Here is my code about postfix in scheme:
(define (stackupdate e s)
(if (number? e)
(cons e s)
(cons (eval '(e (car s) (cadr s))) (cddr s))))
(define (postfixhelper lst s)
(if (null? lst)
(car s)
(postfixhelper (cdr lst) (stackupdate (car lst) s))))
(define (postfix list)
(postfixhelper list '()))
(postfix '(1 2 +))
But when I tried to run it, the compiler said it takes wrong. I tried to check it, but still can't find why it is wrong. Does anyone can help me? Thanks so much!
And this is what the compiler said:
e: unbound identifier;
also, no #%app syntax transformer is bound in: e
eval never has any information about variables that some how are defined in the same scope as it is used. Thus e and s does not exist. Usually eval is the wrong solution, but if you are to use eval try doing it as as little as you can:
;; Use eval to get the global procedure
;; from the host scheme
(define (symbol->proc sym)
(eval sym))
Now instead of (eval '(e (car s) (cadr s))) you do ((symbol->proc e) (car s) (cadr s)). Now you should try (postfix '(1 2 pair?))
I've made many interpreters and none of them used eval. Here is what I would have done most of the time:
;; Usually you know what operators are supported
;; so you can map their symbol with a procedure
(define (symbol->proc sym)
(case sym
[(+) +]
[(hyp) (lambda (k1 k2) (sqrt (+ (* k1 k1) (* k2 k2))))]
[else (error "No such operation" sym)]))
This fixes the (postfix '(1 2 pair?)) problem. A thing that I see in your code is that you always assume two arguments. But how would you do a double? eg something that just doubles the one argument. In this case symbol->proc could return more information:
(define (symbol->op sym)
(case sym
[(+) (cons + 2)]
[(double) (cons (lambda (v) (* v v)) 1)]
[else (error "No such operation" sym)]))
(define op-proc car)
(define op-arity cdr)
And in your code you could do this if it's not a number:
(let* ([op (symbol->op e)]
[proc (op-proc op)]
[arity (op-arity op)])
(cons (apply proc (take s arity)
(drop s arity)))
take and drop are not R5RS, but they are simple to create.
Related
Does anyone can help me to deal with the problem?
I tried for many times, but it still has the error information.
This is my code(scheme)
Thanks!!!
(define (postfix l s)
(cond(
((null? l)(car s))
(else (postfix (cdr l) update-s((car s)))))))
(define (update-s x s)
(cond(((number? x) (cons x s))
(else (cons (eval '(x (car s) (cadr s))) (scheme-report-environment 5) (cdr(cdr s)))))))
And this is the error inform:
else: not allowed as an expression in: (else (postfix (cdr l) update-s ((car s) s)))
Next time, don't forget to add a description of your problem (what should this code do?), expected inputs and outputs, and a version of Scheme you use.
You should also use better names for variables (no l, s, x) and describe their meaning and expected type in your question.
If I understand correctly, you were trying to create a calculator which uses reverse Polish/ postfix notation, where:
l is a list of numbers or symbols
s is a stack with results, represented as a list of numbers
x can be a number or symbol representing some function
From (scheme-report-environment 5) I guess you use r5rs Scheme.
Now some of your errors:
you should define update-s before function postfix
your cond has some additional parentheses
if cond has only two branches, you should use if instead
this part (postfix (cdr l) update-s((car s))) should be (postfix (cdr l) (update-s (car l) s)
(cdr(cdr s)) should be (cddr s)
as for eval, I understand why it's here, you were trying to get a function from the symbol, but you should be always careful, as it can also evaluate code provided by user. Consider this example: (postfix '(1 2 (begin (write "foo") +)) '()). Maybe it could be better to don't expect this input: '(1 2 +), but this: (list 1 2 +) and get rid of eval.
The whole code:
(define (update-s object stack)
(if (number? object)
(cons object stack)
(cons ((eval object (scheme-report-environment 5))
(car stack) (cadr stack))
(cddr stack))))
(define (postfix lst stack)
(if (null? lst)
(car stack)
(postfix (cdr lst)
(update-s (car lst) stack))))
Example:
> (postfix '(1 2 +) '())
3
Solution without eval with different input:
(define (update-s object stack)
(if (number? object)
(cons object stack)
(cons (object (car stack) (cadr stack))
(cddr stack))))
(define (postfix lst stack)
(if (null? lst)
(car stack)
(postfix (cdr lst)
(update-s (car lst) stack))))
Example:
> (postfix (list 1 2 +) '())
3
I am writing a program in scheme that takes in regular scheme notation ex: (* 5 6) and returns the notation that you would use in any other language ex: (5 * 6)
I have my recursive step down but I am having trouble breaking out into my base case.
(define (infix lis)
(if (null? lis) '()
(if (null? (cdr lis)) '(lis)
(list (infix (cadr lis)) (car lis) (infix(caddr lis))))))
(infix '(* 5 6))
the error happens at the (if (null? lis)) '(lis)
the error message is:
mcdr: contract violation
expected: mpair?
given: 5
>
why is it giving me an error and how can I fix this?
Right now your infix function is assuming that its input is always a list. The input is not always a list: sometimes it is a number.
A PrefixMathExpr is one of:
- Number
- (list BinaryOperation PrefixMathExpr PrefixMathExpr)
If this is the structure of your data, the code should follow that structure. The data definition has a one-of, so the code should have a conditional.
;; infix : PrefixMathExpr -> InfixMathExpr
(define (infix p)
(cond
[(number? p) ???]
[(list? p) ???]))
Each conditional branch can use the sub-parts from that case of the data definition. Here, the list branch can use (car p), (cadr p), and (caddr p).
;; infix : PrefixMathExpr -> InfixMathExpr
(define (infix p)
(cond
[(number? p) ???]
[(list? p) (.... (car p) (cadr p) (caddr p) ....)]))
Some of these sub-parts are complex data definitions, in this case self-references to PrefixMathExpr. Those self-references naturally turn into recursive calls:
;; infix : PrefixMathExpr -> InfixMathExpr
(define (infix p)
(cond
[(number? p) ???]
[(list? p) (.... (car p) (infix (cadr p)) (infix (caddr p)) ....)]))
Then fill in the holes.
;; infix : PrefixMathExpr -> InfixMathExpr
(define (infix p)
(cond
[(number? p) p]
[(list? p) (list (infix (cadr p)) (car p) (infix (caddr p)))]))
This process for basing the structure of the program on the structure of the data comes from How to Design Programs.
Mistake
(infix '(* 5 6))
; =
(list (infix (cadr '(* 5 6))) (car '(* 5 6)) (infix (caddr '(* 5 6))))
; =
(list (infix 5) '* (infix (caddr 6)))
; = ^^^^^^^^^
; |
; |
; v
(if ...
...
(if (null? (cdr 5)) ; <-- fails here
...
...))
Solution
First, you need to define the structure of the data you're manipulating:
; OpExp is one of:
; - Number
; - (cons Op [List-of OpExp])
; Op = '+ | '* | ...
In english: it's either a number or an operator followed by a list of other op-expressions.
We define some examples:
(define ex1 7)
(define ex2 '(* 1 2))
(define ex3 `(+ ,ex2 ,ex1))
(define ex4 '(* 1 2 3 (+ 4 3 2) (+ 9 8 7)))
Now we follow the structure of OpExp to make a "template":
(define (infix opexp)
(if (number? opexp)
...
(... (car opexp) ... (cdr opexp) ...)))
Two cases:
The first case: what to do when we just get a number?
The second case: first extract the componenet:
(car opexp) is the operator
(cdr opexp) is a list of operands of type OpExp
Refining the template:
(define (infix opexp)
(if (number? opexp)
opexp
(... (car opexp) ... (map infix (cdr opexp)) ...)))
Since we have a a list of op-exps, we need to map a recursive call on all of them. All we need to do is make the operator infix at the top-level.
We use a helper that intertwines the list with the operator:
; inserts `o` between every element in `l`
(define (insert-infix o l)
(cond ((or (null? l) (null? (cdr l))) l) ; no insertion for <= 1 elem lst
(else (cons (car l) (cons o (insert-infix o (cdr l)))))))
and finally use the helper to get the final version:
; converts OpExp into infix style
(define (infix opexp)
(if (number? opexp)
opexp
(insert-infix (car opexp) (map infix (cdr opexp)))))
We define respective results for our examples:
(define res1 7)
(define res2 '(1 * 2))
(define res3 `(,res2 + ,res1))
(define res4 '(1 * 2 * 3 * (4 + 3 + 2) * (9 + 8 + 7)))
And a call of infix on ex1 ... exN should result in res1 ... resN
In "The Scheme Programming Language 4th Edition" section 3.3 Continuations the following example is given:
(define product
(lambda (ls)
(call/cc
(lambda (break)
(let f ([ls ls])
(cond
[(null? ls) 1]
[(= (car ls) 0) (break 0)]
[else (* (car ls) (f (cdr ls)))]))))))
I can confirm it works in chezscheme as written:
> (product '(1 2 3 4 5))
120
What is 'f' in the above let? Why is the given ls being assigned to itself? It doesn't seem to match what I understand about (let ...) as described in 4.4 local binding:
syntax: (let ((var expr) ...) body1 body2 ...)
If 'f' is being defined here I would expect it inside parenthesis/square brackets:
(let ([f some-value]) ...)
This is 'named let', and it's a syntactic convenience.
(let f ([x y] ...)
...
(f ...)
...)
is more-or-less equivalent to
(letrec ([f (λ (x ...)
...
(f ...)
...)])
(f y ...))
or, in suitable contexts, to a local define followed by a call:
(define (outer ...)
(let inner ([x y] ...)
...
(inner ...)
...))
is more-or-less equivalent to
(define (outer ...)
(define (inner x ...)
...
(inner ...)
...)
(inner y ...))
The nice thing about named let is that it puts the definition and the initial call of the local function in the same place.
Cavemen like me who use CL sometimes use macros like binding, below, to implement this (note this is not production code: all its error messages are obscure jokes):
(defmacro binding (name/bindings &body bindings/decls/forms)
;; let / named let
(typecase name/bindings
(list
`(let ,name/bindings ,#bindings/decls/forms))
(symbol
(unless (not (null bindings/decls/forms))
(error "a syntax"))
(destructuring-bind (bindings . decls/forms) bindings/decls/forms
(unless (listp bindings)
(error "another syntax"))
(unless (listp decls/forms)
(error "yet another syntax"))
(multiple-value-bind (args inits)
(loop for binding in bindings
do (unless (and (listp binding)
(= (length binding) 2)
(symbolp (first binding)))
(error "a more subtle syntax"))
collect (first binding) into args
collect (second binding) into inits
finally (return (values args inits)))
`(labels ((,name/bindings ,args
,#decls/forms))
(,name/bindings ,#inits)))))
(t
(error "yet a different syntax"))))
f is bound to a procedure that has the body of let as a body and ls as a parameter.
http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-14.html#node_sec_11.16
Think of this procedure:
(define (sum lst)
(define (helper lst acc)
(if (null? lst)
acc
(helper (cdr lst)
(+ (car lst) acc))))
(helper lst 0))
(sum '(1 2 3)) ; ==> 6
We can use named let instead of defining a local procedure and then use it like this:
(define (sum lst-arg)
(let helper ((lst lst-arg) (acc 0))
(if (null? lst)
acc
(helper (cdr lst)
(+ (car lst) acc)))))
Those are the exact same code with the exception of some duplicate naming situations. lst-arg can have the same name lst and it is never the same as lst inside the let.
Named let is easy to grasp. call/ccusually takes some maturing. I didn't get call/cc before I started creating my own implementations.
I am trying to write by myself the cons function in scheme. I have written this code:
(define (car. z)
(z (lambda (p q) p)))
and I am trying to run :
(car. '(1 2 3))
I expect to get the number 1, but it does not work properly.
When you implement language data structures you need to supply constructors and accessors that conform to the contract:
(car (cons 1 2)) ; ==> 1
(cdr (cons 1 2)) ; ==> 2
(pair? (cons 1 2)) ; ==> 2
Here is an example:
(define (cons a d)
(vector a d))
(define (car p)
(vector-ref p 0))
(define (cdr p)
(vector-ref p 1))
Now if you make an implementation you would implement read to be conformant to this way of doing pairs so that '(1 2 3) would create the correct data structure the simple rules above is still the same.
From looking at car I imagine cons looks like this:
(define (cons a d)
(lambda (p) (p a d)))
It works with closures. Now A stack machine implementation of Scheme would analyze the code for free variables living passed their scope and thus create them as boxes. Closures containing a, and d aren't much different than vectors.
I urge you to implement a minimalistic Scheme interpreter. First in Scheme since you can use the host language, then a different than a lisp language. You can even do it in an esoteric language, but it is very time consuming.
Sylwester's answer is great. Here's another possible implementation of null, null?, cons, car, cdr -
(define null 'null)
(define (null? xs)
(eq? null xs))
(define (cons a b)
(define (dispatch message)
(match message
('car a)
('cdr b)
(_ (error 'cons "unsupported message" message))
dispatch)
(define (car xs)
(if (null? xs)
(error 'car "cannot call car on an empty pair")
(xs 'car)))
(define (cdr xs)
(if (null? xs)
(error 'cdr "cannot call cdr on an empty pair")
(xs 'cdr)))
It works like this -
(define xs (cons 'a (cons 'b (cons 'c null))))
(printf "~a -> ~a -> ~a\n"
(car xs)
(car (cdr xs))
(car (cdr (cdr xs))))
;; a -> b -> c
It raises errors in these scenarios -
(cdr null)
; car: cannot call car on an empty pair
(cdr null)
; cdr: cannot call cdr on an empty pair
((cons 'a 'b) 'foo)
;; cons: unsupported dispatch: foo
define/match adds a little sugar, if you like sweet things -
(define (cons a b)
(define/match (dispatch msg)
(('car) a)
(('cdr) b)
(('pair?) #t)
((_) (error 'cons "unsupported dispatch: ~a" msg)))
dispatch)
((cons 1 2) 'car) ;; 1
((cons 1 2) 'cdr) ;; 2
((cons 1 2) 'pair?) ;; #t
((cons 1 2) 'foo) ;; cons: unsupported dispatch: foo
I saw a code on a book about how to create a map function in Scheme, the code is the following:
(define map (lambda (f L)
(if null? L '()
(cons (f (car L)) (map f (cdr L))))))
(define square (lambda (x)
(* x x)))
(define square-list (lambda (L)
(map square L)))
Supposedly I can call it with:
(map square-list '(1 2 3 4))
but it is throwing me the following error:
SchemeError: too many operands in form: (null? L (quote ()) (cons (f (car L)) (map f (cdr L))))
Current Eval Stack:
-------------------------
0: (map square-list (quote (1 2 3 4)))
How should I call this function?
You have two errors. First, you forgot to surround the null? check with parentheses (and notice a better way to indent your code):
(define map
(lambda (f L)
(if (null? L)
'()
(cons (f (car L))
(map f (cdr L))))))
Second, you're expected to call the procedure like this:
(square-list '(1 2 3 4 5))
=> '(1 4 9 16 25)
You're missing parens around null? L, i.e. your condition should probably look like
(if (null? L) '()
(cons ...))