If I need to provide a constant value to a function which I am mapping to the items of a sequence, is there a better way than what I'm doing at present:
(map my-function my-sequence (cycle [my-constant-value]))
where my-constant-value is a constant in the sense that it's going to be the same for the mappings over my-sequence, although it may be itself a result of some function further out. I get the feeling that later I'll look at what I'm asking here and think it's a silly question because if I structured my code differently it wouldn't be a problem, but well there it is!
In your case I would use an anonymous function:
(map #(my-function % my-constant-value) my-sequence)
Using a partially applied function is another option, but it doesn't make much sense in this particular scenario:
(map (partial my-function my-constant-value) my-sequence)
You would (maybe?) need to redefine my-function to take the constant value as the first argument, and you don't have any need to accept a variable number of arguments so using partial doesn't buy you anything.
I'd tend to use partial or an anonymous function as dbyrne suggests, but another tool to be aware of is repeat, which returns an infinite sequence of whatever value you want:
(map + (range 4) (repeat 10))
=> (10 11 12 13)
Yet another way that I find sometimes more readable than map is the for list comprehension macro:
(for [x my-sequence]
(my-function x my-constant-value))
yep :) a little gem from the "other useful functions" section of the api constantly
(map my-function my-sequence (constantly my-constant-value))
the pattern of (map compines-data something-new a-constant) is rather common in idomatic clojure. its relativly fast also with chunked sequences and such.
EDIT: this answer is wrong, but constantly and the rest of the "other useful functions" api are so cool i would like to leave the reference here to them anyway.
Related
I'm just starting to play with Clojure.
How do I run through a vector of items?
My naive recursive function would have a form like the classic map eg.
(defn map [f xs] (
(if (= xs [])
[]
(cons (f (first xs)) (map f (rest xs))
)
))
The thing is I can't find any examples of this kind of code on the web. I find a lot of examples using built-in sequence traversing functions like for, map and loop. But no-one doing the raw recursive version.
Is that because you SHOULDN'T do this kind of thing in Clojure? (eg. because it uses lower-level Java primitives that don't have tail-call optimisation or something?)?
When you say "run through a vector" this is quite vague; as Clojure is a lisp and thus specializes in sequence analysis and manipulation, the beauty of using this language is that you don't think in terms "run through a vector and then do something with each element," instead you'd more idiomatically say "pull this out of a vector" or "transform this vector into X" or "I want this vector to give me X".
It is because of this type of perspective in lisp languages that you will see so many examples and production code that doesn't just loop/recur through a vector but rather specifically goes after what is wanted in a short, idiomatic way. Using simple functions like reduce map filter for into and others allow you to elegantly move over a sequence such as a vector while simultaneously doing what you want with the contents. In most other languages, this would be at least 2 different parts: the loop, and then the actual logic to do what you want.
You'll often find that if you think about sequences using the more imperative idea you get with languages like C, C++, Java, etc, that your code is about 4x longer (at least) than it would otherwise be if you first thought about your plan in a more functional approach.
Clojure re-uses stack frames only with tail-recurstion and only when you use the explicit recur call. Everything else will be stack consuming. The above map example is not tail recursive because the cons happens after the recursive call so it can't be TCO'd in any language. If you switch it to use the continuation passing style and use an explicit call to recur instead of map then you should be good to go.
I am new to the world of fixed-point combinators and I guess they are used to recurse on anonymous lambdas, but I haven't really got to use them, or even been able to wrap my head around them completely.
I have seen the example in Javascript for a Y-combinator but haven't been able to successfully run it.
The question here is, can some one give an intuitive answer to:
What are Fixed-point combinators, (not just theoretically, but in context of some example, to reveal what exactly is the fixed-point in that context)?
What are the other kinds of fixed-point combinators, apart from the Y-combinator?
Bonus Points: If the example is not just in one language, preferably in Clojure as well.
UPDATE:
I have been able to find a simple example in Clojure, but still find it difficult to understand the Y-Combinator itself:
(defn Y [r]
((fn [f] (f f))
(fn [f]
(r (fn [x] ((f f) x))))))
Though the example is concise, I find it difficult to understand what is happening within the function. Any help provided would be useful.
Suppose you wanted to write the factorial function. Normally, you would write it as something like
function fact(n) = if n=0 then 1 else n * fact(n-1)
But that uses explicit recursion. If you wanted to use the Y-combinator instead, you could first abstract fact as something like
function factMaker(myFact) = lamba n. if n=0 then 1 else n * myFact(n-1)
This takes an argument (myFact) which it calls were the "true" fact would have called itself. I call this style of function "Y-ready", meaning it's ready to be fed to the Y-combinator.
The Y-combinator uses factMaker to build something equivalent to the "true" fact.
newFact = Y(factMaker)
Why bother? Two reasons. The first is theoretical: we don't really need recursion if we can "simulate" it using the Y-combinator.
The second is more pragmatic. Sometimes we want to wrap each function call with some extra code to do logging or profiling or memoization or a host of other things. If we try to do this to the "true" fact, the extra code will only be called for the original call to fact, not all the recursive calls. But if we want to do this for every call, including all the recursive call, we can do something like
loggingFact = LoggingY(factMaker)
where LoggingY is a modified version of the Y combinator that introduces logging. Notice that we did not need to change factMaker at all!
All this is more motivation why the Y-combinator matters than a detailed explanation from how that particular implementation of Y works (because there are many different ways to implement Y).
To answer your second question about fix-point combinators other than Y. There are countably infinitely many standard fix-point combinators, that is, combinators fix that satisfy the equation
fix f = f (fix f)
There are also contably many non-standard fix-point combinators, which satisfy the equation
fix f = f (f (fix f))
etc. Standard fix-point combinators are recursively enumerable, but non-standard are not. Please see the following web page for examples, references and discussion.
http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/fixed-point-combinators.html#many-fixes
Is there a better way to do this in Clojure?
(if (coll? coll)
(map my-fn coll)
(my-fn coll)
my-fn is to be applied to input coll. coll can be either singular or a collection.
If I don't check for coll?, using map alone would throw an IllegalArgumentException for don't know how to create an ISeq from xxx.
Your code is fine (although I'd rename the variable coll since you don't actually know if it is a collection and this might confuse readers).
However I'd suggest this whole chunk of code looks suspiciously like a code smell - it's taking dynamic typing a bit too far / trying to be a bit too clever in my opinion: in the sense of "cleverness considered harmful".
Alternative ideas to consider:
If you actually want to treat everything like a collection, then wrap singular input values when they are first obtained in a list/vector of length 1. Then the rest of your code can safely assume collections throughout.
Write separate functions to deal with collections and single values. The rationale is that they are conceptually different data types, so deserve different treatment.
If coll doesn't contain any nested sequences:
(map my-fn (flatten (list coll)))
No general solution can exist, because my-fn may be a function that takes lists and returns lists. Then you can't somehow inspect the input and decide whether to map over it or not.
Better is to not get yourself into the scenario where you don't know what type of data you have, but I can't give any specific advice on this without knowing more about your program.
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.