I am trying to remove a given symbol from a list.
Here is the code i wrote:
(define member?
(lambda (in-sym in-seq)
(if (and (symbol? in-sym) (sequence? in-seq))
(if (null? in-seq)
'()
(append
(if (equal? in-sym (car in-seq)) '() (list (car in-seq)))
(member? in-sym (cdr in-seq)))))))
It turns out that i remove all occurences of the given symbol although i want to remove only the first occurence. Can somebody help me with this?
You can use a built-in procedure for this, check if your interpreter provides remove:
(remove 'b '(a b b c b))
=> '(a b c b)
Now, if you intend to implement the functionality yourself, I advice you to split the problem in two parts: one procedure that checks if the procedure can be executed (if inSymbol is a symbol and inSeq is a sequence), and the other, remove-member that performs the actual removal of data:
(define member?
(lambda (inSym inSeq)
(if (and (symbol? inSym) (sequence? inSeq)) ; can remove?
(remove-member inSym inSeq) ; then remove!
'can-not-remove))) ; otherwise, present an error message
(define remove-member
(lambda (inSym inSeq)
(cond ((null? inSeq)
'())
((equal? (car inSeq) inSym)
(cdr inSeq))
(else
(cons (car inSeq)
(remove-member inSym (cdr inSeq)))))))
Your problem is that you append to ( member? inSym ( cdr inSeq)) whether you found the symbol or not. What you want to do is this:
(define member?
(lambda (inSym inSeq)
(if (and (symbol? inSym) (sequence? inSeq))
(if (null? inSeq) '()
(if (equal? inSym (car inSeq)) (cdr inSeq)
(append (list (car inSec)) (member? inSym (cdr inSeq)))
)
)
)
)
)
I.e. if you found the symbol, just return (cdr inSeq) instead because you are done.
Related
Can someone show me the error in this code please?
I want to generalize the member function to support nested lists. I need to search thing inside the nested list and return the rest of the list when I found thing. I don't really understand whats wrong with the code below.
(define (memberk thing lis)
(cond
((null? lis) #f)
((list? (car lis))
(cons (memberk thing (car lis))
(memberk thing (cdr lis))))
(else
(if (equal? (car lis) thing)
lis
(memberk thing (cdr lis))))))
Expexted output: (memberk 3 '(1 4 (3 1) 2)) = '((3 1) 2)
Actual output from the code above: '((3 1) . #f)
So how I see this you would like the top level cons that has the key found somewhere in car. I'm thinking something like:
(define (memberk needle lst)
(define (found? haystack)
(or (equal? needle haystack)
(and (pair? haystack)
(or (found? (car haystack))
(found? (cdr haystack))))))
(let loop ((lst lst))
(cond ((null? lst) #f)
((found? (car lst)) lst)
(else (loop (cdr lst))))))
(memberk '(a) '(a b (b (a) c) c d)) ; ==> ((b (a) c) c d)
Something like this?
It is a bit unclear what you want - since there is only one test case.
(define (memberk thing lis)
(cond
[(null? lis)
#f]
[(and (cons? (car lis)) (memberk thing (car lis)))
=> (λ (found) (cons found (cdr lis)))]
[(equal? (car lis) thing)
lis]
[else
(memberk thing (cdr lis))]))
I'm writing a recursive function that will convert an expression from prefix to infix. However, I need to add in a check to make sure part of the input is not already in infix.
For example, I may get input like (+ (1 + 2) 3).
I want to change this to ((1 + 2) + 3)
Here is what I have so far:
(define (finalizePrefixToInfix lst)
;Convert a given s-expression to infix notation
(define operand (car lst))
(define operator1 (cadr lst))
(define operator2 (caddr lst))
(display lst)
(cond
((and (list? lst) (symbol? operand));Is the s-expression a list?
;It was a list. Recusively call the operands of the list and return in infix format
(display "recursing")
(list (finalizePrefixToInfix operator1) operand (finalizePrefixToInfix operator2))
)
(else (display "not recursing") lst);It was not a list. We can not reformat, so return.
)
)
However, this is giving me syntax errors but I cant figure out why. Any help?
You have to check to see if the lst parameter is a list at the very beginning (base case), otherwise car and friends will fail when applied to an atom. Try this:
(define (finalizePrefixToInfix lst)
(cond ((not (pair? lst)) lst)
(else
(define operand (car lst))
(define operator1 (cadr lst))
(define operator2 (caddr lst))
(cond
((symbol? operand)
(list (finalizePrefixToInfix operator1)
operand
(finalizePrefixToInfix operator2)))
(else lst)))))
I have tried many times but I still stuck in this problem, here is my input:
(define *graph*
'((a . 2) (b . 2) (c . 1) (e . 1) (f . 1)))
and I want the output to be like this: ((2 a b) (1 c e f))
Here is my code:
(define group-by-degree
(lambda (out-degree)
(if (null? (car (cdr out-degree)))
'done
(if (equal? (cdr (car out-degree)) (cdr (car (cdr out-degree))))
(list (cdr (car out-degree)) (append (car (car out-degree))))
(group-by-degree (cdr out-degree))))))
Can you please show me what I have done wrong cos the output of my code is (2 a). Then I think the idea of my code is correct.
Please help!!!
A very nice and elegant way to solve this problem, would be to use hash tables to keep track of the pairs found in the list. In this way we only need a single pass over the input list:
(define (group-by-degree lst)
(hash->list
(foldl (lambda (key ht)
(hash-update
ht
(cdr key)
(lambda (x) (cons (car key) x))
'()))
'#hash()
lst)))
The result will appear in a different order than the one shown in the question, but nevertheless it's correct:
(group-by-degree *graph*)
=> '((1 f e c) (2 b a))
If the order in the output list is a problem try this instead, it's less efficient than the previous answer, but the output will be identical to the one in the question:
(define (group-by-degree lst)
(reverse
(hash->list
(foldr (lambda (key ht)
(hash-update
ht
(cdr key)
(lambda (x) (cons (car key) x))
'()))
'#hash()
lst))))
(group-by-degree *graph*)
=> '((2 a b) (1 c e f))
I don't know why the lambda is necessary; you can directly define a function with (define (function arg1 arg2 ...) ...)
That aside, however, to put it briefly, the problen is that the cars and cdrs are messed up. I couldn't find a way to tweak your solution to work, but here is a working implementation:
; appends first element of pair into a sublist whose first element
; matches the second of the pair
(define (my-append new lst) ; new is a pair
(if (null? lst)
(list (list (cdr new) (car new)))
(if (equal? (car (car lst)) (cdr new))
(list (append (car lst) (list (car new))))
(append (list (car lst)) (my-append new (cdr lst)))
)
)
)
; parses through a list of pairs and appends them into the list
; according to my-append
(define (my-combine ind)
(if (null? ind)
'()
(my-append (car ind) (my-combine (cdr ind))))
)
; just a wrapper for my-combine, which evaluates the list backwards
; this sets the order right
(define (group-by-degree out-degree)
(my-combine (reverse out-degree)))
"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))
Just trying to get back into the swing of scheme again, because everyone loves recursion.. (mhhmnmm.)
anyways trying to return #t or #f to determine whether all elements in a list are unique.
Comparing 1st element and 2nd element no problem. It's recursively continuing..
(define (unique ls)
(if (null? ls) #t
(equal? (car ls)(car(cdr ls)))))
I'll write a different, simpler function that demonstrates looping. Hopefully between that and what you have, you'll get there. :-)
(define (member x lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #f)
((equal? x (car lst)) lst)
(else (member x (cdr lst)))))
Another example:
(define (assoc x alist)
(cond ((null? alist) #f)
((equal? x (caar alist)) (car alist))
(else (assoc x (cdr alist)))))
Well your (equal?) invocation is incomplete. If the head and head-of-the-tail are equal, then the value of "unique" is false. If they're not equal, then you'd return the value of unique as applied to the tail (cdr) of the list.
(It's implicit in your proto-implementation that you're checking a pre-sorted list. If not, then that's another step to take.)
(use srfi-1)
(define (unique? ls) (eq? (length ls) (length (delete-duplicates ls))))