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 am reading sicp, there's a problem (practice 1.29), I write a scheme function to solve the the question, but it seems that the recursive call of the function get the wrong answer. Really strange to me. The code is following:
(define simpson
(lambda (f a b n)
(let ((h (/ (- b a) n))
(k 0))
(letrec
((sum (lambda (term start next end)
(if (> start end)
0
(+ (term start)
(sum term (next start) next end)))))
(next (lambda (x)
(let ()
(set! k (+ k 1))
(+ x h))))
(term (lambda (x)
(cond
((= k 0) (f a))
((= k n) (f b))
((even? k) (* 2
(f x)))
(else (* 4
(f x)))))))
(sum term a next b)))))
I didn't get the right answer.
For example, if I try to call the simpson function like this:
(simpson (lambda (x) x) 0 1 4)
I expected to get the 6, but it returned 10 to me, I am not sure where the error is.It seems to me that the function "sum" defined inside of Simpson function is not right.
If I rewrite the sum function inside of simpson using the iteration instead of recursive, I get the right answer.
You need to multiply the sum with h/3:
(* 1/3 h (sum term a next b))
I was going through Structure and interpretation of computer programming by Brain harvey. I came across this question which i could not figure out how to do it.
How do we write recursive procedure with lambda in Scheme?
TL;DR: Use named let (if you are executing a recursive function immediately) or rec (if you are saving the recursive function for later execution).
The usual way is with letrec, or something that uses a letrec behind the scenes, like named let or rec. Here's a version of (factorial 10) using letrec:
(letrec ((factorial (lambda (x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))))
(factorial 10))
And the same thing using named let:
(let factorial ((x 10))
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))
The key understanding here is that both versions are exactly the same. A named let is just a macro that expands to the letrec form. So because the named let version is shorter, that is usually the preferred way to write a recursive function.
Now, you might ask, what if you want to return the recursive function object directly, rather than execute it? There, too, you can use letrec:
(letrec ((factorial (lambda (x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))))
factorial)
There, too, is a shorthand for this, although not using named let, but instead using rec:
(rec (factorial x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x)))
The nice thing about using rec here is that you can assign the function object to a variable and execute it later.
(define my-fact (rec (factorial x)
(if (< x 1) 1
(* (factorial (- x 1)) x))))
(my-fact 10) ; => 3628800
The more theoretical and "pure" way to create recursive functions is to use a Y combinator. :-) But most practical Scheme programs do not use this approach, so I won't discuss it further.
No need to write factorial body twice ;)
(((lambda (f)
(lambda (x)
(f f x)))
(lambda (fact x)
(if (= x 0) 1 (* x (fact fact (- x 1)))))) 5)
Here is a recursive function that calculates the factorial of 5 using lambda
((lambda (f x)
(if (= x 0)
1
(* x (f f (- x 1)))))
(lambda (f x)
(if (= x 0)
1
(* x (f f (- x 1)))))
5)
When you run this program in Drracket you get 120 :)
I'm in a Scheme class and I was curious about writing a recursive function without using define. The main problem, of course, is that you cannot call a function within itself if it doesn't have a name.
I did find this example: It's a factorial generator using only lambda.
((lambda (x) (x x))
(lambda (fact-gen)
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((fact-gen fact-gen) (sub1 n)))))))
But I can't even make sense of the first call, (lambda (x) (x x)): What exactly does that do? And where do you input the value you want to get the factorial of?
This is not for the class, this is just out of curiosity.
(lambda (x) (x x)) is a function that calls an argument, x, on itself.
The whole block of code you posted results in a function of one argument. You could call it like this:
(((lambda (x) (x x))
(lambda (fact-gen)
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((fact-gen fact-gen) (sub1 n)))))))
5)
That calls it with 5, and returns 120.
The easiest way to think about this at a high level is that the first function, (lambda (x) (x x)), is giving x a reference to itself so now x can refer to itself, and hence recurse.
The expression (lambda (x) (x x)) creates a function that, when evaluated with one argument (which must be a function), applies that function with itself as an argument.
Your given expression evaluates to a function that takes one numeric argument and returns the factorial of that argument. To try it:
(let ((factorial ((lambda (x) (x x))
(lambda (fact-gen)
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((fact-gen fact-gen) (sub1 n)))))))))
(display (factorial 5)))
There are several layers in your example, it's worthwhile to work through step by step and carefully examine what each does.
Basically what you have is a form similar to the Y combinator. If you refactored out the factorial specific code so that any recursive function could be implemented, then the remaining code would be the Y combinator.
I have gone through these steps myself for better understanding.
https://gist.github.com/z5h/238891
If you don't like what I've written, just do some googleing for Y Combinator (the function).
(lambda (x) (x x)) takes a function object, then invokes that object using one argument, the function object itself.
This is then called with another function, which takes that function object under the parameter name fact-gen. It returns a lambda that takes the actual argument, n. This is how the ((fact-gen fact-gen) (sub1 n)) works.
You should read the sample chapter (Chapter 9) from The Little Schemer if you can follow it. It discusses how to build functions of this type, and ultimately extracting this pattern out into the Y combinator (which can be used to provide recursion in general).
You define it like this:
(let ((fact #f))
(set! fact
(lambda (n) (if (< n 2) 1
(* n (fact (- n 1))))))
(fact 5))
which is how letrec really works. See LiSP by Christian Queinnec.
In the example you're asking about, the self-application combinator is called "U combinator",
(let ((U (lambda (x) (x x)))
(h (lambda (g)
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((g g) (sub1 n))))))))
((U h) 5))
The subtlety here is that, because of let's scoping rules, the lambda expressions can not refer to the names being defined.
When ((U h) 5) is called, it is reduced to ((h h) 5) application, inside the environment frame created by the let form.
Now the application of h to h creates new environment frame in which g points to h in the environment above it:
(let ((U (lambda (x) (x x)))
(h (lambda (g)
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((g g) (sub1 n))))))))
( (let ((g h))
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((g g) (sub1 n))))))
5))
The (lambda (n) ...) expression here is returned from inside that environment frame in which g points to h above it - as a closure object. I.e. a function of one argument, n, which also remembers the bindings for g, h, and U.
So when this closure is called, n gets assigned 5, and the if form is entered:
(let ((U (lambda (x) (x x)))
(h (lambda (g)
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((g g) (sub1 n))))))))
(let ((g h))
(let ((n 5))
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n ((g g) (sub1 n)))))))
The (g g) application gets reduced into (h h) application because g points to h defined in the environment frame above the environment in which the closure object was created. Which is to say, up there, in the top let form. But we've already seen the reduction of (h h) call, which created the closure i.e. the function of one argument n, serving as our factorial function, which on the next iteration will be called with 4, then 3 etc.
Whether it will be a new closure object or same closure object will be reused, depends on a compiler. This can have an impact on performance, but not on semantics of the recursion.
I like this question. 'The scheme programming language' is a good book. My idea is from Chapter 2 of that book.
First, we know this:
(letrec ((fact (lambda (n) (if (= n 1) 1 (* (fact (- n 1)) n))))) (fact 5))
With letrec we can make functions recursively. And we see when we call (fact 5), fact is already bound to a function. If we have another function, we can call it this way (another fact 5), and now another is called binary function (my English is not good, sorry). We can define another as this:
(let ((another (lambda (f x) .... (f x) ...))) (another fact 5))
Why not we define fact this way?
(let ((fact (lambda (f n) (if (= n 1) 1 (* n (f f (- n 1))))))) (fact fact 5))
If fact is a binary function, then it can be called with a function f and integer n, in which case function f happens to be fact itself.
If you got all the above, you could write Y combinator now, making a substitution of let with lambda.
With a single lambda it's not possible. But using two or more lambda's it is possible. As, all other solutions are using three lambdas or let/letrec, I'm going to explain the method using two lambdas:
((lambda (f x)
(f f x))
(lambda (self n)
(if (= n 0)
1
(* n (self self (- n 1)))))
5)
And the output is 120.
Here,
(lambda (f x) (f f x)) produces a lambda that takes two arguments, the first one is a lambda(lets call it f) and the second is the parameter(let's call it x). Notice, in its body it calls the provided lambda f with f and x.
Now, lambda f(from point 1) i.e. self is what we want to recurse. See, when calling self recursively, we also pass self as the first argument and (- n 1) as the second argument.
I was curious about writing a recursive function without using define.
The main problem, of course, is that you cannot call a function within
itself if it doesn't have a name.
A little off-topic here, but seeing the above statements I just wanted to let you know that "without using define" does not mean "doesn't have a name". It is possible to give something a name and use it recursively in Scheme without define.
(letrec
((fact
(lambda (n)
(if (zero? n)
1
(* n (fact (sub1 n)))))))
(fact 5))
It would be more clear if your question specifically says "anonymous recursion".
I found this question because I needed a recursive helper function inside a macro, where one can't use define.
One wants to understand (lambda (x) (x x)) and the Y-combinator, but named let gets the job done without scaring off tourists:
((lambda (n)
(let sub ((i n) (z 1))
(if (zero? i)
z
(sub (- i 1) (* z i)) )))
5 )
One can also put off understanding (lambda (x) (x x)) and the Y-combinator, if code like this suffices. Scheme, like Haskell and the Milky Way, harbors a massive black hole at its center. Many a formerly productive programmer gets entranced by the mathematical beauty of these black holes, and is never seen again.