I am trying to write a program in Common Lisp using GNU ClISP to compile it. I would like to enter a list such as (A(B (C) ()) (D (E) (F (G) ()))) and depending on the first word print out the pre-, in-, or post-order traversal. Example:
(pre '(A(B (C)... etc))
I am having trouble putting my logic into Clisp notation. I currently have the following code:
(defun leftchild (L)(cadr L))
(defun rightchild (L)(caddr L))
(defun data (L)(car L))
(defun pre (L)(if (null L) '()((data L)(pre(leftchild L))(pre(rightchild L)))))
... similar in and post functions
I get compiling errors saying that I should use a lambda in my pre function. I think this is due to the double (( infront of data because it is expecting a command, but I am not sure what I should put there. I don't think cond would work, because that would hinder the recursive loop. Also, will data L print as it is now? The compiler did not recognize (print (data L)).
I have been working on this code for over a week now, trying to troubleshoot it myself, but I am at a loss. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain what I am doing incorrectly.
Another question that I have is how can I make the program prompt a line to the user to enter the (pre '(A... etc)) so that when I run the compiled file the program will run instead of giving a funcall error?
Thank you for your time.
Short answer: If you want to use if, note that you'll need a progn in order to have more than one form in the consequent and alternative cases.
Long answer – also explains how to traverse accumulating the visited nodes in a list:
I guess this is homework, so I won't give you a full solution, but your question shows that you have basically the right idea, so I'll show you an easy, idiomatic way to do this.
First, you're right: The car of an unquoted form should be a function, so basically anything like (foo ...), where foo is not a function (or macro, special form ...), and the whole thing is to be evaluated, will be an error. Note that this does not hold inside special forms and macros (like cond, for example). These can change the evaluation rules, and not everything that looks like (foo bar) has to be a form that is to be evaluated by the normal evaluation rules. The easiest example would be quote, which simply returns its argument unevaluated, so (quote (foo bar)) will not be an error.
Now, about your problem:
An easy solution would be to have an accumulator and a recursive helper function that traverses the tree, and pushes the values in the accumulator. Something like this:
(defun pre (node)
(let ((result (list)))
(labels ((rec (node)
(cond (...
...
...))))
(rec node)
(nreverse result))))
The labels just introduces a local helper function, which will do the actual recursion, and the outer let gives you an accumulator to collect the node values. This solution will return the result as a list. If you just want to print each nodes value, you don't need the accumulator or the helper function. Just print instead of pushing, and make the helper your toplevel function.
Remember, that you'll need a base case where the recursion stops. You should check for that in the cond. Then, you'll need the recursive steps for each subtree and you'll need to push the node's value to the results. The order in which you do these steps decides whether you're doing pre-, in-, or post-order traversal. Your code shows that you already understand this principle, so you'll just have to make it work in Lisp-code. You can use push to push values to result, and consp to check whether a node is a non-empty list. Since there's nothing to do for empty lists, you'll basically only need one test in the cond, but you can also explicitly check whether the node is null, as you did in your code.
Related
I'm having a problem understanding how to set up a racket function that has a couple conditionals for tail recursion. Normally with one conditional, I would set up the helper function and assign acc to my base case, and then call the helper function. With multiple conditionals though I'm confused on how to proceed.
Please provide more specifics. But in general, you can simple call any function of your choosing in tail position.
So with "couple of conditionals" you join them into one cond with several clauses, and in each clause's tail position you're free to call your function again (or any other):
(cond
(if this then do this)
(if this then do that))
(cond
(if this then do the other))
joined together becomes
(cond
(if this then do this)
(if this then do that)
(if this then do the other))
Now this, that, and other in the end of each clause are each in tail position, provided the whole cond form is in tail position.
My understanding is that tail recursion is recursion where a return value is not necessary to finish the operation; that is, the recursion is the last step in the function, and the rest of the function is done once it makes the recursive call.
To that, I ask if this example (from Mr. Norvig) is tail recursion:
(defparameter *titles*
'(Mr Mrs Miss Ms Sir Madam Dr Admiral Major General)
"A list of titles that can appear at the start of a name.")
(defun first-name (name)
"Select the first name from a name represented as a list."
(if (member (first name) *titles*)
(first-name (rest name))
(first name)))
Once the final first-name is called as a branch of the if statement, there is nothing else that function does; therefore, it is tail recursion?
Yup, that is an example.
Tail recursion optimization is available in many implementations of Common Lisp but it is not required by the spec.
This means you can have a Common Lisp without tail recursion optimization.
You may also find that the version you are using needs to be poked a bit to perform this optimization.
So in some implementation you may need to use 'declare' to inform your compiler that you want to optimize for speed.
(defun first-name (name)
"Select the first name from a name represented as a list."
(declare (optimize (speed 3) (compilation-speed 0) (debug 0) (safety 1)))
(if (member (first name) *titles*)
(first-name (rest name))
(first name)))
Edit:
This site is a few years old now but may provide some info.
Also be sure to read the comments as Joshua and Rainer massively improve the detail here.
Yes and no. Usually yes. It will also be optimized if the compiler supports TCO and the right optimization settings are active. But sometimes the compiler will not be able to optimize it.
If name would have been declared special, then possibly not.
If there would be something like
(defvar name '(susanne mustermann))
then the parameter name of the function would be declared special (it would use dynamic binding). Then a compiler might not use tail call optimization in the first-name function.
This means that you also need to know whether variable symbols are declared special or not.
That's one of the reasons, global special variables should be written like *name* to prevent special declaration of those local variables which should be lexical variables. In this case a special declaration would also prevent TCO.
We better write:
(defvar *name* '(susanne mustermann))
Nested lists in Common Lisp really confused me. Here is the problem:
By using recursion, let (nested-list 'b '(a (b c) d)) return t
if the first argument appears in the second argument (which could be
a nested list), and nil otherwise.
I tried find, but it only works if the first argument is '(b c).
I turned my eyes on lambda expressions. I want to flatten the second
argument first, and then use eq to compare the arguments.
(defun nested-list (x y)
(cond
((null y) ())
(t (append (lambda (flatten) (first y))
Then I got stuck. Even though I read a lot of stuff about lambda
expessions, it still confused me. I do not know how to recall it when
I need, I knew the funcall function, but you know I just cannot get
it. I just learnt Common Lisp for 5 days, so I hope you can give me a
hint. Thanks a lot!
First of all unless you mistyped if instead of iff the problem is quite trivial, just return t and you're done :-)
Seriously speaking instead when you need to solve a problem using recursion the idea often is simply:
if we're in a trivial case just return the answer
otherwise the answer is the same answer we'd get by solving a problem that it's just a little bit simpler that this, and we call ourself to solve this simplified version.
In the specific consider:
If the second argument is an empty list the answer is NIL
If the first argument is equal to the first element of the second argument then just return T instead
Otherwise if the first element of the second list is a list (therefore also possibly a nested list) and the element is contained in this multilist then return true (to check this case the function is calling itself)
Otherwise just check the same problem, but first dropping the first element of the second argument, because it has been checked (this also calls recursively the same function)
So basically 1 and 2 are the trivial cases; 3 and 4 are the cases in which you solve a simpler version of the problem.
I've been learning scheme, and I just realized that I don't really know how to properly comment my functional scheme code. I know how to add a comment of course - you add a ; and put your comment after it. My question is what should I put in my comments, and where should I comment for maximum readability and comprehensability for other programmers reading my code?
Here's a code snippet I wrote. It's a function called display-n. It can be called with any number of arguments and outputs each argument to the screen in the order that they are provided.
(define display-n
(lambda nums
(letrec ((display-n-inner
(lambda (nums)
(display (car nums))
(if (not (equal? (cdr nums) (quote ()))
(display-n-inner (cdr nums))))))
(display-n-inner nums))))
Edit: Improved tabbing and replaced '() with (quote ()) to avoid SO messing up the formatting.
I'm just not sure how/where to add comments to make it more understandable. Some scheme code I've seen just has comments at the top, which is great if you want to use the code, but not helpful if you want to understand/modify it.
Also - how should I comment macros?
The common style for Lisp comments is
Four semicolons for commentary on a whole subsection of a file.
Three semicolons for introducing a single procedure.
Two semicolons for a description of the expression/procedure definition on the following line.
One semicolon for an endline comment.
Procedure overview comments should probably follow the style of RnRS documens, so to just add comments to your procedure as-is, would look something like
;;; Procedure: display-n NUM ...
;; Output each argument to the screen in the order they are provided.
(define
display-n (lambda nums
(letrec ((display-n-inner (lambda (nums)
(display (car nums))
(if (not (equal? (cdr nums) '()))
(display-n-inner (cdr nums))))))
(display-n-inner nums))))
N.B. I don't use three semicolons for the whole procedure description, since it screws up fill-paragraph in Emacs.
Now about the code, I would ditch the whole define-variable-as-a-lambda thing. Yes, I get that this is the "purest" way to define a function, and it makes for a nice consistency with defining procedures are the results of LETs and other procedures, but there's a reason for syntactic sugar, and it's to make things more readable. Same for the LETREC—just use an internal DEFINE, which is the same thing but more readable.
It's not a huge deal that DISPLAY-N-INNER's parameter is called NUMS, since the procedure's so short and DISPLAY-N just hands its NUMS straight to it anyways. "DISPLAY-N-INNER" is sort of a lame name, though. You would give it something with more semantic meaning, or give it a simple name like "ITER" or "LOOP".
Now about the logic of the procedure. First, (equal? (cdr nums) '()) is silly, and is better as (null? (cdr nums)). Actually, when you are operating over an entire list, it's best to make the base case a test of whether the list itself, and not its CDR, is empty. This way the procedure won't error if you pass it no arguments (unless you want it to do that, but I think it makes more sense for DISPLAY-N to do nothing if it gets nothing). Furthermore, you should test whether to stop the procedure, not whether to continue:
(define (display-n . nums)
(define (iter nums)
(if (null? nums)
#t ; It doesn't matter what it returns.
(begin (display (car nums))
(iter (cdr nums)))))
(iter nums))
But for all that, I would say the the procedure itself is not the best way to accomplish the task it does, since it is too concerned with the details of traversing a list. Instead you would use the more abstract FOR-EACH method to do the work.
(define (display-n . nums)
(for-each display nums))
This way, instead of a reader of the procedure getting mired in the details of CARs and CDRs, he can just understand that FOR-EACH will DISPLAY each element of NUMS.
Some random notes:
Traditionally, Scheme and Lisp code has used ;;; for toplevel comments, ;; for comments in the code, and ; for comments on the same line as the code they're commenting on. Emacs has support for this, treating each of these a little differently. But especially on the Scheme side this is no longer as popular as it was, but the difference between ;; and ; is still common.
Most modern Schemes have adopted new kinds of comments: theres:
#|...|# for a block comment -- useful for long pieces of text that comment on the whole file.
#;<expr> is a comment that makes the implementation ignore the expression, which is useful for debugging.
As for the actual content of what to write, that's not different than any other language, except that with a more functional approach you usually have more choices on how to lay out your code. It also makes it more convenient to write smaller functions that are combined into larger pieces of functionality -- and this changes the documentation style too, since many such small functions will be "self documenting" (in that they're easy to read and very obvious in how they're working).
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I still think that you should spend some time with HtDP. One thing that it encourages in its design recipe is to write examples first, then the documentation, and then expand that to actual code. Furthermore, this recipe leaves you with code that has a very standard set of comments: the input/output types, a purpose statement, some documentation about how the function is implemented when necessary, and the examples can be considered as another kind of documentation (which would turn to commented code in "real" code). (There are other books that take a similar position wrt documentation.)
Finally, documenting macros is not different than documenting any other code. The only thing that can be very different i what's written in the comments: instead of describing what some function is doing, you tend to describe what code it expands too, so the comments are also more on the meta level. A common approach to macros is to to minimal work inside the macro -- just what's needed at that level (eg, wrap expressions in (lambda () ...)), and leave the actual implementation to a function. This helps in documenting too, since the two related pieces will have comments on how the macro expands and how it runs, independently.
I follow an approach similar to what's posted here:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/classes/cs2360/ghall/style/commenting.html
Note: this is for Common Lisp.
Specifically:
" Four Semicolons(;;;;)
...denote a sub heading in the file...
Three Semicolons(;;;)
...denote a description of the succeeding function, macro, or
variable definition...
[I usually just most of the description into the "docstring"
of the function or variable.]
Two Semicolons(;;)
...denote a description of the succeeding expression...
One Semicolon(;)
...denotes an in-line comment that explains a particular element
of the expression on that line... Brevity is important for
inline comments"
I think a great place to start would be to put your one-sentence description of what the function does
It can be called with any number of arguments and outputs each argument to the screen in the order that they are provided.
as a comment at the beginning.
I'm not particularly conversant in scheme, so I can't comment (:-) on whether additional line-by-line comments explaining the mechanics of how the function achieves that result would be expected according to normal scheme style (but I suspect not).
I've been writing more Lisp code recently. In particular, recursive functions that take some data, and build a resulting data structure. Sometimes it seems I need to pass two or three pieces of information to the next invocation of the function, in addition to the user supplied data. Lets call these accumulators.
What is the best way to organize these interfaces to my code?
Currently, I do something like this:
(defun foo (user1 user2 &optional acc1 acc2 acc3)
;; do something
(foo user1 user2 (cons x acc1) (cons y acc2) (cons z acc3)))
This works as I'd like it to, but I'm concerned because I don't really need to present the &optional parameters to the programmer.
3 approaches I'm somewhat considering:
have a wrapper function that a user is encouraged to use that immediately invokes the extended definiton.
use labels internally within a function whose signature is concise.
just start using a loop and variables. However, I'd prefer not since I'd like to really wrap my head around recursion.
Thanks guys!
If you want to write idiomatic Common Lisp, I'd recommend the loop and variables for iteration. Recursion is cool, but it's only one tool of many for the Common Lisper. Besides, tail-call elimination is not guaranteed by the Common Lisp spec.
That said, I'd recommend the labels approach if you have a structure, a tree for example, that is unavoidably recursive and you can't get tail calls anyway. Optional arguments let your implementation details leak out to the caller.
Your impulse to shield implementation details from the user is a smart one, I think. I don't know common lisp, but in Scheme you do it by defining your helper function in the public function's lexical scope.
(define (fibonacci n)
(let fib-accum ((a 0)
(b 1)
(n n))
(if (< n 1)
a
(fib-accum b (+ a b) (- n 1)))))
The let expression defines a function and binds it to a name that's only visible within the let, then invokes the function.
I have used all the options you mention. All have their merits, so it boils down to personal preference.
I have arrived at using whatever I deem appropriate. If I think that leaving the &optional accumulators in the API might make sense for the user, I leave it in. For example, in a reduce-like function, the accumulator can be used by the user for providing a starting value. Otherwise, I'll often rewrite it as a loop, do, or iter (from the iterate library) form, if it makes sense to perceive it as such. Sometimes, the labels helper is also used.