I am watching SICP video lectures and i came to a section where tutors are showing procedures to work with lists, so, here is one of them:
(define (map p l)
(if (null? l)
(list)
(cons (p (car l))
(map p (cdr l)))))
What i want to ask is: is there a way to define map in iterative way, or that cons requires lazy evaluation to be executed right?
You original code is almost tail recursive.. the only thing that makes it not is the cons part. If Scheme had equal requirement for having TRMC optimization as it has TCO requirement you could leave your code as is and the implementation would have made it tail recursive for you.
Since it isn't a requirement we need to do our own TRMC optimization. Usually when iterating a list in a loop and having it tail recursive by using an accumulator you get the result in the opposite order, thus you can do linear update reverse:
(define (map proc lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (acc '()))
(cond ((null? lst) (reverse! acc) acc)
(else (loop (cdr lst)
(cons (proc (car lst)) acc))))))
Or you can do it all in one pass:
(define (map proc lst)
(define head (list 1))
(let loop ((tail head) (lst lst))
(cond ((null? lst) (cdr head))
(else (set-cdr! tail (list (proc (car lst))))
(loop (cdr tail) (cdr lst))))))
Now in both cases you mutate only the structure the procedure has itself created, thus for the user it might as well be implemented in the same manner as your example.
When you use higher order procedures like map from your implementation it could happen it has been implemented like this. It's easy to find out by comparing performance on the supplied map with the different implementations with a very long list. The difference between the executions would tell you if it's TRMCO or how the supplied map probably has been implemented.
You need to embrace recursion in order to appreciate SICP and Scheme in general, so try to get used to it, you will appreciate it later, promised.
But yes, you can:
(define (iterative-map f lst)
(define res null)
(do ((i (- (length lst) 1) (- i 1))) ((= i -1))
(set! res (cons (f (list-ref lst i)) res)))
res)
(iterative-map (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) '(1 3 5))
=> '(2 4 6)
but using set! is considered bad style if avoidable.
In Racket you have a different set of loops that are more elegant:
(define (for-map f lst)
(for/list ((i lst))
(f i)))
(for-map add1 '(1 3 5))
=> '(2 4 6)
Related
Was wondering if there's an alternative for using set! in scheme/racket.
Working on assignments and we're not allowed to use set!
For one of my functions I have an incrementer
(set! count (+ count 1))
Was wondering how I would change this so that it won't make use of set!
Presumably, the reason you're not allowed to use set! is that you're being asked to solve problems in a functional way, rather than an imperative way. Let me illustrate with two different functions that both determine the length of a list:
#lang racket
(require rackunit)
(define count 0)
(define (imperative-length l)
(cond [(empty? l) count]
[else (set! count (+ 1 count))
(imperative-length (rest l))]))
(check-equal? (imperative-length '(4 3 2 1)) 4)
(define (functional-length l)
(cond [(empty? l) 0]
[else (+ 1 (functional-length (rest l)))]))
(check-equal? (functional-length '(4 3 2 1)) 4)
;; what happens if we try calling imperative-length again?
(check-equal? (imperative-length '(4 3 2 1)) 4)
;; oh no!
;; what happens if we try calling functional-length again?
(check-equal? (functional-length '(4 3 2 1)) 4)
;; yep, works fine.
Both of these functions work fine, but the functional one can be called repeatedly. But! But! you might say, I just need to remember to set the counter back to zero, or to put the binding of count inside the function. This is true, but in general, functional solutions don't require the programmer to worry about this kind of interaction at all.
So, what does this mean for you? It probably means that you need to pass the count along as another argument. Just a guess.
set! is never needed. Imagine you have this program:
(define (count lst)
(define num 0)
(define (helper lst)
(when (not (null? lst))
(set! num (+ num 1))
(helper (cdr lst))))
(helper lst)
num)
This is almost Fortran with lisp syntax. How would this be done witout set!. One way is by using boxes:
(define (count lst)
(define num (list 0))
(define (helper lst)
(when (not (null? lst))
(set-car! num (+ (car num) 1))
(helper (cdr lst))))
(helper lst)
(car num))
As explained in the SICP videos when you introduce one mutation you sort of can use that to do all types of mutation. As trivia this is a transformation that often is done by Scheme compilers so in many cases the implementations base language has set-car! and not set!. How about doing it without mutation? The trick is to shadow the binding:
(define (count lst)
(define (helper num lst)
(if (not (null? lst))
(helper (+ num 1) (cdr lst))
num))
(helper 0 lst))
This actually got simpler. Imagine you only need to update some of the variables, then you just recurse with the same ones in the other places.
I want to append the element b to the list a (let's say (a1, a2, ... an)), e.g. appending the number 3 to (1 2) gives (1 2 3)
So far I've been doing
(append a (list b)), which is kind of long and inelegant, so I wonder if there's a "better" way...
Are you building a list piecemeal, an item at a time? If so, the idiomatic way to do this is to build the list backward, using cons, and then reversing the final result:
(define (map-using-cons-and-reverse f lst)
(let loop ((result '())
(rest lst))
(if (null? rest)
(reverse result)
(loop (cons (f (car rest)) (cdr rest))))))
Alternatively, if your list-building is amenable to a "right-fold" recursive approach, that is also idiomatic:
(define (map-using-recursion f lst)
(let recur ((rest lst))
(if (null? rest)
'()
(cons (f (car rest)) (recur (cdr rest))))))
The above code snippets are just for illustrating the solution approach to take in the general case; for things that are directly implementable using fold, like map, using fold is more idiomatic:
(define (map-using-cons-and-reverse f lst)
(reverse (foldl (lambda (item result)
(cons (f item) result))
'() lst)))
(define (map-using-recursion f lst)
(foldr (lambda (item result)
(cons (f item) result))
'() lst))
How frequent do you have to append to the end?
If you want to do it a lot (more than cons'ing to the front), then you are doing it wrong. The right way is to flip things around: think that cons put things to the back, first retrieves the last element, rest retrieves everything but last, etc. Then, you can use list normally.
However, if you want to put things to the end of the list as frequent as to cons things to the front, then this is the best that you can do with one list. You could write a function to wrap what you consider "inelegant". Traditionally it's called snoc (backward cons)
(define (snoc lst e) (append lst (list e)))
Or if you prefer to implement the whole thing by yourself:
(define (snoc lst e)
(cond
[(empty? lst) (list e)]
[(cons? lst) (cons (first lst) (snoc (rest lst) e))]))
Note that both approaches have the same time complexity: O(n) where n is length of the list.
But if you want it to be efficient, you can use a data structure called double-ended queue, which is very efficient (constant time per operation). See http://www.westpoint.edu/eecs/SiteAssets/SitePages/Faculty%20Publication%20Documents/Okasaki/jfp95queue.pdf for more details.
I'm trying to have the following program work, but for some reason it keeps telling me that my input doesnt contain the correct amount of arguments, why? here is the program
(define (sum f lst)
(cond
((null? lst)
0)
((pair? (car lst))
(+(f(sum (f car lst))) (f(sum (f cdr lst)))))
(else
(+ (f(car lst)) (f(sum (f cdr lst)))))))
and here is my input: (sum (lambda (x) (* x x)) '(1 2 3))
Thanks!
btw I take no credit for the code, Im just having fun with this one (http://groups.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis400/scheme/listsum.htm)
You're indeed passing the wrong number of arguments to the procedures sum and f, notice that the expressions (sum (f car lst)), (sum (f cdr lst)) are wrong, surely you meant (sum f (car lst)), (sum f (cdr lst)) - you don't want to apply f (a single-parameter procedure) to the two parameters that you're passing, and sum expects two arguments, but only one is passed. Try this instead:
(define (sum f lst)
(cond ((null? lst)
0)
((pair? (car lst))
(+ (sum f (car lst)) (sum f (cdr lst))))
(else
(+ (f (car lst)) (sum f (cdr lst))))))
More important: you're calling the f procedure in the wrong places. Only one call is needed in the last line, for the case when (car lst) is just a number and not a list - in the other places, both (car lst) and (cdr lst) are lists that need to be traversed; simply pass f around as a parameter taking care of correctly advancing the recursion.
Let's try the corrected procedure with a more interesting input - as it is, the procedure is capable of finding the sum of a list of arbitrarily nested lists:
(sum (lambda (x) (* x x)) '(1 (2) (3 (4)) 5))
> 55
You should take a look at either The Little Schemer or How to Design Programs, both books will teach you how to structure the solution for this kind of recursive problems over lists of lists.
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.
My task is to write function in lisp which finds maximum of a list given as argument of the function, by using recursion.I've tried but i have some errors.I'm new in Lisp and i am using cusp plugin for eclipse.This is my code:
(defun maximum (l)
(if (eq((length l) 1)) (car l)
(if (> (car l) (max(cdr l)))
(car l)
(max (cdr l))
))
If this isn't a homework question, you should prefer something like this:
(defun maximum (list)
(loop for element in list maximizing element))
Or even:
(defun maximum (list)
(reduce #'max list))
(Both behave differently for empty lists, though)
If you really need a recursive solution, you should try to make your function more efficient, and/or tail recursive. Take a look at Diego's and Vatine's answers for a much more idiomatic and efficient recursive implementation.
Now, about your code:
It's pretty wrong on the "Lisp side", even though you seem to have an idea as to how to solve the problem at hand. I doubt that you spent much time trying to learn lisp fundamentals. The parentheses are messed up -- There is a closing parenthesis missing, and in ((length l) 1), you should note that the first element in an evaluated list will be used as an operator. Also, you do not really recurse, because you're trying to call max (not maximize). Finally, don't use #'eq for numeric comparison. Also, your code will be much more readable (not only for others), if you format and indent it in the conventional way.
You really should consider spending some time with a basic Lisp tutorial, since your question clearly shows lack of understanding even the most basic things about Lisp, like the evaluation rules.
I see no answers truly recursive and I've written one just to practice Common-Lisp (currently learning). The previous answer that included a recursive version was inefficient, as it calls twice maximum recursively. You can write something like this:
(defun my-max (lst)
(labels ((rec-max (lst actual-max)
(if (null lst)
actual-max
(let ((new-max (if (> (car lst) actual-max) (car lst) actual-max)))
(rec-max (cdr lst) new-max)))))
(when lst (rec-max (cdr lst) (car lst)))))
This is (tail) recursive and O(n).
I think your problem lies in the fact that you refer to max instead of maximum, which is the actual function name.
This code behaves correctly:
(defun maximum (l)
(if (= (length l) 1)
(car l)
(if (> (car l) (maximum (cdr l)))
(car l)
(maximum (cdr l)))))
As written, that code implies some interesting inefficiencies (it doesn't have them, because you're calling cl:max instead of recursively calling your own function).
Function calls in Common Lisp are typically not memoized, so if you're calling your maximum on a long list, you'll end up with exponential run-time.
There are a few things you can do, to improve the performance.
The first thing is to carry the maximum with you, down the recursion, relying on having it returned to you.
The second is to never use the idiom (= (length list) 1). That is O(n) in list-length, but equivalent to (null (cdr list)) in the case of true lists and the latter is O(1).
The third is to use local variables. In Common Lisp, they're typically introduced by let. If you'd done something like:
(let ((tail-max (maximum (cdr l))))
(if (> (car l) tail-max)
(car l)
tail-max))
You would've had instantly gone from exponential to, I believe, quadratic. If in combination had done the (null (cdr l)) thing, you would've dropped to O(n). If you also had carried the max-seen-so-far down the list, you would have dropped to O(n) time and O(1) space.
if i need to do the max code in iteration not recursive how the code will be ??
i first did an array
(do do-array (d l)
setf b (make-array (length d))
(do (((i=0)(temp d))
((> i (- l 1)) (return))
(setf (aref b i) (car temp))
(setq i (+ i 1))
(setq temp (cdr temp))))
I made this, hope it helps and it is recursive.
(defun compara ( n lista)
(if(endp lista)
n
(if(< n (first lista))
nil
(compara n (rest lista)))))
(defun max_lista(lista)
(if (endp lista)
nil
(if(compara (first lista) (rest lista))
(first lista)
(max_lista(rest lista)))))
A proper tail-recursive solution
(defun maximum (lst)
(if (null lst)
nil
(maximum-aux (car lst) (cdr lst))))
(defun maximum-aux (m lst)
(cond
((null lst) m)
((>= m (car lst)) (maximum-aux m (cdr lst)))
(t (maximum-aux (car lst) (cdr lst)))))
(defun maxx (l)
(if (null l)
0
(if(> (car l) (maxx(cdr l)))
(car l)
(maxx (cdr l)))))