Just started to learn LISP and I'm trying to figure out how to write the following recursive function.
So should I have
(DOT-PRODUCT '(1 2) '(3 4)))
The output should be 11
I've written the following
(defun DOT-PRODUCT (a b)
(if (or (null a) (null b))
0
(+ (* (first a) (first b))
(DOT-PRODUCT (rest a) (rest b)))))
And everything seems to work; however, it still works with lists of different lengths. I want it to just work with lists of numbers that have the same length. Where should I add code that returns "invalid length" should we have such?
A simple way is to rewrite the function so that it checks different cases using the conditional form cond:
(defun dot-product (a b)
(cond ((null a) (if (null b) 0 (error "invalid length")))
((null b) (error "invalid length"))
(t (+ (* (first a) (first b))
(dot-product (rest a) (rest b))))))
In the first branch of the cond, if the first argument is NIL, the second one must be NIL as well, otherwise an error is generated. In the second branch, we already know that a is not NIL, so an error is immediately generated. Finally, the result is calculated.
Multiply corresponding elements of lists X and Y:
(mapcar #'* X Y)
Add elements of a list Z:
(reduce #'+ Z)
Put together: dot product:
(reduce #'+ (mapcar #'* X Y))
reduce and mapcar are the basis for the "MapReduce" concept, which is a generalization of that sort of thing that includes dot products, convolution integrals and a myriad ways of massaging and summarizing data.
One can increase efficiency by introducing an accumulator variable and turning the standard recursion into a tail recursion. In this example, I used (labels) to define the recursion:
(defun DOT-PRODUCT (a b)
(labels ((dp (x y accum)
(if (or (null x) (null y))
accum
(dp (rest x) (rest y) (+ accum (* (first x) (first y)))))))
(if (= (length a) (length b))
(dp a b 0)
(error "Invalid length."))))
I have a problem with a function showlength which I'm programming in Scheme:
(define showlength
(lambda (m lst)
(cond ((number? m) (list (cons m lst)
(+ 1(length lst))))
((pair? m) (let* ([x (cdr m)]
[y (car m)])
(showlength x lst)
(showlength y lst))))))
The code is meant to take either a number or a pair of numbers and a list(lst) and returns a list showing all values contained in the list and the length of the list. The program works for when I have just a number of example:
(showlength 2 '())
and returns
((2) 1)
but when I try it for a problem consisting of a pair of numbers of example
(showlength (cons 2 3) ' ())
in which the returned value is meant to be
((0 . 1) 3 2) 3)
it shows
((2) 1)
What is wrong with my code?
EDIT: For those who the code isnt that clear to. When a pair of numbers is used, the code is meant to add the cdr of the pair to the list. Then its meant to add the car of the pair to the list( where the list already contains the cdr of the pair from above) and then returns the list and its length
The issue is that in your let statement, you have two independent calls to show length, and you implementation is just returning the value of the first.
In scheme a function only ever returns one value (generally, some implementation provide special mechanisms to allow a value to expect and accept multiple return values. )
My question is where in the world do you expect a zero to come from? The smallest value in the m is 2, and the smallest value that length can return of it's own volition is 1, when lst length is zero.
Whatever it is you're doing you need to step back and check your assumptions, something isn't right.
(define showlength
(lambda (m lst)
(cond ((number? m) (list (cons m lst)
(+ 1(length lst))))
((pair? m) (let* ((x (cdr m))
(y (car m)))
(cons (showlength x lst)
(showlength y lst)))))))
Tying the returns together with cons will get you a single value without losing anything, but it's not the return value you want.
I'm totally new to Scheme and I am trying to implement my own map function. I've tried to find it online, however all the questions I encountered were about some complex versions of map function (such as mapping functions that take two lists as an input).
The best answer I've managed to find is here: (For-each and map in Scheme). Here is the code from this question:
(define (map func lst)
(let recur ((rest lst))
(if (null? rest)
'()
(cons (func (car rest)) (recur (cdr rest))))))
It doesn't solve my problem though because of the usage of an obscure function recur. It doesn't make sense to me.
My code looks like this:
(define (mymap f L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
(f (car L))
(else (mymap (f (cdr L))))))
I do understand the logic behind the functional approach when programming in this language, however I've been having great difficulties with coding it.
The first code snippet you posted is indeed one way to implement the map function. It uses a named let. See my comment on an URL on how it works. It basically is an abstraction over a recursive function. If you were to write a function that prints all numbers from 10 to 0 you could write it liks this
(define (printer x)
(display x)
(if (> x 0)
(printer (- x 1))))
and then call it:
(printer 10)
But, since its just a loop you could write it using a named let:
(let loop ((x 10))
(display x)
(if (> x 0)
(loop (- x 1))))
This named let is, as Alexis King pointed out, syntactic sugar for a lambda that is immediately called. The above construct is equivalent to the snippet shown below.
(letrec ((loop (lambda (x)
(display x)
(if (> x 0)
(loop (- x 1))))))
(loop 10))
In spite of being a letrec it's not really special. It allows for the expression (the lambda, in this case) to call itself. This way you can do recursion. More on letrec and let here.
Now for the map function you wrote, you are almost there. There is an issue with your two last cases. If the list is not empty you want to take the first element, apply your function to it and then apply the function to the rest of the list. I think you misunderstand what you actually have written down. Ill elaborate.
Recall that a conditional clause is formed like this:
(cond (test1? consequence)
(test2? consequence2)
(else elsebody))
You have any number of tests with an obligatory consequence. Your evaluator will execute test1? and if that evaluated to #t it will execute the consequence as the result of the entire conditional. If test1? and test2? fail it will execute elsebody.
Sidenote
Everything in Scheme is truthy except for #f (false). For example:
(if (lambda (x) x)
1
2)
This if test will evaluate to 1 because the if test will check if (lambda (x) x) is truthy, which it is. It is a lambda. Truthy values are values that will evaluate to true in an expression where truth values are expected (e.g., if and cond).
Now for your cond. The first case of your cond will test if L is null. If that is evaluated to #t, you return the empty list. That is indeed correct. Mapping something over the empty list is just the empty list.
The second case ((f (car L))) literally states "if f is true, then return the car of L".
The else case states "otherwise, return the result mymap on the rest of my list L".
What I think you really want to do is use an if test. If the list is empty, return the empty list. If it is not empty, apply the function to the first element of the list. Map the function over the rest of the list, and then add the result of applying the function the first element of the list to that result.
(define (mymap f L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
(f (car L))
(else (mymap (f (cdr L))))))
So what you want might look look this:
(define (mymap f L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
(else
(cons (f (car L))
(mymap f (cdr L))))))
Using an if:
(define (mymap f L)
(if (null? L) '()
(cons (f (car L))
(mymap f (cdr L)))))
Since you are new to Scheme this function will do just fine. Try and understand it. However, there are better and faster ways to implement this kind of functions. Read this page to understand things like accumulator functions and tail recursion. I will not go in to detail about everything here since its 1) not the question and 2) might be information overload.
If you're taking on implementing your own list procedures, you should probably make sure they're using a proper tail call, when possible
(define (map f xs)
(define (loop xs ys)
(if (empty? xs)
ys
(loop (cdr xs) (cons (f (car xs)) ys))))
(loop (reverse xs) empty))
(map (λ (x) (* x 10)) '(1 2 3 4 5))
; => '(10 20 30 40 50)
Or you can make this a little sweeter with the named let expression, as seen in your original code. This one, however, uses a proper tail call
(define (map f xs)
(let loop ([xs (reverse xs)] [ys empty])
(if (empty? xs)
ys
(loop (cdr xs) (cons (f (car xs)) ys)))))
(map (λ (x) (* x 10)) '(1 2 3 4 5))
; => '(10 20 30 40 50)
I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on with The Little Schemer's evens-only*&co example on page 145.
Here's the code:
(define evens-only*&co
(lambda (l col)
(cond
((null? l)
(col '() 1 0))
((atom? (car l))
(cond
((even? (car l))
(evens-only*&co (cdr l)
(lambda (newl product sum)
(col (cons (car l) newl)
(opx (car l) product)
sum))))
(else
(evens-only*&co (cdr l)
(lambda (newl product sum)
(col newl product (op+ (car l) sum)))))))
(else
(evens-only*&co (car l)
(lambda (newl product sum)
(evens-only*&co (cdr l)
(lambda (dnewl dproduct dsum)
(col (cons newl dnewl)
(opx product dproduct)
(op+ sum dsum))))))))))
The initial col can be:
(define evens-results
(lambda (newl product sum)
(cons sum (cons product newl))))
What I'm not getting is, with l as '((1) 2 3), it goes immediately into the final else with (car l) as (1) and (cdr l) as (2 3). Good, but my mind goes blank trying to sort out the dnewl, dproduct, dsum from the newl, product, sum. It also would be helpful if somebody could coach me on how to set up DrRacket or Chez Scheme or MIT-Scheme for running a stepper.
But maybe I'm spazzing too early. Is any beginner reading this for the first time actually supposed to understand this wild continuation?
I found this section confusing on first reading too, and only started to get it after I'd read up elsewhere about continuations and continuation-passing style (which is what this is).
At the risk of explaining something that you already get, one way of looking at it that helped me is to think of the "collector" or "continuation" as replacing the normal way for the function to return values. In the normal style of programming, you call a function, receive a value, and do something with it in the caller. For example, the standard recursive length function includes the expression (+ 1 (length (cdr list))) for the non-empty case. That means that once (length (cdr list)) returns a value, there's a computation waiting to happen with whatever value it produces, which we could think of as (+ 1 [returned value]). In normal programming, the interpreter keeps track of these pending computations, which tend to "stack up", as you can see in the first couple of chapters of the book. For example, in calculating the length of a list recursively we have a nest of "waiting computations" as many levels deep as the list is long.
In continuation-passing style, instead of calling a function and using the returned result in the calling function, we tell the function what to do when it produces its value by providing it with a "continuation" to call. (This is similar to what you have to do with callbacks in asynchronous Javascript programming, for example: instead of writing result = someFunction(); you write someFunction(function (result) { ... }), and all of the code that uses result goes inside the callback function).
Here's length in continuation-passing style, just for comparison. I've called the continuation parameter return, which should suggest how it functions here, but remember that it's just a normal Scheme variable like any other. (Often the continuation parameter is called k in this style).
(define (length/k lis return)
(cond ((null? lis) (return 0))
(else
(length/k (cdr lis)
(lambda (cdr-len)
(return (+ cdr-len 1)))))))
There is a helpful tip for reading this kind of code in an article on continuations by Little Schemer co-author Dan Friedman. (See section II-5 beginning on page 8). Paraphrasing, here's what the else clause above says:
imagine you have the result of calling length/k on (cdr lis), and
call it cdr-len, then add one and pass the result of this addition
to your continuation (return).
Note that this is almost exactly what the interpreter has to do in evaluating (+ 1 (length (cdr lis))) in the normal version of the function (except that it doesn't have to give a name to the intermediate result (length (cdr lis)). By passing around the continuations or callbacks we've made the control flow (and the names of intermediate values) explicit, instead of having the interpreter keep track of it.
Let's apply this method to each clause in evens-only*&co. It's slightly complicated here by the fact that this function produces three values rather than one: the nested list with odd numbers removed; the product of the even numbers; and the sum of the odd numbers. Here's the first clause, where (car l) is known to be an even number:
(evens-only*&co (cdr l)
(lambda (newl product sum)
(col (cons (car l) newl)
(opx (car l) product)
sum)))
Imagine that you have the results of removing odd numbers,
multiplying evens, and adding odd numbers from the cdr of the list,
and call them newl, product, and sum respectively. cons the
head of the list onto newl (since it's an even number, it should go
in the result); multiply product by the head of the list (since
we're calculating product of evens); leave sum alone; and pass these
three values to your waiting continuation col.
Here's the case where the head of the list is an odd number:
(evens-only*&co (cdr l)
(lambda (newl product sum)
(col newl product (op+ (car l) sum))))
As before, but pass the same values of newl and product to the continuation (i.e. "return" them), along with the sum of sum and the head of the list, since we're summing up odd numbers.
And here's the last one, where (car l) is a nested list, and which is slightly complicated by the double recursion:
(evens-only*&co (car l)
(lambda (newl product sum)
(evens-only*&co (cdr l)
(lambda (dnewl dproduct dsum)
(col (cons newl dnewl)
(opx product dproduct)
(op+ sum dsum))))))
Imagine you have the results from removing, summing and adding the
numbers in (car l) and call these newl, product, and sum; then
imagine you have the results from doing the same thing to (cdr l),
and call them dnewl, dproduct and dsum. To your waiting
continuation, give the values produced by consing newl and dnewl
(since we're producing a list of lists); multiplying together
product and dproduct; and adding sum and dsum.
Notice: each time we make a recursive call, we construct a new continuation for the recursive call, which "closes over" the current values of the argument, l, and the return continuation - col, in other words, you can think of the chain of continuations which we build up during the recursion as modelling the "call stack" of a more conventionally written function!
Hope that gives part of an answer to your question. If I've gone a little overboard, it's only because I thought that, after recursion itself, continuations are the second really neat, mind-expanding idea in The Little Schemer and programming in general.
The answer by Jon O. is a really great in-depth explanation of underlying concepts. Though for me (and hopefully, for some other people too), understanding of concepts like this is a lot more easier when they have a visual representation.
So, I have prepared two flow-charts (similar to ones I did for multirember&co, untangling what is happening during the call of evens-only*&co
given l is:
'((9 1 2 8) 3 10 ((9 9) 7 6) 2)
and col is:
(define the-last-friend
(lambda (newl product sum)
(cons sum (cons product newl))
)
)
One flow-chart, reflecting how variables relate in different steps of recursion:
Second flow-chart, showing the actual values, being passed:
My hope is, that this answer will be a decent addition to the Jon's explanation above.
I have been reading How To Design Programs (felleisen et.al.). I am going through the section where they define local definitions. I have written a code that implements the above evens-only&co using a local definition. Here's what I wrote:
(define (evens-only&co l)
(local ((define (processing-func sum prod evlst lst)
(cond ((null? lst) (cons sum (cons prod evlst)))
((atom? (car lst))
(cond ((even? (car lst)) (processing-func sum (* prod (car lst)) (append evlst (list (car lst))) (cdr lst)))
(else
(processing-func (+ sum (car lst)) prod evlst (cdr lst)))))
(else
(local ((define inner-lst (processing-func sum prod '() (car lst))))
(processing-func (car inner-lst) (cadr inner-lst) (append evlst (list (cddr inner-lst))) (cdr lst)))))))
(processing-func 0 1 '() l)))
For testing, when i enter (evens-only&co '((9 1 2 8) 3 10 ((9 9) 7 6) 2)) , it returns '(38 1920 (2 8) 10 (() 6) 2) as expected in the little schemer. But, my code fails in one condition: when there are no even numbers at all, the product of evens is still shown as 1. For example (evens-only&co '((9 1) 3 ((9 9) 7 ))) returns '(38 1 () (())). I guess i will need an additional function to rectify this.
#melwasul: If you are not familiar with the local definition, sorry to post this here. I suggest you read HTDP too. It's an excellent book for beginners.
But the guys who are experts in scheme can please post their comments on my code as well. Is my understanding of the local definition correct?
In equational pseudocode (a KRC-like notation, writing f x y for the call (f x y), where it is unambiguous), this is
evens-only*&co l col
= col [] 1 0 , IF null? l
= evens-only*&co (cdr l)
( newl product sum =>
col (cons (car l) newl)
(opx (car l) product)
sum ) , IF atom? (car l) && even? (car l)
= evens-only*&co (cdr l)
( newl product sum =>
col newl product (op+ (car l) sum) ) , IF atom? (car l)
= evens-only*&co (car l)
( anewl aproduct asum =>
evens-only*&co (cdr l)
( dnewl dproduct dsum =>
col (cons anewl dnewl)
(opx aproduct dproduct)
(op+ asum dsum) ) ) , OTHERWISE
This is a CPS code which collects all evens from the input nested list (i.e. a tree) while preserving the tree structure, and also finds the product of all the evens; as for the non-evens, it sums them up:
if l is an empty list, the three basic (identity) values are passed as arguments to col;
if (car l) is an even number, the results of processing the (cdr l) are newl, product and sum, and then they are passed as arguments to col while the first two are augmented by consing ⁄ multiplying with the (car l) (the even number);
if (car l) is an atom which is not an even number, the results of processing the (cdr l) are newl, product and sum, and then they are passed as arguments to col with the third one augmented by summing with the (car l) (the non-even number atom);
if (car l) is a list, the results of processing the (car l) are anewl, aproduct and asum, and then the results of processing the (cdr l) are dnewl, dproduct and dsum, and then the three combined results are passed as arguments to col.
[], 1 and 0 of the base case are the identity elements of the monoids of lists, numbers under multiplication, and numbers under addition, respectively. This just means special values that don't change the result, when combined into it.
As an illustration, for '((5) 2 3 4) (which is close to the example in the question), it creates the calculation
evens-only*&co [[5], 2, 3, 4] col
=
col (cons [] ; original structure w only the evens kept in,
(cons 2 ; for the car and the cdr parts
(cons 4 [])))
(opx 1 ; multiply the products of evens in the car and
(opx 2 (opx 4 1))) ; in the cdr parts
(op+ (op+ 5 0) ; sum, for the non-evens
(op+ 3 0))
Similar to my other answer (to a sister question), here's another way to write this, with a patter-matching pseudocode (with guards):
evens-only*&co = g where
g [a, ...xs...] col
| pair? a = g a ( la pa sa =>
g xs ( ld pd sd =>
col [la, ...ld...] (* pa pd) (+ sa sd) ) )
| even? a = g xs ( l p s => col [ a, ...l... ] (* a p ) s )
| otherwise = g xs ( l p s => col l p (+ a s ) )
g [] col = col [] 1 0
The economy (and diversity) of this notation really makes it all much clearer, easier to just see instead of getting lost in the word salad of long names for functions and variables alike, with parens overloaded as syntactic separators for list data, clause groupings (like in cond expressions), name bindings (in lambda expressions) and function call designators all looking exactly alike. The same uniformity of S-expressions notation so conducive to the ease of manipulation by a machine (i.e. lisp's read and macros) is what's detrimental to the human readability of it.
I need a function that will take in a list of characters and numbers, and then return the numbers added up (ignoring the characters). This is what I have so far:
(define (adder lst)
(cond
((null? lst)
0)
((number? (car lst))
(+(adder (car lst)) (adder (cdr lst))))
((char? (car lst))
((adder(cdr lst))))
))
(display (adder '(asd12sdf)))
Running it on codepad.org just displays void. I know the code is wrong because it looks wrong, but I have no idea how to fix it... How do I have the function keep track of the first number it finds and add it to the next one it finds, while skipping all characters?
In your second cond case, there's no reason to run adder on (car lst). Just adding (car list) itself to the recursive step should work.
For the last line, don't test (char? (car lst)). Just make the last line the else clause, meaning that anything BUT a number will go to the else line.
The reason you're getting void is because your input doesn't satisfy any of the cond conditions, and you have no else, so the answer is nothing (i.e. (void)).
The last mistake is in the input you're giving it. '(asd12sdf) is literally a list with one symbol named "asd12sdf". I think you want to give it '(a s d 1 2 s d f) (a list of 6 symbols and 2 numbers) which should result in 3. Notice that there's a very important difference between the symbol 'a and the character #\a.
It looks like you have the logic down, so your problem doesn't seem to be functional languages, just Scheme's syntax.
Edit: and in the last line, you have ((adder(cdr lst))) which has one too many parens wrapped around it. That will cause Scheme to attempt to evaluate the result of adder (which is a number) as a procedure (error!).
You should observe that this function is more or less sum which can be defined simply by using fold.
(define (adder lst)
(fold + 0 lst))
What does fold do? Basically, it's defined like so:
(define (fold f initial lst)
(if (null? lst)
initial
(fold f (f (car lst) initial) (cdr lst))))
(In other words, it calls f, a function of 2 arguments, on each element of lst, using the car of the lst as the first argument, and the accumulated result as the second argument to f.)
The issue here which you need to address is that + doesn't know how to operate on non-numeric values. No problem, you've already dealt with that. What happens if it's a character instead? Well, you're not adding anything to the total value, so replace it with a 0. Therefore, your solution is as simple as:
(define (adder lst)
(fold your-new-protected-+ 0 lst))
In Common Lisp:
(reduce #'+ '(1 #\a #\b 2 1 2 #\c #\d 4)
:key (lambda (item) (if (numberp item) item 0)))
or
(loop for item in '(1 #\a #\b 2 1 2 #\c #\d 4)
when (numberp item) sum item)