I started programming with lisp yesterday so please excuse if I am making some really newbie mistake. I am trying to create a function which calculates the bell numbers using the bell triangle and my recursive triangle function is not working properly. I am also sure if I got my recursive triangle function working that my recursive bell function is somehow also broken.
When I test my triangle function I get the output:
(defun bell(l n)
(if(< n 1)(list 1))
(if (= n 1)(last l))
(bell (triangle (reverse l) (last l) (list-length l)) (- n 1))
)
(defun triangle(pL nL i)
(if(<= i 0)
(write "equals zero!")
(reverse nL)
)
(triangle pL (append (list (+ (nth i pL) (nth i nL))) nL) (- i 1))
)
(write (triangle '(1) '(1) 0))
=>
"equals zero!""equals zero!"
*** - NTH: -1 is not a non-negative integer
For some reason, it is printing my debug code twice even though the function should be meeting my base case on the first call.
For some reason, it is printing my debug code twice even though the function should be meeting my base case on the first call.
It is printed twice because if is not doing what you think it does. The first if test is true, therefore equals zero! is printed. After that, a recursive call to triangle function is invoked. The test is again true (-1 <= 0), so equals zero! is again printed. Finally, you get an error because nthcdr function is called with -1. I strongly recommend you a good lisp debugger. The one from Lispworks is pretty good.
I honestly don't get the logic of what you were trying to achieve with your code. so I wrote mine:
(defun generate-level (l &optional (result))
"given a list l that represents a triangle level, it generates the next level"
(if (null l) result
(if (null result)
(generate-level l (list (car (last l))))
(generate-level (cdr l) (append result
(list (+ (car l)
(car (last result)))))))))
(defun bell (levels &optional (l))
"generate a bell triangle with the number of labels given by the first parameter"
(unless (zerop levels)
(let ((to-print (if (null l) (list 1) (generate-level l))))
(print to-print)
(bell (1- levels) to-print))))
Things to understand the implementation:
&optional (parameter): this parameter is optional and nil by default.
append concatenates two lists. I'm using it to insert in the back of the list.
let ((to-print x)) creates a new variable binding (local variable) called to-print and initialized to x.
I almost forgot to mention how if works in common lisp:
(if (= x 1) y z) means if x is equal to 1 then return y, otherwise z.
Now if you call the function to create a Bell triangle of 7 levels:
CL-USER 9 > (bell 7)
(1)
(1 2)
(2 3 5)
(5 7 10 15)
(15 20 27 37 52)
(52 67 87 114 151 203)
(203 255 322 409 523 674 877)
NIL
It would be nicer to print it with the appropiate padding, like this:
1
1 2
2 3 5
5 7 10 15
15 20 27 37 52
52 67 87 114 151 203
203 255 322 409 523 674 877
but I left that as an exercise to the reader.
Your ifs don't have any effect. They're evaluated, and produce results, but then you discard them. Just like
(defun abc ()
'a
'b
'c)
would evaluate 'a and 'b to produce the symbols a and b, and then would evaluate 'c to produce the symbol c, which would then be returned. In the case of
(if(<= i 0)
(write "equals zero!") ; then
(reverse nL) ; else
)
you're comparing whether i is less than or equal to zero, and if it is, you print equals zero, and if it's not, you (non-destructively) reverse nL and discard the result. Then you finish the function by making a call to triangle. It seems like you probably want to return the reversed nL when i is less than or equal to zero. Use cond instead, since you can have multiple body forms, as in:
(cond
((<= i 0) (write ...) (reverse nL))
(t (triangle ...)))
You could also use if with progn to group the forms:
(if (<= i 0)
(progn
(write ...)
(reverse nL))
(triangle ...))
Your other function has the same problem. If you want to return values in those first cases, you need to use a form that actually returns them. For instance:
(if (< n 1)
(list 1)
(if (= n 1)
(last l)
(bell #| ... |#)))
More idiomatic would be cond, and using list rather than l, which looks a lot like 1:
(cond
((< n 1) (list 1))
((= n 1) (last list))
(t (bell #| ... |#)))
Thank you all for the explanations. I eventually arrived at the code below. I realized that the if block worked something like..
(if (condition) (execute statement) (else execute this statement))
(defun bell(l n)
(if (< n 2)(last l)
(bell (triangle l (last l) 0) (- n 1))
)
)
(defun triangle(pL nL i)
(if(= i (list-length pL)) nL
(triangle pL (append nL (list (+ (nth i pL) (nth i nL)))) (+ i 1))
)
)
(write (bell (list 1) 10))
Related
(Just for fun) I figured out a way to represent this:
250 : 8 = 31 + 2
31 : 8 = 3 + 7
∴ (372)8
in the following procedure:
(defun dec->opns (n base)
(do* ((lst nil (append lst (list pos))) ; this is also not so nice
(m n (truncate m base))
(pos (rem m base) (rem m base)) ) ; <<<<<<
((< m base) (reverse (append lst (list m)))) ))
The procedure does what it is supposed to do until now.
CL-USER> (dec->opns 2500000 8)
(1 1 4 2 2 6 4 0)
At this point, I simply ask myself, how to avoid the two times
(rem m base).
First of all because of duplicates are looking daft. But also they may be a hint that the solution isn't the elegant way. Which also is not a problem. I am studying for becoming a primary school teacher (from 1st to 6nd class) and am considering examples for exploring math in a sense of Paperts Mindstorms. Therefore exploring all stages of creating and refining a solution are welcome.
But to get a glimpse of the professional solution, would you be so kind to suggest a more elegant way to implement the algorithm in an idiomatic way?
(Just to anticipate opposition to my "plan": I have no intentions to overwhelm the youngsters with Common Lisp. For now, I am using Common Lisp for reflecting about my study content and using the student content for practicing Common Lisp. My intention in the medium term is to write a "common (lisp) Logo setup" and a Logo environment with which the examples in Harveys Computer Science Logo style (vol. 1), Paperts Mindstorms, Solomons et. al LogoWorks, and of course in Abelsons et. al Turtle Geometry can be implemented uncompromisingly. If I will not cave in, the library will be found with quickload in the still more distant future under the name "c-logo-s" and be called cλogos ;-) )
The closest to your code
You can reduce the reversing of the reversing and append -> by using cons only. The duplication of (rem m base) is only an optical issue, since the first (rem m base) gets executed only the first time the loop runs and the second (rem m base) in all other cases. Thus they are actually not a duplication. One cannot use a let here, because of the required syntax within the macro. (<variable> <initial-value> <progression-for-each-round>)
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(do* ((acc nil (cons r acc))
(m n (truncate m base))
(r (rem m base) (rem m base)))
((zerop m) acc)))
The most Common Lispy version
The rosetta solutions for Common Lisp seems to give the most Common Lisp-like ways - either using write-to-string/parse-integer or even some format quircks.
(defun decimal->base-n (n base)
(write-to-string n :base base))
(defun base-n->decimal (base-n base)
(parse-integer (format nil "~a" base-n) :radix base))
(defun decimal-to-base-n (number &key (base 16))
(format nil (format nil "~~~dr" base) number))
(defun base-n-to-decimal (number &key (base 16))
(read-from-string (format nil "#~dr~d" base number)))
;; or:
(defun change-base (number input-base output-base)
(format nil "~vr" output-base (parse-integer number :radix input-base)))
Source: https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Non-decimal_radices/Convert#Common_Lisp
(decimal-to-base-n 2500000 :base 8)
;;=> "11422640"
Solution without format or write-to-string/parse-integer
Use tail call recursion:
(defun dec->ops (n base &optional (acc nil))
(if (< n base)
(cons n acc)
(multiple-value-bind (m r) (truncate n base)
(dec->ops m base (cons r acc)))))
Try it:
[41]> (dec->ops 250 8)
(3 7 2)
[42]> (dec->ops 250000 8)
(7 5 0 2 2 0)
[43]> (dec->ops 2500000 8)
(1 1 4 2 2 6 4 0)
The do/do* macros are in this case not so nice, because one cannot capture the multiple values returned by truncate nicely (truncate is mod and rem in one function - one should use this fact).
If you really wants to use do*
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(do* ((acc nil (cons (second values) acc))
(values (list n) (multiple-value-list (truncate (first values) base))))
((< (first values) base) (nbutlast (cons (first values) (cons (second values) acc))))))
This works
[69]> (dec->ops 250 8)
(3 7 2)
[70]> (dec->ops 2500000 8)
(1 1 4 2 2 6 4 0)
I would go with the following implementation when trying to avoid recursion:
(defun digits-in-base (number base)
(check-type number (integer 0))
(check-type base (integer 2))
(loop
:with remainder
:do (multiple-value-setq (number remainder) (truncate number base))
:collect remainder
:until (= number 0)))
Multiple values are not directly handled by LOOP so instead of converting the values to a list I prefer using MULTIPLE-VALUE-SETQ to update multiple values at once.
The code first does some type checks because otherwise it can loop infinitely: the inputs are expected to be respectively positive or null, and greater than 1.
I put the :until condition at the end so that 0 gives (0).
Note that the digits are sorted from the smallest to the highest rank:
(digits-in-base 4 2)
=> (0 0 1)
(digits-in-base 250 8)
=> (2 7 3)
Alternatively, for the reverse order:
(defun digits-in-base (number base)
(check-type number (integer 0))
(check-type base (integer 2))
(loop
:with remainder :and digits
:do (multiple-value-setq (number remainder) (truncate number base))
:do (push remainder digits)
:until (= number 0)
:finally (return digits)))
(digits-in-base 4 2)
=> (1 0 0)
(digits-in-base 250 8)
=> (3 7 2)
In a previous version of this answer I said the first one (from low to high digits) is better for further manipulation of the digits, but I am not so sure.
Converting back to a number is quite easy with number arranged from high to low digits (all the code below use the second version):
(defun digits-to-number (digits base)
(reduce (lambda (n d) (+ d (* n base)))
digits
:initial-value 0))
So is formatting to a string:
(defun number-string-base (number base)
(format nil
(if (<= base 10)
"(~{~d~})~d"
"(~{~d~^'~})~d")
(digits-in-base number base)
base))
(number-string-base 250 8)
=> "(372)8"
(number-string-base 250 16)
=> "(15'10)16"
Since you expressed interest in various approaches, one thing worth remembering is that Lisp's great strength is creating and extending languages. Indeed all the iteration constructs in Common Lisp are such extensions: CL has no primitive iteration constructs at all.
So there is nothing preventing anyone writing their own, which will be just as good as the ones the language provides. For instance Tim Bradshaw's simple loops provides an 'applicative looping construct', looping, which makes this quite simple to implement:
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(looping ((m n)
(a '()))
(when (< (abs m) base)
(return (cons m a)))
(multiple-value-bind (q r) (truncate m base)
(values q (cons r a)))))
Using looping, the variables bound in the loop are updated by the values of the last form in the loop's body.
Of course this is rather close to the classic tail-recursive implementation (here using iterate):
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(iterate next ((m n)
(a '()))
(if (< (abs m) base)
(cons m a)
(multiple-value-bind (q r) (truncate m base)
(next q (cons r a))))))
People tend not to like things like this because they are 'not idiomatic CL' of course.
I want to write a function in Racket which takes an amount of money and a list of specific bill-values, and then returns a list with the amount of bills used of every type to make the given amount in total. For example (calc 415 (list 100 10 5 2 1)) should return '(4 1 1 0 0).
I tried it this way but this doesn't work :/ I think I haven't fully understood what you can / can't do with set! in Racket, to be honest.
(define (calc n xs)
(cond ((null? xs) (list))
((not (pair? xs))
(define y n)
(begin (set! n (- n (* xs (floor (/ n xs)))))
(list (floor (/ y xs))) ))
(else (append (calc n (car xs))
(calc n (cdr xs))))))
Your procedure does too much and you use mutation which is uneccesary. If you split the problem up.
(define (calc-one-bill n bill)
...)
;; test
(calc-one-bill 450 100) ; ==> 4
(calc-one-bill 450 50) ; ==> 9
Then you can make:
(define (calc-new-n n bill amount)
...)
(calc-new-n 450 100 4) ; ==> 50
(calc-new-n 450 50 9) ; ==> 0
Then you can reduce your original implememntation like this:
(define (calc n bills)
(if (null? bills)
(if (zero? n)
'()
(error "The unit needs to be the last element in the bills list"))
(let* ((bill (car bills))
(amount (calc-one-bill n bill)))
(cons amount
(calc (calc-new-n n bill amount)
(cdr bills))))))
This will always choose the solution with fewest bills, just as your version seems to do. Both versions requires that the last element in the bill passed is the unit 1. For a more complex method, that works with (calc 406 (list 100 10 5 2)) and that potentially can find all combinations of solutions, see Will's answer.
This problem calls for some straightforward recursive non-deterministic programming.
We start with a given amount, and a given list of bill denominations, with unlimited amounts of each bill, apparently (otherwise, it'd be a different problem).
At each point in time, we can either use the biggest bill, or not.
If we use it, the total sum lessens by the bill's value.
If the total is 0, we've got our solution!
If the total is negative, it is invalid, so we should abandon this path.
The code here will follow another answer of mine, which finds out the total amount of solutions (which are more than one, for your example as well). We will just have to mind the solutions themselves as well, whereas the code mentioned above only counted them.
We can code this one as a recursive-backtracking procedure, calling a callback with each successfully found solution from inside the deepest level of recursion (tantamount to the most deeply nested loop in the nested loops structure created with recursion, which is the essence of recursive backtracking):
(define (change sum bills callback)
(let loop ([sum sum] [sol '()] [bills bills]) ; "sol" for "solution"
(cond
((zero? sum) (callback sol)) ; process a solution found
((< sum 0) #f)
((null? bills) #f)
(else
(apply
(lambda (b . bs) ; the "loop":
;; 1. ; either use the first
(loop (- sum b) (cons b sol) bills) ; denomination,
;; 2. ; or,
(loop sum sol bs)) ; after backtracking, don't!
bills)))))
It is to be called through e.g. one of
;; construct `the-callback` for `solve` and call
;; (solve ...params the-callback)
;; where `the-callback` is an exit continuation
(define (first-solution solve . params)
(call/cc (lambda (return)
(apply solve (append params ; use `return` as
(list return)))))) ; the callback
(define (n-solutions n solve . params) ; n assumed an integer
(let ([res '()]) ; n <= 0 gets ALL solutions
(call/cc (lambda (break)
(apply solve (append params
(list (lambda (sol)
(set! res (cons sol res))
(set! n (- n 1))
(cond ((zero? n) (break)))))))))
(reverse res)))
Testing,
> (first-solution change 406 (list 100 10 5 2))
'(2 2 2 100 100 100 100)
> (n-solutions 7 change 415 (list 100 10 5 2 1))
'((5 10 100 100 100 100)
(1 2 2 10 100 100 100 100)
(1 1 1 2 10 100 100 100 100)
(1 1 1 1 1 10 100 100 100 100)
(5 5 5 100 100 100 100)
(1 2 2 5 5 100 100 100 100)
(1 1 1 2 5 5 100 100 100 100))
Regarding how this code is structured, cf. How to generate all the permutations of elements in a list one at a time in Lisp? It creates nested loops with the solution being accessible in the innermost loop's body.
Regarding how to code up a non-deterministic algorithm (making all possible choices at once) in a proper functional way, see How to do a powerset in DrRacket? and How to find partitions of a list in Scheme.
I solved it this way now :)
(define (calc n xs)
(define (calcAssist n xs usedBills)
(cond ((null? xs) usedBills)
((pair? xs)
(calcAssist (- n (* (car xs) (floor (/ n (car xs)))))
(cdr xs)
(append usedBills
(list (floor (/ n (car xs)))))))
(else
(if ((= (- n (* xs (floor (/ n xs)))) 0))
(append usedBills (list (floor (/ n xs))))
(display "No solution")))))
(calcAssist n xs (list)))
Testing:
> (calc 415 (list 100 10 5 2 1))
'(4 1 1 0 0)
I think this is the first program I wrote when learning FORTRAN! Here is a version which makes no bones about using everything Racket has to offer (or, at least, everything I know about). As such it's probably a terrible homework solution, and it's certainly prettier than the FORTRAN I wrote in 1984.
Note that this version doesn't search, so it will get remainders even when it does not need to. It never gets a remainder if the lowest denomination is 1, of course.
(define/contract (denominations-of amount denominations)
;; split amount into units of denominations, returning the split
;; in descending order of denomination, and any remainder (if there is
;; no 1 denomination there will generally be a remainder).
(-> natural-number/c (listof (integer-in 1 #f))
(values (listof natural-number/c) natural-number/c))
(let handle-one-denomination ([current amount]
[remaining-denominations (sort denominations >)]
[so-far '()])
;; handle a single denomination: current is the balance,
;; remaining-denominations is the denominations left (descending order)
;; so-far is the list of amounts of each denomination we've accumulated
;; so far, which is in ascending order of denomination
(if (null? remaining-denominations)
;; we are done: return the reversed accumulator and anything left over
(values (reverse so-far) current)
(match-let ([(cons first-denomination rest-of-the-denominations)
remaining-denominations])
(if (> first-denomination current)
;; if the first denomination is more than the balance, just
;; accumulate a 0 for it and loop on the rest
(handle-one-denomination current rest-of-the-denominations
(cons 0 so-far))
;; otherwise work out how much of it we need and how much is left
(let-values ([(q r)
(quotient/remainder current first-denomination)])
;; and loop on the remainder accumulating the number of bills
;; we needed
(handle-one-denomination r rest-of-the-denominations
(cons q so-far))))))))
I am working on program related to the different of dealing with even numbers in C and lisp , finished my c program but still having troubles with lisp
isprime function is defined and I need help in:
define function primesinlist that returns unique prime numbers in a lis
here what i got so far ,
any help with that please?
(defun comprimento (lista)
(if (null lista)
0
(1+ (comprimento (rest lista)))))
(defun primesinlist (number-list)
(let ((result ()))
(dolist (number number-list)
(when (isprime number)
( number result)))
(nreverse result)))
You need to either flatten the argument before processing:
(defun primesinlist (number-list)
(let ((result ()))
(dolist (number (flatten number-list))
(when (isprime number)
(push number result)))
(delete-duplicates (nreverse result))))
or, if you want to avoid consing up a fresh list, flatten it as you go:
(defun primesinlist (number-list)
(let ((result ()))
(labels ((f (l)
(dolist (x l)
(etypecase x
(integer (when (isprime x)
(push x result)))
(list (f x))))))
(f number-list))
(delete-duplicates (nreverse result))))
To count distinct primes, take the length of the list returned by primesinlist.
Alternatively, you can use count-if:
(count-if #'isprime (delete-duplicates (flatten number-list)))
It sounds like you've already got a primality test implemented, but for sake of completeness, lets add a very simple one that just tries to divide a number by the numbers less than it up to its square root:
(defun primep (x)
"Very simple implementation of a primality test. Checks
for each n above 1 and below (sqrt x) whether n divides x.
Example:
(mapcar 'primep '(2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13))
;=> (T T NIL T NIL T NIL NIL NIL T NIL T)
"
(do ((sqrt-x (sqrt x))
(i 2 (1+ i)))
((> i sqrt-x) t)
(when (zerop (mod x i))
(return nil))))
Now, you need a way to flatten a potentially nested list of lists into a single list. When approaching this problem, I usually find it a bit easier to think in terms of trees built of cons-cells. Here's an efficient flattening function that returns a completely new list. That is, it doesn't share any structure with the original tree. That can be useful, especially if we want to modify the resulting structure later, without modifying the original input.
(defun flatten-tree (x &optional (tail '()))
"Efficiently flatten a tree of cons cells into
a list of all the non-NIL leafs of the tree. A completely
fresh list is returned.
Examples:
(flatten-tree nil) ;=> ()
(flatten-tree 1) ;=> (1)
(flatten-tree '(1 (2 (3)) (4) 5)) ;=> (1 2 3 4 5)
(flatten-tree '(1 () () 5)) ;=> (1 5)
"
(cond
((null x) tail)
((atom x) (list* x tail))
((consp x) (flatten-tree (car x)
(flatten-tree (cdr x) tail)))))
Now it's just a matter of flatting a list, removing the number that are not prime, and removing duplicates from that list. Common Lisp includes functions for doing these things, namely remove-if-not and remove-duplicates. Those are the "safe" versions that don't modify their input arguments. Since we know that the flattened list is freshly generated, we can use their (potentially) destructive counterparts, delete-if-not and delete-duplicates.
There's a caveat when you're removing duplicate elements, though. If you have a list like (1 3 5 3), there are two possible results that could be returned (assuming you keep all the other elements in order): (1 3 5) and (1 5 3). That is, you can either remove the the later duplicate or the earlier duplicate. In general, you have the question of "which one should be left behind?" Common Lisp, by default, removes the earlier duplicate and leaves the last occurrence. That behavior can be customized by the :from-end keyword argument. It can be nice to duplicate that behavior in your own API.
So, here's a function that puts all those considerations together.
(defun primes-in-tree (tree &key from-end)
"Flatten the tree, remove elements which are not prime numbers,
using FROM-END to determine whether earlier or later occurrences
are kept in the list.
Examples:
(primes-in-list '(2 (7 4) ((3 3) 5) 6 7))
;;=> (2 3 5 7)
(primes-in-list '(2 (7 4) ((3 3) 5) 6 7) :from-end t)
;;=> (2 7 3 5)"
;; Because FLATTEN-TREE returns a fresh list, it's OK
;; to use the destructive functions DELETE-IF-NOT and
;; DELETE-DUPLICATES.
(delete-duplicates
(delete-if-not 'primep (flatten-tree list))
:from-end from-end))
ive been given a task in Scheme (Dr Racket) to reverse to order of a given digit. The solution should be recursive, and this is what i got this far..
The truth is, im not quite sure if the given algorithm even works because i get:
" application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments"
error every time i run it..
Any thoughts or help on the issue?
(define reverse-digits
(lambda (n) (if (> n 9)
(+ (* 10 (modulo n 10)) (reverse-digits (quotient n 10)))
(n))))
(reverse-digits 1234)
This is a HW assignment so I won't give you code.
Your problem is that multiplying (modulo n 10) by 10 doesn't get you to the position you need to be in. Consider (reverse-digits 123):
(reverse-digits 123)
(+ 30 (reverse-digits 12))
(+ 30 (+ 20 (reverse-digits 1)))
(+ 30 (+ 20 1))
51
What you want is to multiply it by a different power of 10 every time depending on the length of the number. You could either make a function that calculates the length of the number (possibly by repeatedly dividing the number by 10 and keeping track of how many times it did that) or passing along the length of the number (possibly by creating another function that takes the number n as an argument and calculates the length, then passes it along to your function which will then subtract 1 from length every recursive call.
What you would then get is something like this:
(reverse-digits 123)
(+ 300 (reverse-digits 12))
(+ 300 (+ 20 (reverse-digits 1)))
(+ 300 (+ 20 1))
321
The error you're getting is because in your else-case, you do (n). As n is not a procedure, you get an error. You just want n instead.
Are you bound to using specific procedures ? If not, there's an alternative to using modulo and adding numbers. It's about using list procedures such as
number->string
take
list->string
and so on.
This is my solution, it is not very efficient!
(define
invert-number-aux (λ (n res)
(if (empty? n) res
(invert-number-aux
(take n (-(length n) 1)) ;new n
(append res (list (last n))) ;new res
)
)))
(define
invert-number (λ (n)
(string->number (list->string (invert-number-aux (string->list(number->string n)) '())))
))
It will be helpful to use smaller helper functions.
Here is one way to split the task in smaller parts:
; number->digits : natural -> list-of-digits
(define (number->digits n)
...)
; digits->number : list-of-digits -> natural
(define (number->digits n)
...)
With these helpers you can write:
(define (reverse-number x)
(digits->number
(reverse
(number->digits x))))
Also - if you want to the error " application: not a procedure; expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments" replace (n) with n.
If you run your program in DrRacket, the application (n) ought to be colored red. The problem is that (42) means evaluate 42 and then call the result as if is a function. Since 42 is a number, you get the error.
Its important to understand that fixnums don't have just one representation and what the different digits are of a number might change with the base of its representation. Here is my take on it.
(define (number->digits number (base 10))
(let loop ((n number) (acc '()))
(if (zero? n)
acc
(let-values (((res rem) (quotient/remainder n base)))
(loop res (cons rem acc))))))
(define (list->number lst (base 10))
(foldl (lambda (x acc)
(+ (* acc base) x))
0
lst))
(define (reverse-digits number (base 10))
(list->number (reverse (number->digits number base))
base))
(number->string (reverse-digits #b100111 #b10) #b10) ; ==> "111001" (or 39 => 57 in base 10)
(number->string (reverse-digits #xebabefac #x10) #x10) ; ==> "cafebabe" (or 3953913772 => 3405691582 in base 10)
(number->string (reverse-digits 1234)) ; ==> 4321
We are tasked to print out the values in the pascal triangle in this manner
(pascal 2)
(1 2 1)
(pascal 0)
(1)
I copied the code for the binomial thereom somewhere in the internet defined as follows:
(defun choose(n k)
(labels ((prod-enum (s e)
(do ((i s (1+ i)) (r 1 (* i r))) ((> i e) r)))
(fact (n) (prod-enum 1 n)))
(/ (prod-enum (- (1+ n) k) n) (fact k))))
Now I'm trying to create a list out of the values here in my pascal function:
(defun pascal (start end)
(do ((i start (+ i 1)))
((> i end) )
(print (choose end i) ))
)
The function produces 1 2 1 NIL if I test it with (pascal 0 2). How can I eliminate the NIL and create the list?
Note: I explicitly didn't provide an implementation of pascal, since the introductory “we are tasked…” suggests that this is a homework assignment.
Instead of printing the result of (choose end i) on each iteration, just collect the values produced by (choose end i) into a list of results, and then return the results at the end of the loop. It's a common idiom to construct a list in reverse order by pushing elements into it, and then using nreverse to reverse it to produce the final return value. For instance, you might implement range by:
(defun range (start end &optional (delta 1) &aux (results '()))
(do ((i start (+ i delta)))
((>= i end) (nreverse results))
(push i results)))
or (It always feels satisfying to write a do/do* loop that doesn't need any code in the body.)
(defun range (start end &optional (delta 1))
(do* ((results '() (list* i results))
(i start (+ i delta)))
((>= i end) (nreverse results))))
so that
(range 0 10 3)
;=> (0 3 6 9)
However, since the rows in Pascal's triangle are palidromes, you don't need to reverse them. Actually, since the rows are palindromes, you should even be able to adjust the loop to generate just half the list return, e.g.,
(revappend results results)
when there are an even number of elements, and
(revappend results (rest results))
when there are an odd number.