Can someone explain to me how the recursion works in the following function? Specifically, I am interested in what happens when the function reaches its base case. Also, why is a named let used in this code? (I am not familiar with named lets)
(define (unzip list-of-pairs)
(if (null? list-of-pairs)
(cons '() '())
(let ((unzipped (unzip (cdr list-of-pairs))))
(cons (cons (car (car list-of-pairs)) (car unzipped))
(cons (cdr (car list-of-pairs)) (cdr unzipped))))))
The procedure shown doesn't have anything special about it, you're just iterating over a list of this form:
'((1 . 2) (3 . 4) (5 . 6))
The only "weird" part is that the output is building two lists instead of the usual single list. As you know, when we're building a single list as output the base case is this:
(if (null? lst) '() ...)
But here, given that we're simultaneously building two lists, the base case looks like this:
(if (null? lst) (cons '() '()) ...)
The code in the question is not using a named let, it's just a plain old garden-variety let, there's nothing special about it. It's useful because we want to call the recursion only once, given that we need to obtain two values from the recursive call.
If we don't mind being inefficient, the procedure can be written without using let, at the cost of calling the recursion two times at each step:
(define (unzip list-of-pairs)
(if (null? list-of-pairs)
(cons '() '())
(cons (cons (car (car list-of-pairs))
(car (unzip (cdr list-of-pairs))))
(cons (cdr (car list-of-pairs))
(cdr (unzip (cdr list-of-pairs)))))))
Of course, the advantage of using let is that it avoids the double recursive call.
Related
This function is supposed to take a list (full of strings or ints, which is why it starts with that 'if' statement) and check to see if it is in ascending order.
I haven't been able to figure out how to keep it from crashing, as on the last recursive call, the 'cadr' has nothing to pull from, as the 'car' is the final element.
(define (my-sorted? lst)
(if (number? (car lst))
(if (< (car lst) (cadr lst))
(my-sorted? (rest lst))
#f)
#f)
)
I know that the sorted function exists, but I need to implement this function recursively.
Thanks for any help.
The two most basic lists that you should try are:
(my-sorted? '()) ; ==> #t (empty list is always sorted)
(my-sorted? '(1)) ; ==> #t (one element list is always sorted)
Your current code just does car and cadr on its argument so it will fail at different levels with these two tests.
The there is how to compare a number and something which is not a number. < expects both arguments to be numbers, but your list can be both strings and numbers. What is smaller of "x" and 7? You cannot do (< 7 "x").
Instead of nesting if you might consider cond which is lisps way of doing if-elseif-else. Basically you can do your code with cond like this:
(cond
((not (number? (car lst))) #f)
((< (car lst) (cadr lst)) (my-sorted? (rest lst))
(else #f))
EDIT
Since the list should either be all elements as string or all as number you simply can just determine the comparison function by looking at the first element and do your recursion with a named let and reuse the one based on the first element.
(define (my-sorted lst)
;; determine what comparison function to use, bind it to greater?
(define greater?
(if (and (pair? lst) (number? (car lst)))
>
string>?))
;; main recursive loop uses that one function
;; this can be done with define + call as well
(let loop ((lst lst))
(cond ((or (null? lst) (null? (cdr lst))) ...)
((greater? (car lst) (cadr lst)) ...)
(else (loop ...)))))
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 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)
"define a procedure 'reduce-per-key' which a procedure reducef and a list of associations in which each key is paired with a list. The output is a list of the same structure except that each key is now associated with the result of applying reducef to its associated list"
I've already written 'map-per-key' and 'group-by-key' :
(define (map-per-key mapf lls)
(cond
[(null? lls) '()]
[else (append (mapf (car lls))(map-per-key mapf (cdr lls)))]))
(define (addval kv lls)
(cond
[(null? lls) (list (list (car kv)(cdr kv)))]
[(eq? (caar lls) (car kv))
(cons (list (car kv) (cons (cadr kv) (cadar lls)))(cdr lls))]
[else (cons (car lls)(addval kv (cdr lls)))]))
(define (group-by-key lls)
(cond
[(null? lls) '()]
[else (addval (car lls) (group-by-key (cdr lls)))]))
how would I write the next step, 'reduce-per-key' ? I'm also having trouble determining if it calls for two arguments or three.
so far, I've come up with:
(define (reduce-per-key reducef lls)
(let loop ((val (car lls))
(lls (cdr lls)))
(if (null? lls) val
(loop (reducef val (car lls)) (cdr lls)))))
however, with a test case such as:
(reduce-per-key
(lambda (kv) (list (car kv) (length (cadr kv))))
(group-by-key
(map-per-key (lambda (kv) (list kv kv kv)) xs)))
I receive an incorrect argument count, but when I try to write it with three arguments, I also receive this error. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong?
Your solution is a lot more complicated than it needs to be, and has several errors. In fact, the correct answer is simple enough to make unnecessary the definition of new helper procedures. Try working on this skeleton of a solution, just fill-in the blanks:
(define (reduce-per-key reducef lls)
(if (null? lls) ; If the association list is empty, we're done
<???> ; and we can return the empty list.
(cons (cons <???> ; Otherwise, build a new association with the same key
<???>) ; and the result of mapping `reducef` on the key's value
(reduce-per-key <???> <???>)))) ; pass reducef, advance the recursion
Remember that there's a built-in procedure for mapping a function over a list. Test it like this:
(reduce-per-key (lambda (x) (* x x))
'((x 1 2) (y 3) (z 4 5 6)))
> '((x 1 4) (y 9) (z 16 25 36))
Notice that each association is composed of a key (the car part) and a list as its value (the cdr part). For example:
(define an-association '(x 3 6 9))
(car an-association)
> 'x ; the key
(cdr an-association)
> '(3 6 9) ; the value, it's a list
As a final thought, the name reduce-per-key is a bit misleading, map-per-key would be a lot more appropriate as this procedure can be easily expressed using map ... but that's left as an exercise for the reader.
UPDATE:
Now that you've found a solution, I can suggest a more concise alternative using map:
(define (reduce-per-key reducef lls)
(map (lambda (e) (cons (car e) (map reducef (cdr e))))
lls))
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)))))