I am trying to find a solution to a problem i am facing at the moment, i have tried and tried to get this working but to no avail. I am trying to scan a list containing data and then returning the position of the data if found.
For example if i ran this:
(ind 'p '(l m n o p o p))
Then i would get a return value of....
==> 4 6
As it has found the data in those positions.
I have come close i think to what i want with this solution before, but i cannot get it to run. Can anyone help me figure out whats up with my function?? As far as i can see it should work, but i cant figure out why it isnt?
(defn ind
([choice list emptylist x]
(let [x (count list)])
(if (= (x) 0)
nil)
(if (= (first list) item)
(ind item (rest list) (cons x emptylist) (dec x))
(ind item (rest list) emptylist (dec x))
)
)
)
What i have tried to do is loop through the list until it hits a value and add it to the empty list and once it has looped through return the empty list.
I found that there is a built-in function called keep-indexed in Clojure.
So you can simply do this:
(keep-indexed (fn [idx elm] (if (= 'p elm) idx)) '(l m n o p o p))
; return (4 6)
Here is a solution which I think is a bit simpler:
(defn find-index
"Returns a seq of the indexes of the supplied collection."
[values target]
(let [indexes (range (count values))
val-idx-tuples (map vector values indexes)
found-tuples (filter #(= target (first %)) val-idx-tuples)
found-indexes (vec (map second found-tuples)) ]
found-indexes))
(println (find-index '(l m n o p o p) 'p ))
;=> [4 6]
Though I prefer #chanal's approach, you can write the function you want as follows:
(defn ind [x coll]
(loop [ans [], coll coll, n 0]
(if-let [[y & ys] (seq coll)]
(recur (if (= x y) (conj ans n) ans) ys (inc n))
ans)))
(ind 'p '(l m n o p o p))
;[4 6]
This uses several idioms to make it concise:
if-let comprises if inside let.
The destructuring form [y & ys] comprises calls to first and rest.
Pushing the if form down into the recur avoids repetition.
Related
I am writing a function called count-if, which takes in a predicate, p?, and a list, ls. The function returns the number of occurrences of elements in the nested list that satisfy p?
For example: (count-if (lambda (x) (eq? 'z x)) '((f x) z (((z x c v z) (y))))) will return 3. This is what I have written:
(define (count-if p ls) (cond
((null? ls) '())
((p (car ls))
(+ 1 (count-if p (cdr ls))))
(else
(count-if p (cdr ls)))))
But I just get an error. I could use some help finding a better way to go about this problem. Thanks!
What is the signature of count-if? It is:
[X] [X -> Boolean] [List-of X] -> Number
What does the first cond clause return? It returns:
'()
This is a simple type error. Just change the base case to 0 and count-if works.
Edit (for nested).
First we define the structure of the date as Nested.
A symbol is just fed into the score helper function. Otherwise the recursive call is applied on all nested sub-nesteds, and the results are summed up.
#lang racket
; Nested is one of:
; - Number
; - [List-of Nested]
; Nested -> Number
(define (count-if pred inp)
; Symbol -> Number
(define (score n) (if (pred n) 1 0))
; Nested -> Number
(define (count-if-h inp)
(if (symbol? inp)
(score inp)
(apply + (map count-if-h inp))))
(count-if-h inp))
(count-if (lambda (x) (eq? 'z x)) '((f x) z (((z x c v z) (y)))))
; => 3
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))))
I'm pretty new to Common Lisp. And I try to build my own operator functions.
In the first function I tried to add one to the given number.
The second function we do a recursive use of the first in the frequency of m.
When I enter totaladd ( 5 3 ) I expect an 8.
What can I do about the undefined funciton k?
(defun add1(n)
(+ n 1)
)
(write (add1 5))
(defun totaladd (k m)
(if (eq m 0)
0
(totaladd(add1(k) (- m 1)))
)
)
(write (totaladd 5 3))
There are three errors in the next line:
(totaladd(add1(k) (- m 1)))
Let's look at it:
(totaladd ; totaladd is a function with two parameters
; you pass only one argument -> first ERROR
(add1 ; add1 is a function with one parameter
; you pass two arguments -> second ERROR
(k) ; K is a variable, but you call it as a function,
; but the function K is undefined -> third ERROR
(- m 1)))
(defun add1 (n) (+ n 1))
(defun totaladd (k m)
(if (= m 0)
k
(add1 (totaladd k (- m 1)))))
There is a extra function for (= ... 0) called zerop which asks whether a number os zero or not. Very frequently used when recursing over numbers as the break condition out of the recursion.
There is also an extra function for (- ... 1) or (+ ... 1) because these are common steps when recursing with numbers: (1- ...) and (1+ ...), respectively.
(Their destructive forms are (incf ...) and (decf ...), but these are not needed for recursion.)
So, using this, your form becomes:
(defun totaladd (k m)
(if (zerop m)
k
(add1 (totaladd k (1- m)))))
I'm a newcomer to clojure who wanted to see what all the fuss is about. Figuring the best way to get a feel for it is to write some simple code, I thought I'd start with a Fibonacci function.
My first effort was:
(defn fib [x, n]
(if (< (count x) n)
(fib (conj x (+ (last x) (nth x (- (count x) 2)))) n)
x))
To use this I need to seed x with [0 1] when calling the function. My question is, without wrapping it in a separate function, is it possible to write a single function that only takes the number of elements to return?
Doing some reading around led me to some better ways of achieving the same funcionality:
(defn fib2 [n]
(loop [ x [0 1]]
(if (< (count x) n)
(recur (conj x (+ (last x) (nth x (- (count x) 2)))))
x)))
and
(defn fib3 [n]
(take n
(map first (iterate (fn [[a b]] [b (+ a b)]) [0 1]))))
Anyway, more for the sake of the exercise than anything else, can anyone help me with a better version of a purely recursive Fibonacci function? Or perhaps share a better/different function?
To answer you first question:
(defn fib
([n]
(fib [0 1] n))
([x, n]
(if (< (count x) n)
(fib (conj x (+ (last x) (nth x (- (count x) 2)))) n)
x)))
This type of function definition is called multi-arity function definition. You can learn more about it here: http://clojure.org/functional_programming
As for a better Fib function, I think your fib3 function is quite awesome and shows off a lot of functional programming concepts.
This is fast and cool:
(def fib (lazy-cat [0 1] (map + fib (rest fib))))
from:
http://squirrel.pl/blog/2010/07/26/corecursion-in-clojure/
In Clojure it's actually advisable to avoid recursion and instead use the loop and recur special forms. This turns what looks like a recursive process into an iterative one, avoiding stack overflows and improving performance.
Here's an example of how you'd implement a Fibonacci sequence with this technique:
(defn fib [n]
(loop [fib-nums [0 1]]
(if (>= (count fib-nums) n)
(subvec fib-nums 0 n)
(let [[n1 n2] (reverse fib-nums)]
(recur (conj fib-nums (+ n1 n2)))))))
The loop construct takes a series of bindings, which provide initial values, and one or more body forms. In any of these body forms, a call to recur will cause the loop to be called recursively with the provided arguments.
You can use the thrush operator to clean up #3 a bit (depending on who you ask; some people love this style, some hate it; I'm just pointing out it's an option):
(defn fib [n]
(->> [0 1]
(iterate (fn [[a b]] [b (+ a b)]))
(map first)
(take n)))
That said, I'd probably extract the (take n) and just have the fib function be a lazy infinite sequence.
(def fib
(->> [0 1]
(iterate (fn [[a b]] [b (+ a b)]))
(map first)))
;;usage
(take 10 fib)
;;output (0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34)
(nth fib 9)
;; output 34
A good recursive definition is:
(def fib
(memoize
(fn [x]
(if (< x 2) 1
(+ (fib (dec (dec x))) (fib (dec x)))))))
This will return a specific term. Expanding this to return first n terms is trivial:
(take n (map fib (iterate inc 0)))
Here is the shortest recursive function I've come up with for computing the nth Fibonacci number:
(defn fib-nth [n] (if (< n 2)
n
(+ (fib-nth (- n 1)) (fib-nth (- n 2)))))
However, the solution with loop/recursion should be faster for all but the first few values of 'n' since Clojure does tail-end optimization on loop/recur.
this is my approach
(defn fibonacci-seq [n]
(cond
(= n 0) 0
(= n 1) 1
:else (+ (fibonacci-seq (- n 1)) (fibonacci-seq (- n 2)))
)
)
For latecomers. Accepted answer is a slightly complicated expression of this:
(defn fib
([n]
(fib [0 1] n))
([x, n]
(if (< (count x) n)
(recur (conj x (apply + (take-last 2 x))) n)
x)))
For what it's worth, lo these years hence, here's my solution to 4Closure Problem #26: Fibonacci Sequence
(fn [x]
(loop [i '(1 1)]
(if (= x (count i))
(reverse i)
(recur
(conj i (apply + (take 2 i)))))))
I don't, by any means, think this is the optimal or most idiomatic approach. The whole reason I'm going through the exercises at 4Clojure ... and mulling over code examples from Rosetta Code is to learn clojure.
Incidentally I'm well aware that the Fibonacci sequence formally includes 0 ... that this example should loop [i '(1 0)] ... but that wouldn't match their spec. nor pass their unit tests despite how they've labelled this exercise. It is written as an anonymous recursive function in order to conform to the requirements for the 4Clojure exercises ... where you have to "fill in the blank" within a given expression. (I'm finding the whole notion of anonymous recursion to be a bit of a mind bender; I get that the (loop ... (recur ... special form is constrained to tail-recursion ... but it's still a weird syntax to me).
I'll take #[Arthur Ulfeldt]'s comment, regarding fib3 in the original posting, under consideration as well. I've only used Clojure's iterate once, so far.
I'm trying to solve a problem in Scheme which is demanding me to use a nested loop or a nested recursion.
e.g. I have two lists which I have to check a condition on their Cartesian product.
What is the best way to approach these types of problems? Any pointers on how to simplify these types of functions?
I'll elaborate a bit, since my intent might not be clear enough.
A regular recursive function might look like this:
(define (factorial n)
(factorial-impl n 1))
(define (factorial-impl n t)
(if (eq? n 0)
t
(factorial-impl (- n 1) (* t n))))
Trying to write a similar function but with nested recursion introduces a new level of complexity to the code, and I was wondering what the basic pattern is for these types of functions, as it can get very ugly, very fast.
As a specific example, I'm looking for the easiest way to visit all the items in a cartesian product of two lists.
In Scheme,
The "map" function is often handy for computing one list based on another.
In fact, in scheme, map takes an "n-argument" function and "n" lists and calls the
function for each corresponding element of each list:
> (map * '(3 4 5) '(1 2 3))
(3 8 15)
But a very natural addition to this would be a "cartesian-map" function, which would call your "n-argument" function with all of the different ways of picking one element from each list. It took me a while to figure out exactly how to do it, but here you go:
; curry takes:
; * a p-argument function AND
; * n actual arguments,
; and returns a function requiring only (p-n) arguments
; where the first "n" arguments are already bound. A simple
; example
; (define add1 (curry + 1))
; (add1 3)
; => 4
; Many other languages implicitly "curry" whenever you call
; a function with not enough arguments.
(define curry
(lambda (f . c) (lambda x (apply f (append c x)))))
; take a list of tuples and an element, return another list
; with that element stitched on to each of the tuples:
; e.g.
; > (stitch '(1 2 3) 4)
; ((4 . 1) (4 . 2) (4 . 3))
(define stitch
(lambda (tuples element)
(map (curry cons element) tuples)))
; Flatten takes a list of lists and produces a single list
; e.g.
; > (flatten '((1 2) (3 4)))
; (1 2 3 4)
(define flatten
(curry apply append))
; cartesian takes two lists and returns their cartesian product
; e.g.
; > (cartesian '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
; ((1 . 4) (1 . 5) (2 . 4) (2 . 5) (3 . 4) (3 . 5))
(define cartesian
(lambda (l1 l2)
(flatten (map (curry stitch l2) l1))))
; cartesian-lists takes a list of lists
; and returns a single list containing the cartesian product of all of the lists.
; We start with a list containing a single 'nil', so that we create a
; "list of lists" rather than a list of "tuples".
; The other interesting function we use here is "fold-right" (sometimes called
; "foldr" or "reduce" in other implementations). It can be used
; to collapse a list from right to left using some binary operation and an
; initial value.
; e.g.
; (fold-right cons '() '(1 2 3))
; is equivalent to
; ((cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '())))
; In our case, we have a list of lists, and our binary operation is to get the
; "cartesian product" between each list.
(define cartesian-lists
(lambda (lists)
(fold-right cartesian '(()) lists)))
; cartesian-map takes a n-argument function and n lists
; and returns a single list containing the result of calling that
; n-argument function for each combination of elements in the list:
; > (cartesian-map list '(a b) '(c d e) '(f g))
; ((a c f) (a c g) (a d f) (a d g) (a e f) (a e g) (b c f)
; (b c g) (b d f) (b d g) (b e f) (b e g))
(define cartesian-map
(lambda (f . lists)
(map (curry apply f) (cartesian-lists lists))))
Without all the comments and some more compact function definition syntax we have:
(define (curry f . c) (lambda x (apply f (append c x))))
(define (stitch tuples element)
(map (curry cons element) tuples))
(define flatten (curry apply append))
(define (cartesian l1 l2)
(flatten (map (curry stitch l2) l1)))
(define cartesian-lists (curry fold-right cartesian '(()))))
(define (cartesian-map f . lists)
(map (curry apply f) (cartesian-lists lists)))
I thought the above was reasonably "elegant"... until someone showed me the equivalent Haskell definition:
cartes f (a:b:[]) = [ f x y | x <- a , y <- b ]
cartes f (a:b:bs) = cartes f ([ f x y | x <- a , y <- b ]:bs)
2 lines!!!
I am not so confident on the efficiency of my implementation - particularly the "flatten" step was quick to write but could end up calling "append"
with a very large number of lists, which may or may not be very efficient on some Scheme
implementations.
For ultimate practicality/usefulness you would want a version that could take "lazily evaluated" lists/streams/iterator rather than fully specified lists.... a "cartesian-map-stream" function if you like, that would then return a "stream" of the results... but this depends on the context (I am thinking of the "stream" concept as introduced in SICP)... and would come for free from the Haskell version thanks to it's lazy evaluation.
In general, in Scheme, if you wanted to "break out" of the looping at some point you could also use a continuation (like throwing an exception but it is accepted practise in Scheme for control flow).
I had fun writing this!
I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
I believe the main thing you have to understand in functional programming is : build complicated functions by composing several simpler functions.
For instance, in this case:
;compute the list of the (x,y) for y in l
(define (pairs x l)
(define (aux accu x l)
(if (null? l)
accu
(let ((y (car l))
(tail (cdr l)))
(aux (cons (cons x y) accu) x tail))))
(aux '() x l))
(define (cartesian-product l m)
(define (aux accu l)
(if (null? l)
accu
(let ((x (car l))
(tail (cdr l)))
(aux (append (pairs x m) accu) tail))))
(aux '() l))
You identify the different steps: to get the cartesian product, if you "loop" over the first list, you're going to have to be able to compute the list of the (x,y), for y in the second list.
There are some good answers here already, but for simple nested functions (like your tail-recursive factorial), I prefer a named let:
(define factorial
(lambda (n)
(let factorial-impl ([n n] [t 1])
(if (eq? n 0)
t
(factorial-impl (- n 1) (* t n))))))