It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am try to create a function with two arguments x and y which creates a list of y times repeated elements X but im getting confused on how to do it which or which method to use i think list compression can do but i want a shorter and simple method for example i want my simple code to be like this
if y = 4
and x = 7
result is list of elements (7, 7, 7, 7)
how can i go about it any ideas?? books links or anything that will give me a clue i tried searching but i have not been lucky
You can use make-list with the initial-element key:
CL-USER> (make-list 10 :initial-element 8)
(8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8)
While a good example of how you can code such a function by yourself is provided by Óscar answer.
Try this, it's in Scheme but the general idea should be easy enough to translate to Common Lisp:
(define (repeat x y)
(if (zero? y)
null
(cons x
(repeat x (sub1 y)))))
EDIT:
Now, in Common Lisp:
(defun repeat (x y)
(if (zerop y)
nil
(cons x
(repeat x (1- y)))))
Related
I'd like to find out what is the commonly accepted way to create a sorted list of random numbers in Common Lisp. In Clojure it is quite straightforward:
(sort (take 10 (repeatedly #(rand 10))))
I've found that in CL the following works:
(sort (loop for n below 10 collect (random 10)) #'<)
but does not read as well. Is there a cleaner way to express the same thing?
Almost:
(sort (loop repeat 10 collect (random 10)) #'<)
I think that sds's answer is a pretty good choice here, but there's also the potential to use the helpful map-into, which could be valuable if you need to do this a lot, and can reuse one of your existing lists (or vectors). It also has the advantage it separates the list generation code from the random number generation code; if you need to increase the number of elements in the list, you don't have to modify the sorting or random number generation code.
(sort (map-into (make-list 10) #'(lambda () (random 10))) '<)
;=> (0 2 2 2 4 5 6 6 8 9)
(let ((l (make-list 10)))
(sort (map-into l #'(lambda () (random 10))) '<))
;=> (1 1 3 3 4 6 7 8 8 9)
I was wondering if there was a way to take a list of numbers (digits), and truncate the numbers together to be one large number (not addition) in Scheme. For example, I would want
(foo '(1 2 3 4))
;=> 1234
Does Scheme have a built in function to do this?
There are a number of languages that are in the Scheme family, and there are a few versions of Scheme, too. If you're using one, e.g., Racket, that includes a left associative fold (often called foldl, fold, or reduce, though there are other variations, too), this is pretty straightfoward to implement in terms of the fold. Folds have been described in more detail in these questions and answers:
Finding maximum distance between two points in a list (scheme) This question includes a description of how fold can be viewed as an iterative construct (and in Scheme, which mandates tail call optimization, is compiled to iterative code), and also includes an implementation of foldl for Schemes that don't have it.
Flattening a List of Lists This question is about a somewhat unusual fold, and how it (or a standard fold) can be used to flatten a list.
scheme structures and lists This question has an example of how you might adjust the function that you pass to a fold to achieve slightly different behavior. (I also include an opinionated (but true ;), I assure you) comment about how Common Lisp's reduce provides a somewhat more convenient interface than what's provided in some of the Scheme libraries.
Here's what the code looks like in terms of foldl:
(define (list->num digits)
(foldl (lambda (digit n)
(+ (* 10 n) digit))
0
digits))
> (list->num '(1 2 3 4))
1234
If your language doesn't have it, foldl is pretty easy to write (e.g., my answer to the one of the questions above includes an implementation) and use the preceding code, or you can write the whole function (using the same approach) yourself:
(define (list->num-helper digits number-so-far)
(if (null? digits)
number-so-far
(list->num-helper (cdr digits)
(+ (* 10 number-so-far)
(car digits)))))
(define (list->num digits)
(list->num-helper digits 0))
You can make that a bit more concise by using a named let:
(define (list->num digits)
(let l->n ((digits digits)
(number 0))
(if (null? digits)
number
(l->n (cdr digits)
(+ (* 10 number)
(car digits))))))
I am fairly new to lisp and this is one of the practice problems.
First of all, this problem is from simply scheme. I am not sure how to answer this.
The purpose of this question is to write the function, count-odd that takes a sentence as its input and count how many odd digits are contained in it as shown below:
(count-odd'(234 556 4 10 97))
6
or
(count-odd '(24680 42 88))
0
If possible, how would you be able to do it, using higher order functions, or recursion or both - whatever gets the job done.
I'll give you a few pointers, not a full solution:
First of all, I see 2 distinct ways of doing this, recursion or higher order functions + recursion. For this case, I think straight recursion is easier to grok.
So we'll want a function which takes in a list and does stuff, so
(define count-odd
(lambda (ls) SOMETHING))
So this is recursive, so we'd want to split the list
(define count-odd
(lambda (ls)
(let ((head (car ls)) (rest (cdr ls)))
SOMETHING)))
Now this has a problem, it's an error for an empty list (eg (count-odd '())), but I'll let you figure out how to fix that. Hint, check out scheme's case expression, it makes it easy to check and deal with an empty list
Now something is our recursion so for something something like:
(+ (if (is-odd head) 1 0) (Figure out how many odds are in rest))
That should give you something to start on. If you have any specific questions later, feel free to post more questions.
Please take first into consideration the other answer guide so that you try to do it by yourself. The following is a different way of solving it. Here is a tested full solution:
(define (count-odd num_list)
(if (null? num_list)
0
(+ (num_odds (car num_list)) (count-odd (cdr num_list)))))
(define (num_odds number)
(if (zero? number)
0
(+ (if (odd? number) 1 0) (num_odds (quotient number 10)))))
Both procedures are recursive.
count-odd keeps getting the first element of a list and passing it to num_odds until there is no element left in the list (that is the base case, a null list).
num_odds gets the amount of odd digits of a number. To do so, always asks if the number is odd in which case it will add 1, otherwise 0. Then the number is divided by 10 to remove the least significant digit (which determines if the number is odd or even) and is passed as argument to a new call. The process repeats until the number is zero (base case).
Try to solve the problem by hand using only recursion before jumping to a higher-order solution; for that, I'd suggest to take a look at the other answers. After you have done that, aim for a practical solution using the tools at your disposal - I would divide the problem in two parts.
First, how to split a positive integer in a list of its digits; this is a recursive procedure over the input number. There are several ways to do this - by first converting the number to a string, or by using arithmetic operations to extract the digits, to name a few. I'll use the later, with a tail-recursive implementation:
(define (split-digits n)
(let loop ((n n)
(acc '()))
(if (< n 10)
(cons n acc)
(loop (quotient n 10)
(cons (remainder n 10) acc)))))
With this, we can solve the problem in terms of higher-order functions, the structure of the solution mirrors the mental process used to solve the problem by hand:
First, we iterate over all the numbers in the input list (using map)
Split each number in the digits that compose it (using split-digits)
Count how many of those digits are odd, this gives a partial solution for just one number (using count)
Add all the partial solutions in the list returned by map (using apply)
This is how it looks:
(define (count-odd lst)
(apply +
(map (lambda (x)
(count odd? (split-digits x)))
lst)))
Don't be confused if some of the other solutions look strange. Simply Scheme uses non-standard definitions for first and butfirst. Here is a solution, that I hope follows Simply Scheme friendly.
Here is one strategy to solve the problem:
turn the number into a list of digits
transform into a list of zero and ones (zero=even, one=odd)
add the numbers in the list
Example: 123 -> '(1 2 3) -> '(1 0 1) -> 2
(define (digit? x)
(<= 0 x 9))
(define (number->digits x)
(if (digit? x)
(list x)
(cons (remainder x 10)
(number->digits (quotient x 10)))))
(define (digit->zero/one d)
(if (even? d) 0 1))
(define (digits->zero/ones ds)
(map digit->zero/one ds))
(define (add-numbers xs)
(if (null? xs)
0
(+ (first xs)
(add-numbers (butfirst xs)))))
(define (count-odds x)
(add-numbers
(digits->zero/ones
(number->digits x))))
The above is untested, so you might need to fix a few typos.
I think this is a good way, too.
(define (count-odd sequence)
(length (filter odd? sequence)))
(define (odd? num)
(= (remainder num 2) 1))
(count-odd '(234 556 4 10 97))
Hope this will help~
The (length sequence) will return the sequence's length,
(filter proc sequence) will return a sequence that contains all the elements satisfy the proc.
And you can define a function called (odd? num)
I read a lot of documentation about Clojure (and shall need to read it again) and read several Clojure questions here on SO to get a "feel" of the language. Besides a few tiny functions in elisp I've never written in any Lisp language before. I wrote my first project Euler solution in Clojure and before going further I'd like to better understand something about map and reduce.
Using a lambda, I ended up with the following (to sum all multiple of either 3 or 5 or both between 1 and 1000 inclusive):
(reduce + (map #(if (or (= 0 (mod %1 3)) (= 0 (mod %1 5))) %1 0) (range 1 1000)))
I put it on one line because I wrote it on the REPL (and it gives the correct solution).
Without the lambda, I wrote this:
(defn val [x] (if (or (= 0 (mod x 3)) (= 0 (mod x 5))) x 0))
And then I compute the solution doing this:
(reduce + (map val (range 1 1000)))
In both cases, my question concerns what the map should return, before doing the reduce. After doing the map I noticed I ended up with a list looking like this: (0 0 3 0 5 6 ...).
I tried removing the '0' at the end of the val definition but then I received a list made of (nil nil 3 nil 5 6 etc.). I don't know if the nil are an issue or not. I figured out that I was going to sum while doing a fold-left anyway so that the zero weren't really an issue.
But still: what's a sensible map to return? (0 0 3 0 5 6 ...) or (nil nil 3 nil 5 6...) or (3 5 6 ...) (how would I go about this last one?) or something else?
Should I "filter out" the zeroes / nils and if so how?
I know I'm asking a basic question but map/reduce is obviously something I'll be using a lot so any help is welcome.
It sounds like you already have an intuative undestanding of the need to seperate mapping concerns form the reducing It's perfectly natural to have data produced by map that is not used by the reduce. infact using the fact that zero is the identity value for addition make this even more elegant.
mappings job is to produce the new data (in this case 3 5 or "ignore")
reduces job is to decide what to include and to produce the final result.
what you started with is idiomatic clojure and there is no need to complicate it any more,
so this next example is just to illustrate the point of having map decide what to include:
(reduce #(if-not (zero? %1) (+ %1 %2) %2) (map val (range 10)))
in this contrived example the reduce function ignores the zeros. In typical real world code if the idea was as simple as filtering out some value then people tend to just use the filter function
(reduce + (filter #(not (zero? %)) (map val (range 10))))
you can also just start with filter and skip the map:
(reduce + (filter #(or (zero? (rem % 3)) (zero? (rem % 5))) (range 10)))
The watchword is clarity.
Use filter, not map. Then you don't have to choose a null
value that you later have to decide not to act on.
Naming the filtering/mapping function can help. Do so with let
or letfn, not defn, unless you have use for the function elsewhere.
Acting on this advice brings us to ...
(let [divides-by-3-or-5? (fn [n] (or (zero? (mod n 3)) (zero? (mod n 5))))]
(reduce + (filter divides-by-3-or-5? (range 1 1000))))
You may want to stop here for now.
This reads well, but the divides-by-3-or-5? function sticks in the throat. Change the factors and we need a completely new function. And that repeated phrase (zero? (mod n ...)) jars. So ...
We want a function, that - given a list (or other collection) of possible factors - tells us whether any of them apply to a given number. In other words, we want
a function of a collection of numbers - the possible factors - ...
that returns a function of one number - the candidate - ...
that tells us whether the candidate is divisible by any of the possible factors.
One such function is
(fn [ns] (fn [n] (some (fn [x] (zero? (mod n x))) ns)))
... which we can employ thus
(let [divides-by-any? (fn [ns] (fn [n] (some (fn [x] (zero? (mod n x))) ns)))]
(reduce + (filter (divides-by-any? [3 5]) (range 1 1000))))
Notes
This "improvement" has made the program a little slower.
divides-by-any? might prove useful enough to be promoted to a
defn.
If the operation were critical, you could consider stripping out
redundant factors. For example [2 3 6] could be reduced to [6].
If the operation were really critical, and the factors were supplied
as constants, you could consider creating the filter function with a
macro that went back to using or.
This is a bit of a shaggy-dog story, but it recounts the thoughts prompted by the problem you refer to.
In your case I would use keep instead of map. It is similar to map except that it keeps only the non-nil values.
If I understand correctly Clojure can return lists (as in other Lisps) but also vectors and sets.
What I don't really get is why there's not always a collection that is returned.
For example if I take the following code:
(loop [x 128]
(when (> x 1)
(println x)
(recur (/ x 2))))
It does print 128 64 32 16 8 4 2. But that's only because println is called and println has the side-effect (?) of printing something.
So I tried replacing it with this (removing the println):
(loop [x 128]
(when (> x 1)
x
(recur (/ x 2))))
And I was expecting to get some collecting (supposedly a list), like this:
(128 64 32 16 8 4 2)
but instead I'm getting nil.
I don't understand which determines what creates a collection and what doesn't and how you switch from one to the other. Also, seen that Clojure somehow encourages a "functional" way of programming, aren't you supposed to nearly always return collections?
Why are so many functions that apparently do not return any collection? And what would be an idiomatic way to make these return collections?
For example, how would I solve the above problem by first constructing a collection and then iterating (?) in an idiomatic way other the resulting list/vector?
First I don't know how to transform the loop so that it produces something else than nil and then I tried the following:
(reduce println '(1 2 3))
But it prints "1 2nil 3nil" instead of the "1 2 3nil" I was expecting.
I realize this is basic stuff but I'm just starting and I'm obviously missing basic stuff here.
(P.S.: retag appropriately, I don't know which terms I should use here)
A few other comments have pointed out that when doesn't really work like if - but I don't think that's really your question.
The loop and recur forms create an iteration - like a for loop in other languages. In this case, when you are printing, it is indeed just for the side effects. If you want to return a sequence, then you'll need to build one:
(loop [x 128
acc []]
(if (< x 1)
acc
(recur (/ x 2)
(cons x acc))))
=> (1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128)
In this case, I replaced the spot where you were calling printf with a recur and a form that adds x to the front of that accumulator. In the case that x is less than 1, the code returns the accumulator - and thus a sequence. If you want to add to the end of the vector instead of the front, change it to conj:
(loop [x 128
acc []]
(if (< x 1)
acc
(recur (/ x 2)
(conj acc x))))
=> [128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1]
You were getting nil because that was the result of your expression -- what the final println returned.
Does all this make sense?
reduce is not quite the same thing -- it is used to reduce a list by repeatedly applying a binary function (a function that takes 2 arguments) to either an initial value and the first element of a sequence, or the first two elements of the sequence for the first iteration, then subsequent iterations are passed the result of the previous iteration and the next value from the sequence. Some examples may help:
(reduce + [1 2 3 4])
10
This executes the following:
(+ 1 2) => 3
(+ 3 3) => 6
(+ 6 4) => 10
Reduce will result in whatever the final result is from the binary function being executed -- in this case we're reducing the numbers in the sequence into the sum of all the elements.
You can also supply an initial value:
(reduce + 5 [1 2 3 4])
15
Which executes the following:
(+ 5 1) => 6
(+ 6 2) => 8
(+ 8 3) => 11
(+ 11 4) => 15
HTH,
Kyle
The generalized abstraction over collection is called a sequence in Clojure and many data structure implement this abstraction so that you can use all sequence related operations on those data structure without thinking about which data structure is being passed to your function(s).
As far as the sample code is concerned - the loop, recur is for recursion - so basically any problem that you want to solve using recursion can be solved using it, classic example being factorial. Although you can create a vector/list using loop - by using the accumulator as a vector and keep appending items to it and in the exist condition of recursion returning the accumulated vector - but you can use reductions and take-while functions to do so as shown below. This will return a lazy sequence.
Ex:
(take-while #(> % 1) (reductions (fn [s _] (/ s 2)) 128 (range)))