, we can write this algorithm a lot of ways, but here's one way I've decided to think about it:
We're going to write a recursive function, starting at n, and counting down. If n is odd, we want to add n to our running total, and then count down by 2. Why am I counting down by 2? Because if n is odd, n - 2 is also odd. Otherwise, if n is even, I do not want to add anything. I want to make sure that I keep recursing, however, so that I get to an odd number. How do I get to the next odd number, counting down from an even number? I subtract 1. And I do this, counting down until n is <= 0. I do not want to add anything to my running total then, so I return 0. Here is what that algorithm looks like:
(define sumOdd
(lambda (n)
(cond ((<= n 0) 0)
((odd? n) (+ n (sumOdd (- n 2))))
(else (sumOdd (- n 1))))))
If it helps you, here is a more explicit example of a slightly different algorithm:
(define sumOdd
(lambda (n)
(cond ((<= n 0) 0)
((odd? n) (+ n (sumOdd (- n 1))))
((even? n) (+ 0 (sumOdd (- n 1))))))) ; note that (even? n) can be replaced by `else' (if its not odd, it is even), and that (+ 0 ..) can also be left out
EDIT:
I see that the problem has changed just a bit. To sum the first N positive odd integers, there are a couple of options.
First option: Math!
(define sumOdd (lambda (n) (* n n)))
Second option: Recursion. There are lots of ways to accomplish this. You could generate a list of 2*n and use the procedures above, for example.
You need to have 2 variables, one which keep counter of how many odd numbers are still to be added and another to hold the current odd number which gets increment by 2 after being used in addition:
(define (sum-odd n)
(define (proc current start)
(if (= current 0)
0
(+ start (proc (- current 1) (+ start 2)) )))
(proc n 1))
Here is a nice tail recursive implementation:
(define (sumOdd n)
(let summing ((total 0) (count 0) (next 1))
(cond ((= count n) total)
((odd? next) (summing (+ total next)
(+ count 1)
(+ next 1)))
(else (summing total count (+ next 1))))))
Even shorter tail-recursive version:
(define (sumOdd n)
(let loop ((sum 0) (n n) (val 1))
(if (= n 0)
sum
(loop (+ sum val) (- n 1) (+ val 2)))))
I'm trying to solve this problem in a pure-functional way, without using set!.
I've written a function that calls a given lambda for each number in the fibonacci series, forever.
(define (each-fib fn)
(letrec
((next (lambda (a b)
(fn a)
(next b (+ a b)))))
(next 0 1)))
I think this is as succinct as it can be, but if I can shorten this, please enlighten me :)
With a definition like the above, is it possible to write another function that takes the first n numbers from the fibonacci series and gives me a list back, but without using variable mutation to track the state (which I understand is not really functional).
The function signature doesn't need to be the same as the following... any approach that will utilize each-fib without using set! is fine.
(take-n-fibs 7) ; (0 1 1 2 3 5 8)
I'm guessing there's some sort of continuations + currying trick I can use, but I keep coming back to wanting to use set!, which is what I'm trying to avoid (purely for learning purposes/shifting my thinking to purely functional).
Try this, implemented using lazy code by means of delayed evaluation:
(define (each-fib fn)
(letrec
((next (lambda (a b)
(fn a)
(delay (next b (+ a b))))))
(next 0 1)))
(define (take-n-fibs n fn)
(let loop ((i n)
(promise (each-fib fn)))
(when (positive? i)
(loop (sub1 i) (force promise)))))
As has been mentioned, each-fib can be further simplified by using a named let:
(define (each-fib fn)
(let next ((a 0) (b 1))
(fn a)
(delay (next b (+ a b)))))
Either way, it was necessary to modify each-fib a little for using the delay primitive, which creates a promise:
A promise encapsulates an expression to be evaluated on demand via force. After a promise has been forced, every later force of the promise produces the same result.
I can't think of a way to stop the original (unmodified) procedure from iterating indefinitely. But with the above change in place, take-n-fibs can keep forcing the lazy evaluation of as many values as needed, and no more.
Also, take-n-fibs now receives a function for printing or processing each value in turn, use it like this:
(take-n-fibs 10 (lambda (n) (printf "~a " n)))
> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55
You provide an iteration function over fibonacci elements. If you want, instead of iterating over each element, to accumulate a result, you should use a different primitive that would be a fold (or reduce) rather than an iter.
(It might be possible to use continuations to turn an iter into a fold, but that will probably be less readable and less efficient that a direct solution using either a fold or mutation.)
Note however that using an accumulator updated by mutation is also fine, as long as you understand what you are doing: you are using mutable state locally for convenience, but the function take-n-fibs is, seen from the outside, observationally pure, so you do not "contaminate" your program as a whole with side effects.
A quick prototype for fold-fib, adapted from your own code. I made an arbitrary choice as to "when stop folding": if the function returns null, we return the current accumulator instead of continuing folding.
(define (fold-fib init fn) (letrec ([next (lambda (acc a b)
(let ([acc2 (fn acc a)])
(if (null? acc2) acc
(next acc2 b (+ a b)))))])
(next init 0 1)))
(reverse (fold-fib '() (lambda (acc n) (if (> n 10) null (cons n acc)))))
It would be better to have a more robust convention to end folding.
I have written few variants. First you ask if
(define (each-fib fn)
(letrec
((next (lambda (a b)
(fn a)
(next b (+ a b)))))
(next 0 1)))
can be written any shorter. The pattern is used so often that special syntax called named let has been introduced. Your function looks like this using a named let:
(define (each-fib fn)
(let next ([a 0] [b 1])
(fn a)
(next b (+ a b))))
In order to get the control flowing from one function to another, one can in languages with supports TCO use continuation passing style. Each function gets an extra argument often called k (for continuation). The function k represents what-to-do-next.
Using this style, one can write your program as follows:
(define (generate-fibs k)
(let next ([a 0] [b 1] [k k])
(k a (lambda (k1)
(next b (+ a b) k1)))))
(define (count-down n k)
(let loop ([n n] [fibs '()] [next generate-fibs])
(if (zero? n)
(k fibs)
(next (λ (a next)
(loop (- n 1) (cons a fibs) next))))))
(count-down 5 values)
Now it is a bit annoying to write in style manually, so it could
be convenient to introduce the co-routines. Breaking your rule of not using set! I have chosen to use a shared variable fibs in which generate-fibs repeatedly conses new fibonacci numbers onto. The count-down routine merely read the values, when the count down is over.
(define (make-coroutine co-body)
(letrec ([state (lambda () (co-body resume))]
[resume (lambda (other)
(call/cc (lambda (here)
(set! state here)
(other))))])
(lambda ()
(state))))
(define fibs '())
(define generate-fib
(make-coroutine
(lambda (resume)
(let next ([a 0] [b 1])
(set! fibs (cons a fibs))
(resume count-down)
(next b (+ a b))))))
(define count-down
(make-coroutine
(lambda (resume)
(let loop ([n 10])
(if (zero? n)
fibs
(begin
(resume generate-fib)
(loop (- n 1))))))))
(count-down)
And a bonus you get a version with communicating threads:
#lang racket
(letrec ([result #f]
[count-down
(thread
(λ ()
(let loop ([n 10] [fibs '()])
(if (zero? n)
(set! result fibs)
(loop (- n 1) (cons (thread-receive) fibs))))))]
[produce-fibs
(thread
(λ ()
(let next ([a 0] [b 1])
(when (thread-running? count-down)
(thread-send count-down a)
(next b (+ a b))))))])
(thread-wait count-down)
result)
The thread version is Racket specific, the others ought to run anywhere.
Building a list would be hard. But displaying the results can still be done (in a very bad fashion)
#lang racket
(define (each-fib fn)
(letrec
((next (lambda (a b)
(fn a)
(next b (+ a b)))))
(next 0 1)))
(define (take-n-fibs n fn)
(let/cc k
(begin
(each-fib (lambda (x)
(if (= x (fib (+ n 1)))
(k (void))
(begin
(display (fn x))
(newline))))))))
(define fib
(lambda (n)
(letrec ((f
(lambda (i a b)
(if (<= n i)
a
(f (+ i 1) b (+ a b))))))
(f 1 0 1))))
Notice that i am using the regular fibonacci function as an escape (like i said, in a very bad fashion). I guess nobody will recommend programming like this.
Anyway
(take-n-fibs 7 (lambda (x) (* x x)))
0
1
1
4
9
25
64
I was going through Structure and interpretation of computer programming by Brain harvey. I came across this question which i could not figure out how to do it.
How do we write recursive procedure with lambda in Scheme?
TL;DR: Use named let (if you are executing a recursive function immediately) or rec (if you are saving the recursive function for later execution).
The usual way is with letrec, or something that uses a letrec behind the scenes, like named let or rec. Here's a version of (factorial 10) using letrec:
(letrec ((factorial (lambda (x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))))
(factorial 10))
And the same thing using named let:
(let factorial ((x 10))
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))
The key understanding here is that both versions are exactly the same. A named let is just a macro that expands to the letrec form. So because the named let version is shorter, that is usually the preferred way to write a recursive function.
Now, you might ask, what if you want to return the recursive function object directly, rather than execute it? There, too, you can use letrec:
(letrec ((factorial (lambda (x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))))
factorial)
There, too, is a shorthand for this, although not using named let, but instead using rec:
(rec (factorial x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))
The nice thing about using rec here is that you can assign the function object to a variable and execute it later.
(define my-fact (rec (factorial x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x))))
(my-fact 10) ; => 3628800
The more theoretical and "pure" way to create recursive functions is to use a Y combinator. :-) But most practical Scheme programs do not use this approach, so I won't discuss it further.
No need to write factorial body twice ;)
(((lambda (f)
(lambda (x)
(f f x)))
(lambda (fact x)
(if (= x 0) 1 (* x (fact fact (- x 1)))))) 5)
Here is a recursive function that calculates the factorial of 5 using lambda
((lambda (f x)
(if (= x 0)
1
(* x (f f (- x 1)))))
(lambda (f x)
(if (= x 0)
1
(* x (f f (- x 1)))))
5)
When you run this program in Drracket you get 120 :)
I want to program a function to find C(n,k) using tail recursion, and I would greatly appreciate your help.
I have reached this:
(defun tail-recursive-binomial (n k)
(cond ((or (< n k) (< k 0)) NIL)
((or (= k 0) (= n k)) 1)
(T (* (tail-recursive-binomial (- n 1) (- k 1)) (/ n k)))))
Using the following property of the binomial coefficients.
But I don't know how to make the recursive call to be the last instruction executed by each instance, since there the last one is the product. I have been trying it by using an auxiliary function, which I think is the only way, but I haven't found a solution.
As starblue suggests, use a recursive auxiliary function:
(defun binom (n k)
(if (or (< n k) (< k 0))
NIL ; there are better ways to handle errors in Lisp
(binom-r n k 1)))
;; acc is an accumulator variable
(defun binom-r (n k acc)
(if (or (= k 0) (= n k))
acc
(binom-r (- n 1) (- k 1) (* acc (/ n k)))))
Or, give the main function an optional accumulator argument with a default value of 1 (the recursive base case):
(defun binom (n k &optional (acc 1))
(cond ((or (< n k) (< k 0)) NIL)
((or (= k 0) (= n k)) acc)
(T (binom (- n 1) (- k 1) (* acc (/ n k))))))
The latter option is slightly less efficient, since the error condition is checked in every recursive call.
You need an auxiliary function with an extra argument, which you use for computing and passing the result.