Here is the code(Helped with https://stackoverflow.com/a/73017526/19567940) :
(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 (postfixhelp lst stack)
(if (null? lst)
(car stack)
(postfixhelp (cdr lst)
(update-s (car lst) stack))))
(define (postfix l)
(postfixhelper l '()))
(postfix '(1 2 +))
I wanna to use (postfix '(1 2 +)) get the answer 3. But when I put it in compiler, I got the error information:
*** ERROR: unbound variable: postfixhelper
While loading "./jdoodle.sc" at line 15
Stack Trace:
_______________________________________
0 (postfixhelper l '())
at "./jdoodle.sc":14
Command exited with non-zero status 70
Therefore, how can I fix it and solve this problem?
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 have a recursive code and need to terminate it when condition is fullfilled. I am capable of display the list when the condition, but then there are another calls on stack that I don't need to process that doesn't let me to return the list.
A variation of Sylwester's solution:
(define (example n)
(call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (return)
(let loop ([n 0])
(if (= n 5) ; done
(return 'the-result)
(loop (+ n 1)))))))
(example 10)
Using the continuation in this way allows one to use an escape continuation instead of a full continuation with call/ec (if your implementation has escape continuations).
The best way to do it is by using an accumulator. Aborting is then just not recursing.
(define (copy-unless-contains-5 lst)
(define (helper lst acc)
(cond
((null? lst) (reverse acc))
((equal? (car lst) 5) #f)
(else (helper (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) acc)))))
(helper lst '()))
If you are recursing with a continuation and that is the optimum way of doing it, then call-with-current-continuation can give you a way to abort waiting continuations and choose what to return.
(define (copy-unless-contains-5 lst)
(call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (abort)
(define (helper lst)
(cond
((null? lst) '())
((equal? (car lst) 5) (abort #f))
(else (cons (car lst) (helper (cdr lst))))))
(helper lst))))
Needless to say this last version is overly complicated. Both work the same:
(copy-unless-contains-5 '(1 2 3 4)) ; ==> (1 2 3 4)
(copy-unless-contains-5 '(1 2 5 3 4)) ; ==> #f
(define (remove-duplicates l)
(cond ((empty? l)
'())
((member (first l) (rest l))
(remove-duplicates (rest l)))
(else
(cons (first l) (remove-duplicates (rest l))))))
This code has this result.
> (remove-duplicates (list 1 1 2 2 3 4))
(list 1 2 3 4)
Without using filter, I would like the result to be
(remove-duplicates (list 1 1 2 2 3 4)) gives
(list 3 4)
Help would be deeply appreciated. Thanks in advance.
You could use a helper function:
(define helper
(lambda (lst collector dup)
(cond [(null? lst) collector]
[(memq (car lst) (cdr lst)) (helper (cdr lst) collector (cons (car lst) dup))]
[(memq (car lst) dup) (helper (cdr lst) collector dup)]
[else
(helper (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) collector) dup)])))
Maintain two lst, collector for all unique element, and dup for duplicated elements.
(define remove-dup
(lambda (lst)
(reverse (helper lst '() '()))))
I am trying to solve the exercise 2.20 from SICP book. The exercise -
Write a procedure same-parity that takes one or more integers and returns a list of
all the arguments that have the same even-odd parity as the first argument. For example,
(same-parity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)
(1 3 5 7)
(same-parity 2 3 4 5 6 7)
(2 4 6)
My code -
(define same-parity (lambda (int . l)
(define iter-even (lambda (l2 rl)
(cons ((null? l2) rl)
((even? (car l2))
(iter-even (cdr l2) (append rl (car l2))))
(else (iter-even (cdr l2) rl)))))
(define iter-odd (lambda (l2 rl)
(cons ((null? l2) rl)
((odd? (car l2))
(iter-odd (cdr l2) (append rl (car l2))))
(else (iter-odd (cdr l2) rl)))))
(if (even? int) (iter-even l (list int))
(iter-odd l (list int)))))
For some reason I am getting an error saying "The object (), passed as the first argument to cdr, is not the correct type". I tried to solve this for more than two hours, but I cant find any reason why it fails like that. Thanks for hlep.
Try this:
(define same-parity
(lambda (int . l)
(define iter-even
(lambda (l2 rl)
(cond ((null? l2) rl)
((even? (car l2))
(iter-even (cdr l2) (append rl (list (car l2)))))
(else (iter-even (cdr l2) rl)))))
(define iter-odd
(lambda (l2 rl)
(cond ((null? l2) rl)
((odd? (car l2))
(iter-odd (cdr l2) (append rl (list (car l2)))))
(else (iter-odd (cdr l2) rl)))))
(if (even? int)
(iter-even l (list int))
(iter-odd l (list int)))))
Explanation:
You are using cons instead of cond for the different conditions
in the part where append is called, the second argument must be a proper list (meaning: null-terminated) - but it is a cons-pair in your code. This was causing the error, the solution is to simply put the second element inside a list before appending it.
I must say, using append to build an output list is frowned upon. You should try to write the recursion in such a way that cons is used for creating the new list, this is more efficient, too.
Some final words - as you're about to discover in the next section of SICP, this problem is a perfect fit for using filter - a more idiomatic solution would be:
(define (same-parity head . tail)
(if (even? head)
(filter even? (cons head tail))
(filter odd? (cons head tail))))
First, I check the first element in the list. If it is even, I call the procedure that forms a list out of only the even elements. Else, I call the procedure that forms a list out of odd elements.
Here's my code
(define (parity-helper-even B)(cond
((= 1 (length B)) (cond
((even? (car B)) B)
(else '())
))
(else (cond
((even? (car B)) (append (list (car B)) (parity-helper-even (cdr B))))
(else (parity-helper-even(cdr B)))
))))
(define (parity-helper-odd B)(cond
((= 1 (length B)) (cond
((odd? (car B)) B)
(else '())
))
(else (cond
((odd? (car B)) (append (list (car B)) (parity-helper-odd (cdr B))))
(else (parity-helper-odd (cdr B)))
))))
(define (same-parity first . L) (cond
((even? first) (parity-helper-even (append (list first) L)))
(else (parity-helper-odd (append (list first) L)))))
(same-parity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)
;Output (1 3 5 7)
While you are traversing the list, you might as well just split it into even and odd parities. As the last step, choose the one you want.
(define (parities args)
(let looking ((args args) (even '()) (odd '()))
(if (null? args)
(values even odd)
(let ((head (car args)))
(if (even? head)
(looking (cdr args) (cons head even) odd)
(looking (cdr args) even (cons head odd)))))))
(define (same-parity head . rest)
(let-values ((even odd) (parities (cons head rest)))
(if (even? head)
even
odd)))
Except for homework assignments, if you are going to look for one then you are likely to need the other. Said another way, you'd find yourself using parities more frequently in practice.
You could simply filter elements by parity of first element:
(define (same-parity x . y)
(define (iter z filter-by)
(cond ((null? z) z)
((filter-by (car z))
(cons (car z) (iter (cdr z) filter-by)))
(else (iter (cdr z) filter-by))))
(iter (cons x y) (if (even? x) even? odd?)))
And try:
(same-parity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)
(same-parity 2 3 4 5 6 7)
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)