The code below gives me the list of sublists of a list. Code can still be improved to avoid the use of append, right?
(defun sublists (alist)
(labels ((aux (list p r)
(if (null list)
(append r (maplist #'identity p))
(aux (cdr list)
(append p (list (car list)))
(append r (maplist #'identity p))))))
(aux alist nil nil)))
CL-USER> (sublists (list 1 2 3 4))
((1) (1 2) (1 2 3) (1 2 3 4) (2) (2 3) (2 3 4) (3) (3 4) (4))
ideas?
EDIT: Note that we are really talking about sublists, not about subsets. That is, (1 2) is a sublist but (2 4) is not a sublist.
The return value is a list of length n*(n-1)/2 of lists of average
length n/3 thus the algorithm is necessarily asymptotically cubic.
Your algorithm appears to be quartic because you traverse r (which
grows as O(n^3)) in append in cycle.
Thus if you avoid append by traversing the list with two pointers and
copying sublists between them, you will eliminate an extra order of
asymptotic complexity.
Interestingly enough, memory-wise you are already optimal (IOW, you
cannot replace append with nconc):
(setq *print-circle* t)
(sublists (list 1 2 3 4))
==> ((1) (1 . #1=(2)) #1# (1 . #2=(2 . #3=(3)))
#2# #3#
(1 . #4=(2 . #5=(3 . #6=(4))))
#4# #5# #6#)
Here is my functional version:
(defun sublists-head (list)
"Return all sublists starting with the 1st element"
(and list
(cons (list (first list))
(mapcar (lambda (sublist)
(cons (first list)
sublist))
(sublists-head (rest list))))))
(defun sublists-3 (list)
"Return all sublists in a cubic algorithm."
(mapcon #'sublists-head list))
Alas, this loses memory sharing: while the result is the same:
(set-exclusive-or (sublists-4 '(1 2 3 4)) (sublists-3 '(1 2 3 4)) :test #'equal)
NIL
all sublists returned are fresh.
If you want to write the sophisticated code, use "reverse".
(defun get-takes (list) (mapcar #'reverse
(maplist #'identity (reverse list))))
(defun get-drops (list) (maplist #'identity list))
(defun sublists (list)
(apply #'append
(mapcar #'get-drops (get-takes list))))
or,
(flet ((get-takes (list) (mapcar #'reverse
(maplist #'identity (reverse list))))
(get-drops (list) (maplist #'identity list)))
(defun sublists (list)
(apply #'append (mapcar #'get-drops (get-takes list)))))
or, not recommended one,
(defun sublists (list)
(apply #'append
(mapcar (lambda (list) (maplist #'identity list))
(mapcar #'reverse
(maplist #'identity (reverse list))))))
Related
The problem is to:
Write a function (encode L) that takes a list of atoms L and run-length encodes the list such that the output is a list of pairs of the form (value length) where the first element is a value and the second is the number of times that value occurs in the list being encoded.
For example:
(encode '(1 1 2 4 4 8 8 8)) ---> '((1 2) (2 1) (4 2) (8 3))
This is the code I have so far:
(define (encode lst)
(cond
((null? lst) '())
(else ((append (list (car lst) (count lst 1))
(encode (cdr lst)))))))
(define (count lst n)
(cond
((null? lst) n)
((equal? (car lst) (car (cdr lst)))
(count (cdr lst) (+ n 1)))
(else (n)))))
So I know this won't work because I can't really think of a way to count the number of a specific atom in a list effectively as I would iterate down the list. Also, Saving the previous (value length) pair before moving on to counting the next unique atom in the list. Basically, my main problem is coming up with a way to keep a count of the amount of atoms I see in the list to create my (value length) pairs.
You need a helper function that has the count as additional argument. You check the first two elements against each other and recurse by increasing the count on the rest if it's a match or by consing a match and resetting count to 1 in the recursive call.
Here is a sketch where you need to implement the <??> parts:
(define (encode lst)
(define (helper lst count)
(cond ((null? lst) <??>)
((null? (cdr lst)) <??>))
((equal? (car lst) (cadr lst)) <??>)
(else (helper <??> <??>))))
(helper lst 1))
;; tests
(encode '()) ; ==> ()
(encode '(1)) ; ==> ((1 1))
(encode '(1 1)) ; ==> ((1 2))
(encode '(1 2 2 3 3 3 3)) ; ==> ((1 1) (2 2) (3 4))
Using a named let expression
This technique of using a recursive helper procedure with state variables is so common in Scheme that there's a special let form which allows you to express the pattern a bit nicer
(define (encode lst)
(let helper ((lst lst) (count 1))
(cond ((null? lst) <??>)
((null? (cdr lst)) <??>))
((equal? (car lst) (cadr lst)) <??>)
(else (helper <??> <??>)))))
Comments on the code in your question: It has excess parentheses..
((append ....)) means call (append ....) then call that result as if it is a function. Since append makes lists that will fail miserably like ERROR: application: expected a function, got a list.
(n) means call n as a function.. Remember + is just a variable, like n. No difference between function and other values in Scheme and when you put an expression like (if (< v 3) + -) it needs to evaluate to a function if you wrap it with parentheses to call it ((if (< v 3) + -) 5 3); ==> 8 or 2
I'm new to racket and trying to write a function that checks if a list is in strictly ascending order.
'( 1 2 3) would return true
'(1 1 2) would return false (repeats)
'(3 2 4) would return false
My code so far is:
Image of code
(define (ascending? 'list)
(if (or (empty? list) (= (length 'list) 1)) true
(if (> first (first (rest list))) false
(ascending? (rest list)))))
I'm trying to call ascending? recursively where my base case is that the list is empty or has only 1 element (then trivially ascending).
I keep getting an error message when I use check-expect that says "application: not a procedure."
I guess you want to implement a procedure from scratch, and Alexander's answer is spot-on. But in true functional programming style, you should try to reuse existing procedures to write the solution. This is what I mean:
(define (ascending? lst)
(apply < lst))
It's shorter, simpler and easier to understand. And it works as expected!
(ascending? '(1 2 3))
=> #t
(ascending? '(1 1 2))
=> #f
Some things to consider when writing functions:
Avoid using built in functions as variable names. For example, list is a built in procedure that returns a newly allocated list, so don't use it as an argument to your function, or as a variable. A common convention/alternative is to use lst as a variable name for lists, so you could have (define (ascending? lst) ...).
Don't quote your variable names. For example, you would have (define lst '(1 2 3 ...)) and not (define 'lst '(1 2 3 ...)).
If you have multiple conditions to test (ie. more than 2), it may be cleaner to use cond rather than nesting multiple if statements.
To fix your implementation of ascending? (after replacing 'list), note on line 3 where you have (> first (first (rest list))). Here you are comparing first with (first (rest list)), but what you really want is to compare (first lst) with (first (rest lst)), so it should be (>= (first lst) (first (rest lst))).
Here is a sample implementation:
(define (ascending? lst)
(cond
[(null? lst) #t]
[(null? (cdr lst)) #t]
[(>= (car lst) (cadr lst)) #f]
[else
(ascending? (cdr lst))]))
or if you want to use first/rest and true/false you can do:
(define (ascending? lst)
(cond
[(empty? lst) true]
[(empty? (rest lst)) true]
[(>= (first lst) (first (rest lst))) false]
[else
(ascending? (rest lst))]))
For example,
> (ascending? '(1 2 3))
#t
> (ascending? '(1 1 2))
#f
> (ascending? '(3 2 4))
#f
If you write down the properties of an ascending list in bullet form;
An ascending list is either
the empty list, or
a one-element list, or
a list where
the first element is smaller than the second element, and
the tail of the list is ascending
you can wind up with a pretty straight translation:
(define (ascending? ls)
(or (null? ls)
(null? (rest ls))
(and (< (first ls) (first (rest ls)))
(ascending? (rest ls)))))
This Scheme solution uses an explicitly recursive named let and memoization:
(define (ascending? xs)
(if (null? xs) #t ; Edge case: empty list
(let asc? ((x (car xs)) ; Named `let`
(xs' (cdr xs)) )
(if (null? xs') #t
(let ((x' (car xs'))) ; Memoization of `(car xs)`
(if (< x x')
(asc? x' (cdr xs')) ; Tail recursion
#f)))))) ; Short-circuit termination
(display
(ascending?
(list 1 1 2) )) ; `#f`
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)
Using LISP, i need to create a function that splits a list into two lists. The first list consists of 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc elements and the second list consists of 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc elements.
Output Examples:
(SPLIT-LIST ( )) => (NIL NIL)
(SPLIT-LIST '(A B C D 1 2 3 4 5)) => ((A C 1 3 5) (B D 2 4))
(SPLIT-LIST '(B C D 1 2 3 4 5)) => ((B D 2 4) (C 1 3 5))
(SPLIT-LIST '(A)) => ((A) NIL)
The function need to be recursive.
This is my code so far.
(defun SPLIT-LIST (L)
(cond
((null L) NIL)
((= 1 (length L)) (list (car L)))
(t (cons (cons (car L) (SPLIT-LIST (cddr L))) (cadr L)))))
);cond
);defun
i'm going to try to use flatten later on so that i end up w/ two lists, but for now, i just can't seem to get the sequence correctly.
MY CODE:
> (SPLIT-LIST '(1 2 3 4))
((1 (3) . 4) . 2)
I just can't seem to make the code print 1 3 2 4 instead of 1 3 4 2.
> (SPLIT-LIST '(1 2 3 4 5 6))
((1 (3 (5) . 6) . 4) . 2)
I can't make the second half of the expected output to print in the correct sequence.
Your code
We typically read Lisp code by indentation, and don't write in all-caps. Since we read by indentation, we don't need to put closing parens (or any parens, really) on their own line. Your code, properly formatted, then, is:
(defun split-list (l)
(cond
((null l) '())
((= 1 (length l)) (list (car l)))
(t (cons (cons (car l)
(split-list (cddr l)))
(cadr l)))))
Getting the base cases right
Split-list is always supposed to return a list of two lists. We should cover those base cases first. When l is empty, then there's nothing in the left list or the right, so we can simply return '(() ()). Then first condition then becomes:
((null l) '(() ())) ; or ((endp l) '(() ()))
Judging by your second case, I gather that you want the second and third cases to be: (i) if there's only one element left, it must be an odd-numbered one, and belongs in the left result; (ii) otherwise, there are at least two elements left, and we can add one to each. Then the second condition should be
((= 1 (length l)) (list (car l) '()))
It's actually kind of expensive to check the length of l at each step. You only care whether there is only one element left. You already know that l isn't empty (from the first case), so you can just check whether the rest oflis the empty list. I find it more readable to usefirstandrest` when working with cons cells as lists, so I'd write the second clause as:
((endp (rest l)) (list (list (first l)) '()))
Handling the recursive case
Now, your final case is where there are at least two elements. That means that l looks like (x y . zs). What you need to do is call split-list on zs to get some result of the form (odd-zs even-zs), and then take it apart and construct ((x . odd-zs) (y . even-zs)). That would look something like this:
(t (let ((split-rest (split-list (rest (rest l)))))
(list (list* (first l) (first split-rest))
(list* (second l) (second split-rest)))))
There are actually some ways you can clean that up. We can use destructuring-bind to pull odd-zs and even-zs out at the same time. Since this is the last clause of the cond, and a clause returns the value of the test if there are no body forms, we don't need the initial t. The last clause can be:
((destructuring-bind (odd-zs even-zs) ; *
(split-list (rest (rest l)))
(list (list* (first l) odd-zs)
(list* (second l) even-zs))))))
*I omitted the t test because if a cond clause has no body forms, then the value of the test is returned. That works just fine here.
Putting that all together, we've reworked your code into
(defun split-list (l)
(cond
((endp l) '(() ()))
((endp (rest l)) (list (list (first l)) '()))
((destructuring-bind (odd-zs even-zs)
(split-list (rest (rest l)))
(list (list* (first l) odd-zs)
(list* (second l) even-zs))))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((A C 1 3) (B D 2))
Other approaches
I think it's worth exploring some approaches that are tail recursive, as an implementation that supports tail call optimization can convert them to loops. Tail recursive functions in Common Lisp are also typically easy to translate into do loops, which are much more likely to be implemented as iteration. In these solutions, we'll build up the result lists in reverse, and then reverse them when it's time to return them.
Recursing one element at a time
If the left and right slices are interchangeable
If it doesn't matter which of the two lists is first, you can use something like this:
(defun split-list (list &optional (odds '()) (evens '()))
(if (endp list)
(list (nreverse odds)
(nreverse evens))
(split-list (rest list)
evens
(list* (first list) odds))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((B D 2) (A C 1 3))
This can actually be written very concisely using a do loop, but that's typically seen as iterative, not recursive:
(defun split-list (list)
(do ((list list (rest list))
(odds '() evens)
(evens '() (list* (first list) odds)))
((endp list) (list (nreverse odds) (nreverse evens)))))
If they're not interchangable
If you always need the list containing the first element of the original list to be first, you'll need a little bit more logic. One possibility is:
(defun split-list (list &optional (odds '()) (evens '()) (swap nil))
(if (endp list)
(if swap
(list (nreverse evens)
(nreverse odds))
(list (nreverse odds)
(nreverse evens)))
(split-list (rest list)
evens
(list* (first list) odds)
(not swap))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((A C 1 3) (B D 2))
I think that (if swap … …) is actually a bit ugly. We can use cond so that we can get multiple forms (or if and progn), and swap the values of odds and evens before returning. I think this is actually a bit easier to read, but if you're aiming for a pure recursive solution (academic assignment?), then you might be avoiding mutation, too, so rotatef wouldn't be available, and using a when just to get some side effects would probably be frowned upon.
(defun split-list (list &optional (odds '()) (evens '()) (swap nil))
(cond
((endp list)
(when swap (rotatef odds evens))
(list (nreverse odds) (nreverse evens)))
((split-list (rest list)
evens
(list* (first list) odds)
(not swap)))))
This lends itself to do as well:
(defun split-list (list)
(do ((list list (rest list))
(odds '() evens)
(evens '() (list* (first list) odds))
(swap nil (not swap)))
((endp list)
(when swap (rotatef odds evens))
(list (nreverse odds) (nreverse evens)))))
Recursing two elements at a time
Another more direct approach would recurse down the list by cddr (i.e., (rest (rest …))) and add elements to the left and right sublists on each recursion. We need to be a little careful that we don't accidentally add an extra nil to the right list when there are an odd number of elements in the input, though.
(defun split-list (list &optional (left '()) (right '()))
(if (endp list)
(list (nreverse left)
(nreverse right))
(split-list (rest (rest list))
(list* (first list) left)
(if (endp (rest list))
right
(list* (second list) right)))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((A C 1 3) (B D 2))
And again, a do version:
(defun split-list (list)
(do ((list list (rest (rest list)))
(left '() (list* (first list) left))
(right '() (if (endp (rest list)) right (list* (second list) right))))
((endp list) (list (nreverse left) (nreverse right)))))
Here's what I've got:
(defun split-list (lst)
(if lst
(if (cddr lst)
(let ((l (split-list (cddr lst))))
(list
(cons (car lst) (car l))
(cons (cadr lst) (cadr l))))
`((,(car lst)) ,(cdr lst)))
'(nil nil)))
After reading SICP I'm rarely confused about recursion.
I highly recommend it.
Here's my take, using an inner function:
(defun split-list (lst)
(labels ((sub (lst lst1 lst2 flip)
(if lst
(if flip
(sub (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) lst1) lst2 (not flip))
(sub (cdr lst) lst1 (cons (car lst) lst2) (not flip)))
(list (reverse lst1) (reverse lst2)))))
(sub lst nil nil t)))
As a Common Lisp LOOP:
(defun split-list (list)
"splits a list into ((0th, 2nd, ...) (1st, 3rd, ...))"
(loop for l = list then (rest (rest l))
until (null l) ; nothing to split
collect (first l) into l1 ; first split result
unless (null (rest l))
collect (second l) into l2 ; second split result
finally (return (list l1 l2))))
With internal tail-recursive function building the lists in top-down manner (no reverses, loop code probably compiles to something equivalent), with a head-sentinel trick (for simplicity).
(defun split-list (lst &aux (lst1 (list 1)) (lst2 (list 2)))
(labels ((sub (lst p1 p2)
(if lst
(progn (rplacd p1 (list (car lst)))
(sub (cdr lst) p2 (cdr p1)))
(list (cdr lst1) (cdr lst2)))))
(sub lst lst1 lst2)))
Flatten is fun to define in Lisp. But I've never had a use for it.
So if you think "I could use flatten to solve this problem" it's probably because you're trying to solve the wrong problem.
(defun split-list (L)
(if (endp L)
'(nil nil)
(let ((X (split-list (cdr L))))
(list (cons (car L) (cadr X)) (car X))
)))
First off, this is homework, but I am simply looking for a hint or pseudocode on how to do this.
I need to sum all the items in the list, using recursion. However, it needs to return the empty set if it encounters something in the list that is not a number. Here is my attempt:
(DEFINE sum-list
(LAMBDA (lst)
(IF (OR (NULL? lst) (NOT (NUMBER? (CAR lst))))
'()
(+
(CAR lst)
(sum-list (CDR lst))
)
)
)
)
This fails because it can't add the empty set to something else. Normally I would just return 0 if its not a number and keep processing the list.
I suggest you use and return an accumulator for storing the sum; if you find a non-number while traversing the list you can return the empty list immediately, otherwise the recursion continues until the list is exhausted.
Something along these lines (fill in the blanks!):
(define sum-list
(lambda (lst acc)
(cond ((null? lst) ???)
((not (number? (car lst))) ???)
(else (sum-list (cdr lst) ???)))))
(sum-list '(1 2 3 4 5) 0)
> 15
(sum-list '(1 2 x 4 5) 0)
> ()
I'd go for this:
(define (mysum lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (accum 0))
(cond
((empty? lst) accum)
((not (number? (car lst))) '())
(else (loop (cdr lst) (+ accum (car lst)))))))
Your issue is that you need to use cond, not if - there are three possible branches that you need to consider. The first is if you run into a non-number, the second is when you run into the end of the list, and the third is when you need to recurse to the next element of the list. The first issue is that you are combining the non-number case and the empty-list case, which need to return different values. The recursive case is mostly correct, but you will have to check the return value, since the recursive call can return an empty list.
Because I'm not smart enough to figure out how to do this in one function, let's be painfully explicit:
#lang racket
; This checks the entire list for numericness
(define is-numeric-list?
(lambda (lst)
(cond
((null? lst) true)
((not (number? (car lst))) false)
(else (is-numeric-list? (cdr lst))))))
; This naively sums the list, and will fail if there are problems
(define sum-list-naive
(lambda (lst)
(cond
((null? lst) 0)
(else (+ (car lst) (sum-list-naive (cdr lst)))))))
; This is a smarter sum-list that first checks numericness, and then
; calls the naive version. Note that this is inefficient, because the
; entire list is traversed twice: once for the check, and a second time
; for the sum. Oscar's accumulator version is better!
(define sum-list
(lambda (lst)
(cond
((is-numeric-list? lst) (sum-list-naive lst))
(else '()))))
(is-numeric-list? '(1 2 3 4 5))
(is-numeric-list? '(1 2 x 4 5))
(sum-list '(1 2 3 4 5))
(sum-list '(1 2 x 4 5))
Output:
Welcome to DrRacket, version 5.2 [3m].
Language: racket; memory limit: 128 MB.
#t
#f
15
'()
>
I suspect your homework is expecting something more academic though.
Try making a "is-any-nonnumeric" function (using recursion); then you just (or (is-any-numeric list) (sum list)) tomfoolery.