I solved Project Euler's 8th problem using SBCL and the iterate package from quicklisp. In my code I defined a function that turns a number into a list of it's digits. Here's the source code:
(defun number-to-list (n)
(iter (for c in-string (write-to-string n)) (collect (digit-char-p c))))
The collect clause both in iter and in loop make a list out of the values. Is it possible to instead generate a vector (one dimensional array)?
Would my only option be to convert the list generated by number-to-list to a vector? Because that seems inefficient (although probably not that inefficient)
Usually there is one big problem: how large will the result vector be? It would be best to know that upfront, then we can allocate the vector once with the correct size. Otherwise we would have find ways to deal with that: use a resizable vector, allocate a list first and copy into a result vector later, allocate a larger vector with a fill pointer, ...
If you have a sequence, then one can use the Common Lisp function MAP: if the source object is a vector, here a string, its length is cheap to get.
CL-USER 1 > (map 'vector
#'digit-char-p
(write-to-string 5837457324534))
#(5 8 3 7 4 5 7 3 2 4 5 3 4)
You can use ITERATE and collect a vector:
FOO 32 > (defun number-to-vector (n)
(iter (for c in-string (write-to-string n))
(collect (digit-char-p c) result-type vector)))
NUMBER-TO-VECTOR
FOO 33 > (number-to-vector 8573475934)
#(8 5 7 3 4 7 5 9 3 4)
If you look at the macro expansion, it actually collects into a list and then calls COERCE to create the vector. So: no win in efficiency.
Note that this is another example where ITERATE is more powerful than LOOP: the standard LOOP can't directly return vectors from collect.
The proposed solutions are correct and elegant, but they first create a list, or trasform the number in string. I would like to propose a direct transformation from integers to arrays, without transforming first the number in a list or a string:
(defun digits(n)
"Transform a positive integer n in array of digits"
(let* ((logn (floor (log n 10)))
(result (make-array (1+ logn) :element-type '(integer 0 9))))
(loop for i downfrom logn to 0
do (setf (values n (aref result i)) (floor n 10)))
result))
The problem of allocating an array of the correct dimension is solved with the formula that gives the number of decimal digits of an integer n: ⌊log10 n⌋+1.
Maybe not a direct answer to your question but here are my num-to-list and list-to-num functions I frequently use.
(defun num-to-list-helper (n liste)
(cond ((< n 1) liste)
(t (num-to-list-helper (truncate (/ n 10)) (cons (rem n 10) liste))))))
(defun num-to-list (n)
(num-to-list-helper n nil))
(defun list-to-num-helper (liste n)
(if (null liste)
n
(list-to-num-helper (cdr liste)
(+ n (* (car liste) (expt 10 (1- (length liste))))))))
(defun list-to-num (liste)
(list-to-num-helper liste 0))
You could try these and see if there's an improvement over converting the number to string. Personally I don't prefer strings for numbers as I consider them as an ugly trick I was forced to do in my Java days.
You could also convert these functions to a version using vectors and see how they do.
Related
The floor Hyperspec article on dotimes has this example:
(defun palindromep (string &optional
(start 0)
(end (length string)))
(dotimes (k (floor (- end start) 2) t)
(unless (char-equal (char string (+ start k))
(char string (- end k 1)))
(return nil))))
If floor returns two values, e.g. (floor 5 2) -> 2 and 1, how does dotimes know to just use the first value and disregard the second for its count-form?
It's a general mechanism and not specific to dotimes.
If one calls a function or sets a variable, then only the first value will be passed:
CL-USER 52 > (defun foo (x) x)
FOO
CL-USER 53 > (foo (floor 5 2))
2
CL-USER 54 > (let ((foo (floor 5 2)))
foo)
2
To do the equivalent (calling functions, binding variables) with multiple values, one needs to use special constructs:
CL-USER 55 > (multiple-value-call #'list
(floor 5 2) (floor 7 3))
(2 1 2 1)
CL-USER 56 > (multiple-value-bind (foo0 foo1)
(floor 5 2)
(list foo0 foo1))
(2 1)
From 7.10.1,
Normally multiple values are not used. Special forms are required both to produce multiple values and to receive them. If the caller of a function does not request multiple values, but the called function produces multiple values, then the first value is given to the caller and all others are discarded; if the called function produces zero values, then the caller gets nil as a value.
Unless you specifically do something to deal with the multiple values (such as by multiple-value-call or one of the various macros equipped to handle them), all except the first value will be ignored.
I'm trying to get the lowest integer out of a vector only containing numbers. I know how to do it with lists. You compare the first two values of the list and depending on which is larger you either save your value to output it later or call the function again with the rest of the list (all elements except the first) using the cdr procedure.
But with vectors I'm completely lost. My guess would be that the way of thinking about the solution would be the same for lists and vectors. I've been reading on the racket-lang website but haven't been able to come up with a solution to the problem. The procedures I've been experimenting most with are vector-ref and vector-length as they seem to be the most useful in this problem (but this is my first time working with vectors so what do I know).
So my two questions are:
How can we get all values except the first from a vector? Is there a procedure like cdr but for vectors?
If you were working with lists you would use cons to save the values you would want to output. But is there a similar way of doing it when working with vectors?
Thanks!
The simplest solution is to use a variant of for called for/fold.
I thought there were an for/min but alas.
#lang racket
(define v (vector 11 12 13 4 15 16))
(for/fold ([m +inf.0]) ([x (in-vector v)])
(min m x))
If you like a more explicit approach:
(define (vector-min xs)
(define n (vector-length xs))
(let loop ([i 0] ; running index
[m +inf.0]) ; minimum value so far
(cond
[(= i n) ; if the end is reached
m] ; return the minimum
[else ; else
(define x (vector-ref v i)) ; get new element in vector
(loop (+ i 1) ; increment index
(min m x))]))) ; new minimum
UPDATE
(let loop ([x 1] [y 10])
(loop (+ x 1) (- y 1))
is the same as:
(let ()
(define (loop (x y)
(loop (+ x 1) (- y 1)))
(loop 1 10))
Vectors are O(1) access and indexed so it is a completely different data structure, however you have SEFI-43 which is like the SRFI-1 List library, but for vectors.
#lang racket
(require srfi/43)
(define (min-element lst)
(vector-fold min (vector-ref lst 0) lst))
(max-element #(7 8 1 2 3 4 5 12))
; ==> 1
The racket/vector module has vector-argmin for finding the minimum element of a vector (Well, the minimum after feeding the elements through a transformation function). Combine that with a function like identity from racket/function and it's trivial:
(vector-argmin identity '#(5 4 3 2 1 6))
I'm working on some numerical computations in Common Lisp and I need to compute a linear combination of several vectors with given numerical coefficients. I'm rewriting a piece of Fortran code, where this can be accomplished by res = a1*vec1 + a2*vec2 + ... + an*vecn. My initial take in CL was to simply write each time something like:
(map 'vector
(lambda (x1 x2 ... xn)
(+ (* x1 a1) (* x2 a2) ... (* xn an)))
vec1 vec2 ... vecn)
But I soon noticed that this pattern would recur over and over again, and so started writing some code to abstract it away. Because the number of vectors and hence the number of lambda's arguments would vary from place to place, I figured a macro would be required. I came up with the following:
(defmacro vec-lin-com (coefficients vectors &key (type 'vector))
(let ((args (loop for v in vectors collect (gensym))))
`(map ',type
(lambda ,args
(+ ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (c a) (list '* c a)) coefficients args)))
,#vectors)))
Macroexpanding the expression:
(vec-lin-com (10 100 1000) (#(1 2 3) #(4 5 6) #(7 8 9)))
yields the seemingly correct expansion:
(MAP 'VECTOR
(LAMBDA (#:G720 #:G721 #:G722)
(+ (* 10 #:G720) (* 100 #:G721) (* 1000 #:G722)))
#(1 2 3) #(4 5 6) #(7 8 9))
So far, so good...
Now, when I try to use it inside a function like this:
(defun vector-linear-combination (coefficients vectors &key (type 'vector))
(vec-lin-com coefficients vectors :type type))
I get a compilation error stating essentially that The value VECTORS is not of type LIST. I'm not sure how to approach this. I feel I'm missing something obvious. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
You've gone into the literal trap. Macros are syntax rewriting so when you pass 3 literal vectors in a syntax list you can iterate on them at compile time, but replacing it with a bindnig to a list is not the same. The macro only gets to see the code and it doesn't know what vectors will eventually be bound to at runtime when it does its thing. You should perhaps make it a function instead:
(defun vec-lin-com (coefficients vectors &key (type 'vector))
(apply #'map
type
(lambda (&rest values)
(loop :for coefficient :in coefficients
:for value :in values
:sum (* coefficient value)))
vectors))
Now you initial test won't work since you passed syntax and not lists. you need to quote literals:
(vec-lin-com '(10 100 1000) '(#(1 2 3) #(4 5 6) #(7 8 9)))
; ==> #(7410 8520 9630)
(defparameter *coefficients* '(10 100 1000))
(defparameter *test* '(#(1 2 3) #(4 5 6) #(7 8 9)))
(vec-lin-com *coefficients* *test*)
; ==> #(7410 8520 9630)
Now you could make this a macro, but most of the job would have been done by the expansion and not the macro so basically you macro would expand to similar code to what my function is doing.
Remember that macros are expanded at compile-time, so the expression ,#(mapcar #'(lambda (c a) (list '* c a)) coefficients args) has to be meaningful at compile-time. In this case, all that mapcar gets for coefficients and args are the symbols coefficients and vectors from the source code.
If you want to be able to call vec-lin-com with an unknown set of arguments (unknown at compile-time, that is), you'll want to define it as a function. It sounds like the main problem you're having is getting the arguments to + correctly ordered. There's a trick using apply and map to transpose a matrix that may help.
(defun vec-lin-com (coefficients vectors)
(labels
((scale-vector (scalar vector)
(map 'vector #'(lambda (elt) (* scalar elt)) vector))
(add-vectors (vectors)
(apply #'map 'vector #'+ vectors)))
(let ((scaled-vectors (mapcar #'scale-vector coefficients vectors)))
(add-vectors scaled-vectors))))
This isn't the most efficient code in the world; it does a lot of unnecessary consing. But it is effective, and if you find this to be a bottleneck you can write more efficient versions, including some that can take advantage of compile-time constants.
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 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.