Given a list of numbers, say, (1 3 6 10 0), how do you compute differences (xi - xi-1), provided that you have x-1 = 0 ?
(the result in this example should be (1 2 3 4 -10))
I've found this solution to be correct:
(define (pairwise-2 f init l)
(first
(foldl
(λ (x acc-data)
(let ([result-list (first acc-data)]
[prev-x (second acc-data)])
(list
(append result-list (list(f x prev-x)))
x)))
(list empty 0)
l)))
(pairwise-2 - 0 '(1 3 6 10 0))
;; => (1 2 3 4 -10)
However, I think there should be more elegant though no less flexible solution. It's just ugly.
I'm new to functional programming and would like to hear any suggestions on the code.
Thanks.
map takes multiple arguments. So I would just do
(define (butlast l)
(reverse (cdr (reverse l))))
(let ((l '(0 1 3 6 10)))
(map - l (cons 0 (butlast l)))
If you want to wrap it up in a function, say
(define (pairwise-call f init l)
(map f l (cons init (butlast l))))
This is of course not the Little Schemer Way, but the way that avoids writing recursion yourself. Choose the way you like the best.
I haven't done scheme in dog's years, but this strikes me as a typical little lisper type problem.
I started with a base definition (please ignore misplacement of parens - I don't have a Scheme interpreter handy:
(define pairwise-diff
(lambda (list)
(cond
((null? list) '())
((atom? list) list)
(t (pairwise-helper 0 list)))))
This handles the crap cases of null and atom and then delegates the meat case to a helper:
(define pairwise-helper
(lambda (n list)
(cond
((null? list) '())
(t
(let ([one (car list)])
(cons (- one n) (pairwise-helper one (cdr list))))
))))
You could rewrite this using "if", but I'm hardwired to use cond.
There are two cases here: null list - which is easy and everything else.
For everything else, I grab the head of the list and cons this diff onto the recursive case. I don't think it gets much simpler.
After refining and adapting to PLT Scheme plinth's code, I think nearly-perfect solution would be:
(define (pairwise-apply f l0 l)
(if (empty? l)
'()
(let ([l1 (first l)])
(cons (f l1 l0) (pairwise-apply f l1 (rest l))))))
Haskell tells me to use zip ;)
(define (zip-with f xs ys)
(cond ((or (null? xs) (null? ys)) null)
(else (cons (f (car xs) (car ys))
(zip-with f (cdr xs) (cdr ys))))))
(define (pairwise-diff lst) (zip-with - (cdr lst) lst))
(pairwise-diff (list 1 3 6 10 0))
; gives (2 3 4 -10)
Doesn't map finish as soon as the shortest argument list is exhausted, anyway?
(define (pairwise-call fun init-element lst)
(map fun lst (cons init-element lst)))
edit: jleedev informs me that this is not the case in at least one Scheme implementation. This is a bit annoying, since there is no O(1) operation to chop off the end of a list.
Perhaps we can use reduce:
(define (pairwise-call fun init-element lst)
(reverse (cdr (reduce (lambda (a b)
(append (list b (- b (car a))) (cdr a)))
(cons (list init-element) lst)))))
(Disclaimer: quick hack, untested)
This is the simplest way:
(define (solution ls)
(let loop ((ls (cons 0 ls)))
(let ((x (cadr ls)) (x_1 (car ls)))
(if (null? (cddr ls)) (list (- x x_1))
(cons (- x x_1) (loop (cdr ls)))))))
(display (equal? (solution '(1)) '(1))) (newline)
(display (equal? (solution '(1 5)) '(1 4))) (newline)
(display (equal? (solution '(1 3 6 10 0)) '(1 2 3 4 -10))) (newline)
Write out the code expansion for each of the example to see how it works.
If you are interested in getting started with FP, be sure to check out How To Design Program. Sure it is written for people brand new to programming, but it has tons of good FP idioms within.
(define (f l res cur)
(if (null? l)
res
(let ((next (car l)))
(f (cdr l) (cons (- next cur) res) next))))
(define (do-work l)
(reverse (f l '() 0)))
(do-work '(1 3 6 10 0))
==> (1 2 3 4 -10)
Related
I'm finishing up a Scheme assignment and I'm having some trouble with the recursive cases for two functions.
The first function is a running-sums function which takes in a list and returns a list of the running sums i.e (summer '(1 2 3)) ---> (1 3 6) Now I believe I'm very close but can't quite figure out how to fix my case. Currently I have
(define (summer L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
((null? (cdr L)) '())
(else (cons (car L) (+ (car L) (cadr L))))))
I know I need to recursively call summer, but I'm confused on how to put the recursive call in there.
Secondly, I'm writing a function which counts the occurrences of an element in a list. This function works fine through using a helper function but it creates duplicate pairs.
(define (counts L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
(else (cons (cons (car L) (countEle L (car L))) (counts (cdr L))))))
(define (countEle L x)
(if (null? L) 0
(if (eq? x (car L)) (+ 1 (countEle (cdr L) x)) (countEle (cdr L) x))))
The expected output is:
(counts '(a b c c b b)) --> '((a 1) (b 3) ( c 2))
But it's currently returning '((a . 1) (b . 3) (c . 2) (c . 1) (b . 2) (b . 1)). So it's close; I'm just not sure how to handle checking if I've already counted the element.
Any help is appreciated, thank you!
To have a running sum, you need in some way to keep track of the last sum. So some procedure should have two arguments: the rest of the list to sum (which may be the whole list) and the sum so far.
(define (running-sum L)
(define (rs l s)
...)
(rs L 0))
For the second procedure you want to do something like
(define (count-elems L)
(define (remove-elem e L) ...)
(define (count-single e L) ...)
(if (null? L)
'()
(let ((this-element (car L)))
(cons (list this-element (count-single this-element L))
(count-elems (remove-elem this-element (cdr L)))))))
Be sure to remove the elements you've counted before continuing! I think you can fill in the rest.
To your first problem:
The mistake in your procedure is, that there is no recursive call of "summer". Have a look at the last line.
(else (cons (car L) (+ (car L) (cadr L))))))
Here is the complete solution:
(define (summer LL)
(define (loop sum LL)
(if (null? LL)
'()
(cons (+ sum (car LL)) (loop (+ sum (car ll)) (cdr LL)))))
(loop 0 LL))
I'm trying to teach myself functional language thinking and have written a procedure that takes a list and returns a list with duplicates filtered out. This works, but the output list is sorted in the order in which the last instance of each duplicate item is found in the input list.
(define (inlist L n)
(cond
((null? L) #f)
((= (car L) n) #t)
(else (inlist (cdr L) n))
))
(define (uniquelist L)
(cond
((null? L) '())
((= 1 (length L)) L)
((inlist (cdr L) (car L)) (uniquelist (cdr L)))
(else (cons (car L) (uniquelist (cdr L))))
))
So..
(uniquelist '(1 1 2 3)) => (1 2 3)
...but...
(uniquelist '(1 2 3 1)) => (2 3 1)
Is there a simple alternative that maintains the order of the first instance of each duplicate?
The best way to solve this problem would be to use Racket's built-in remove-duplicates procedure. But of course, you want to implement the solution from scratch. Here's a way using idiomatic Racket, and notice that we can use member (another built-in function) in place of inlist:
(define (uniquelist L)
(let loop ([lst (reverse L)] [acc empty])
(cond [(empty? lst)
acc]
[(member (first lst) (rest lst))
(loop (rest lst) acc)]
[else
(loop (rest lst) (cons (first lst) acc))])))
Or we can write the same procedure using standard Scheme, as shown in SICP:
(define (uniquelist L)
(let loop ((lst (reverse L)) (acc '()))
(cond ((null? lst)
acc)
((member (car lst) (cdr lst))
(loop (cdr lst) acc))
(else
(loop (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) acc))))))
The above makes use of a named let for iteration, and shows how to write a tail-recursive implementation. It works as expected:
(uniquelist '(1 1 2 3))
=> '(1 2 3)
(uniquelist '(1 2 3 1))
=> '(1 2 3)
I'm trying to reverse a list, here's my code:
(define (reverse list)
(if (null? list)
list
(list (reverse (cdr list)) (car list))))
so if i enter (reverse '(1 2 3 4)), I want it to come out as (4 3 2 1), but right now it's not giving me that. What am I doing wrong and how can I fix it?
The natural way to recur over a list is not the best way to solve this problem. Using append, as suggested in the accepted answer pointed by #lancery, is not a good idea either - and anyway if you're learning your way in Scheme it's best if you try to implement the solution yourself, I'll show you what to do, but first a tip - don't use list as a parameter name, that's a built-in procedure and you'd be overwriting it. Use other name, say, lst.
It's simpler to reverse a list by means of a helper procedure that accumulates the result of consing each element at the head of the result, this will have the effect of reversing the list - incidentally, the helper procedure is tail-recursive. Here's the general idea, fill-in the blanks:
(define (reverse lst)
(<???> lst '())) ; call the helper procedure
(define (reverse-aux lst acc)
(if <???> ; if the list is empty
<???> ; return the accumulator
(reverse-aux <???> ; advance the recursion over the list
(cons <???> <???>)))) ; cons current element with accumulator
Of course, in real-life you wouldn't implement reverse from scratch, there's a built-in procedure for that.
Here is a recursive procedure that describes an iterative process (tail recursive) of reversing a list in Scheme
(define (reverse lst)
(define (go lst tail)
(if (null? lst) tail
(go (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) tail))))
(go lst ())))
Using substitution model for (reverse (list 1 2 3 4))
;; (reverse (list 1 2 3 4))
;; (go (list 1 2 3 4) ())
;; (go (list 2 3 4) (list 1))
;; (go (list 3 4) (list 2 1))
;; (go (list 4) (list 3 2 1))
;; (go () (list 4 3 2 1))
;; (list 4 3 2 1)
Here is a recursive procedure that describes a recursive process (not tail recursive) of reversing a list in Scheme
(define (reverse2 lst)
(if (null? lst) ()
(append (reverse2 (cdr lst)) (list (car lst)))))
(define (append l1 l2)
(if (null? l1) l2
(cons (car l1) (append (cdr l1) l2))))
Using substitution model for (reverse2 (list 1 2 3 4))
;; (reverse2 (list 1 2 3 4))
;; (append (reverse2 (list 2 3 4)) (list 1))
;; (append (append (reverse2 (list 3 4)) (list 2)) (list 1))
;; (append (append (append (reverse2 (list 4)) (list 3)) (list 2)) (list 1))
;; (append (append (append (append (reverse2 ()) (list 4)) (list 3)) (list 2)) (list 1))
;; (append (append (append (append () (list 4)) (list 3)) (list 2)) (list 1))
;; (append (append (append (list 4) (list 3)) (list 2)) (list 1))
;; (append (append (list 4 3) (list 2)) (list 1))
;; (append (list 4 3 2) (list 1))
;; (list 4 3 2 1)
Tail recursive approach using a named let:
(define (reverse lst)
(let loop ([lst lst] [lst-reversed '()])
(if (empty? lst)
lst-reversed
(loop (rest lst) (cons (first lst) lst-reversed)))))
This is basically the same approach as having a helper function with an accumulator argument as in Oscar's answer, where the loop binding after let makes the let into an inner function you can call.
Here's a solution using build-list procedure:
(define reverse
(lambda (l)
(let ((len (length l)))
(build-list len
(lambda (i)
(list-ref l (- len i 1)))))))
This one works but it is not a tail recursive procedure:
(define (rev lst)
(if (null? lst)
'()
(append (rev (cdr lst)) (car lst))))
Tail recursive solution:
(define (reverse oldlist)
(define (t-reverse oldlist newlist)
(if (null? oldlist)
newlist
(t-reverse (cdr oldlist) (cons (car oldlist) newest))))
(t-reverse oldlist '()))
Just left fold the list using cons:
(define (reverse list) (foldl cons null list))
This is also efficient because foldl is tail recursive and there is no need for append. This can also be done point-free (using curry from racket):
(define reverse (curry foldl cons null))
(define reverse?
(lambda (l)
(define reverse-aux?
(lambda (l col)
(cond
((null? l) (col ))
(else
(reverse-aux? (cdr l)
(lambda ()
(cons (car l) (col))))))))
(reverse-aux? l (lambda () (quote ())))))
(reverse? '(1 2 3 4) )
One more answer similar to Oscar's. I have just started learning scheme, so excuse me in case you find issues :).
There's actually no need for appending or filling the body with a bunch of lambdas.
(define (reverse items)
(if (null? items)
'()
(cons (reverse (cdr items)) (car items))))
I think it would be better to use append instead of cons
(define (myrev l)
(if (null? l)
'()
(append (myrev (cdr l)) (list (car l)))
)
)
this another version with tail recursion
(define (myrev2 l)
(define (loop l acc)
(if (null? l)
acc
(loop (cdr l) (append (list (car l)) acc ))
)
)
(loop l '())
)
i have a function in scheme, this function calls another function many times, and every time this function appends return value of another function to result value.
but finally i want to get a result such that '(a b c), however i get a result such that '((a) (b) (c)) how can i fix this problem? i have searched but i couldn't find good solution.
my little code like that not all of them.
(append res (func x))
(append res (func y))
(append res (func z))
my code like this
(define (check a )
'(1)
)
(define bos '())
(define (func a)
(let loop1([a a] [res '()])
(cond
[(eq? a '()) res]
[else (let ([ x (check (car a))])
(loop1 (cdr a) (append res (list x)))
)]
)
))
Try this:
(define (func a)
(let loop1 ([a a] [res '()])
(cond
[(eq? a '()) res]
[else
(let ([ x (check (car a))])
(loop1 (cdr a) (append res x)))])))
Notice that the only change I made (besides improving the formatting) was substituting (list x) with x. That will do the trick! Alternatively, but less portable - you can use append* instead of append:
(append* res (list x))
As a side comment, you should use (null? a) for testing if the list is empty. Now if we test the procedure using the sample code in the question, we'll get:
(func '(a b c))
=> '(1 1 1)
It seems that instead of
(loop1 (cdr a) (cdr b) c (append res (list x)))
you want
(loop1 (cdr a) (cdr b) c (append res x))
Basically the trick is to use cons instead of list. Imagine (list 1 2 3 4) which is the same as (cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 (cons 4 '())))). Do you see how each part is (cons this-iteration-element (recurse-further)) like this:
(define (make-list n)
(if (zero? n)
'()
(cons n (make-list (sub1 n)))))
(make-list 10) ; ==> (10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1)
Usually when you can choose direction you can always make it tail recursive with an accumulator:
(define (make-list n)
(let loop ((x 1) (acc '()))
(if (> x n)
acc
(loop (add1 x) (cons x acc))))) ; build up in reverse!
(make-list 10) ; ==> (10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1)
Now this is a generic answer. Applied to your working code:
(define (func a)
(let loop1 ([a a] [res '()])
(cond
[(eq? a '()) (reverse res)]
[else
(let ([x (check (car a))])
(loop1 (cdr a) (cons (car x) res)))])))
(func '(a b c)) ; ==> (1 1 1)
append replaces the cons so why not put the car og your result to the rest of the list. Since you want the result in order I reverse the result in the base case. (can't really tell from the result, but I guessed since you ise append)
Using LISP, i need to create a function that splits a list into two lists. The first list consists of 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc elements and the second list consists of 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc elements.
Output Examples:
(SPLIT-LIST ( )) => (NIL NIL)
(SPLIT-LIST '(A B C D 1 2 3 4 5)) => ((A C 1 3 5) (B D 2 4))
(SPLIT-LIST '(B C D 1 2 3 4 5)) => ((B D 2 4) (C 1 3 5))
(SPLIT-LIST '(A)) => ((A) NIL)
The function need to be recursive.
This is my code so far.
(defun SPLIT-LIST (L)
(cond
((null L) NIL)
((= 1 (length L)) (list (car L)))
(t (cons (cons (car L) (SPLIT-LIST (cddr L))) (cadr L)))))
);cond
);defun
i'm going to try to use flatten later on so that i end up w/ two lists, but for now, i just can't seem to get the sequence correctly.
MY CODE:
> (SPLIT-LIST '(1 2 3 4))
((1 (3) . 4) . 2)
I just can't seem to make the code print 1 3 2 4 instead of 1 3 4 2.
> (SPLIT-LIST '(1 2 3 4 5 6))
((1 (3 (5) . 6) . 4) . 2)
I can't make the second half of the expected output to print in the correct sequence.
Your code
We typically read Lisp code by indentation, and don't write in all-caps. Since we read by indentation, we don't need to put closing parens (or any parens, really) on their own line. Your code, properly formatted, then, is:
(defun split-list (l)
(cond
((null l) '())
((= 1 (length l)) (list (car l)))
(t (cons (cons (car l)
(split-list (cddr l)))
(cadr l)))))
Getting the base cases right
Split-list is always supposed to return a list of two lists. We should cover those base cases first. When l is empty, then there's nothing in the left list or the right, so we can simply return '(() ()). Then first condition then becomes:
((null l) '(() ())) ; or ((endp l) '(() ()))
Judging by your second case, I gather that you want the second and third cases to be: (i) if there's only one element left, it must be an odd-numbered one, and belongs in the left result; (ii) otherwise, there are at least two elements left, and we can add one to each. Then the second condition should be
((= 1 (length l)) (list (car l) '()))
It's actually kind of expensive to check the length of l at each step. You only care whether there is only one element left. You already know that l isn't empty (from the first case), so you can just check whether the rest oflis the empty list. I find it more readable to usefirstandrest` when working with cons cells as lists, so I'd write the second clause as:
((endp (rest l)) (list (list (first l)) '()))
Handling the recursive case
Now, your final case is where there are at least two elements. That means that l looks like (x y . zs). What you need to do is call split-list on zs to get some result of the form (odd-zs even-zs), and then take it apart and construct ((x . odd-zs) (y . even-zs)). That would look something like this:
(t (let ((split-rest (split-list (rest (rest l)))))
(list (list* (first l) (first split-rest))
(list* (second l) (second split-rest)))))
There are actually some ways you can clean that up. We can use destructuring-bind to pull odd-zs and even-zs out at the same time. Since this is the last clause of the cond, and a clause returns the value of the test if there are no body forms, we don't need the initial t. The last clause can be:
((destructuring-bind (odd-zs even-zs) ; *
(split-list (rest (rest l)))
(list (list* (first l) odd-zs)
(list* (second l) even-zs))))))
*I omitted the t test because if a cond clause has no body forms, then the value of the test is returned. That works just fine here.
Putting that all together, we've reworked your code into
(defun split-list (l)
(cond
((endp l) '(() ()))
((endp (rest l)) (list (list (first l)) '()))
((destructuring-bind (odd-zs even-zs)
(split-list (rest (rest l)))
(list (list* (first l) odd-zs)
(list* (second l) even-zs))))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((A C 1 3) (B D 2))
Other approaches
I think it's worth exploring some approaches that are tail recursive, as an implementation that supports tail call optimization can convert them to loops. Tail recursive functions in Common Lisp are also typically easy to translate into do loops, which are much more likely to be implemented as iteration. In these solutions, we'll build up the result lists in reverse, and then reverse them when it's time to return them.
Recursing one element at a time
If the left and right slices are interchangeable
If it doesn't matter which of the two lists is first, you can use something like this:
(defun split-list (list &optional (odds '()) (evens '()))
(if (endp list)
(list (nreverse odds)
(nreverse evens))
(split-list (rest list)
evens
(list* (first list) odds))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((B D 2) (A C 1 3))
This can actually be written very concisely using a do loop, but that's typically seen as iterative, not recursive:
(defun split-list (list)
(do ((list list (rest list))
(odds '() evens)
(evens '() (list* (first list) odds)))
((endp list) (list (nreverse odds) (nreverse evens)))))
If they're not interchangable
If you always need the list containing the first element of the original list to be first, you'll need a little bit more logic. One possibility is:
(defun split-list (list &optional (odds '()) (evens '()) (swap nil))
(if (endp list)
(if swap
(list (nreverse evens)
(nreverse odds))
(list (nreverse odds)
(nreverse evens)))
(split-list (rest list)
evens
(list* (first list) odds)
(not swap))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((A C 1 3) (B D 2))
I think that (if swap … …) is actually a bit ugly. We can use cond so that we can get multiple forms (or if and progn), and swap the values of odds and evens before returning. I think this is actually a bit easier to read, but if you're aiming for a pure recursive solution (academic assignment?), then you might be avoiding mutation, too, so rotatef wouldn't be available, and using a when just to get some side effects would probably be frowned upon.
(defun split-list (list &optional (odds '()) (evens '()) (swap nil))
(cond
((endp list)
(when swap (rotatef odds evens))
(list (nreverse odds) (nreverse evens)))
((split-list (rest list)
evens
(list* (first list) odds)
(not swap)))))
This lends itself to do as well:
(defun split-list (list)
(do ((list list (rest list))
(odds '() evens)
(evens '() (list* (first list) odds))
(swap nil (not swap)))
((endp list)
(when swap (rotatef odds evens))
(list (nreverse odds) (nreverse evens)))))
Recursing two elements at a time
Another more direct approach would recurse down the list by cddr (i.e., (rest (rest …))) and add elements to the left and right sublists on each recursion. We need to be a little careful that we don't accidentally add an extra nil to the right list when there are an odd number of elements in the input, though.
(defun split-list (list &optional (left '()) (right '()))
(if (endp list)
(list (nreverse left)
(nreverse right))
(split-list (rest (rest list))
(list* (first list) left)
(if (endp (rest list))
right
(list* (second list) right)))))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c 1 2 3))
((A C 2) (B 1 3))
CL-USER> (split-list '(a b c d 1 2 3))
((A C 1 3) (B D 2))
And again, a do version:
(defun split-list (list)
(do ((list list (rest (rest list)))
(left '() (list* (first list) left))
(right '() (if (endp (rest list)) right (list* (second list) right))))
((endp list) (list (nreverse left) (nreverse right)))))
Here's what I've got:
(defun split-list (lst)
(if lst
(if (cddr lst)
(let ((l (split-list (cddr lst))))
(list
(cons (car lst) (car l))
(cons (cadr lst) (cadr l))))
`((,(car lst)) ,(cdr lst)))
'(nil nil)))
After reading SICP I'm rarely confused about recursion.
I highly recommend it.
Here's my take, using an inner function:
(defun split-list (lst)
(labels ((sub (lst lst1 lst2 flip)
(if lst
(if flip
(sub (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) lst1) lst2 (not flip))
(sub (cdr lst) lst1 (cons (car lst) lst2) (not flip)))
(list (reverse lst1) (reverse lst2)))))
(sub lst nil nil t)))
As a Common Lisp LOOP:
(defun split-list (list)
"splits a list into ((0th, 2nd, ...) (1st, 3rd, ...))"
(loop for l = list then (rest (rest l))
until (null l) ; nothing to split
collect (first l) into l1 ; first split result
unless (null (rest l))
collect (second l) into l2 ; second split result
finally (return (list l1 l2))))
With internal tail-recursive function building the lists in top-down manner (no reverses, loop code probably compiles to something equivalent), with a head-sentinel trick (for simplicity).
(defun split-list (lst &aux (lst1 (list 1)) (lst2 (list 2)))
(labels ((sub (lst p1 p2)
(if lst
(progn (rplacd p1 (list (car lst)))
(sub (cdr lst) p2 (cdr p1)))
(list (cdr lst1) (cdr lst2)))))
(sub lst lst1 lst2)))
Flatten is fun to define in Lisp. But I've never had a use for it.
So if you think "I could use flatten to solve this problem" it's probably because you're trying to solve the wrong problem.
(defun split-list (L)
(if (endp L)
'(nil nil)
(let ((X (split-list (cdr L))))
(list (cons (car L) (cadr X)) (car X))
)))