just started learning Scheme - scheme

Question

I don't know why this does not work. I get an error saying "Error: 1 is not a function[(anon)]"
(define (mem lst ele)
(cond ;if the list is empty return false
((null? lst) #f)
;if the first element is equal to the given element return true
;otherwise call the function with rest of the list
(else (if (= ele (car lst))
#t
(mem (cdr lst) ele)))))
(mem ’(1) ’(1 4 -2))

Answer 1

It works for me; how are you calling mem? I am guessing that you did something like: (mem (1 2 3 4) 1). Procedure calls always evaluate their arguments in Scheme, so in the procedure call (mem (1 2 3 4) 1) the expression (1 2 3 4) is evaluated; but lists are evaluated as if the first member is a procedure, so 1 is treated as a function; it is not, and this raises an exception.
You could quote the list: (mem (quote (1 2 3 4)) 1), or you can use the shorthand (mem '(1 2 3 4) 1). quote is a special form that does not evaluate its argument; instead it just returns whatever datum it is given. You can try this out at the REPL:
> (+ 1 2)
3
> (quote (+ 1 2))
(+ 1 2)
> '(+ 1 2)
(+ 1 2)
Here the naked expression (+ 1 2) evaluates to 3, but the quoted expressions just return the expressions given to quote. That is, (quote (+ 1 2)) evaluates to the expression (+ 1 2), not to the result of evaluating the expression (+ 1 2). In the case of (1 2 3 4):
> (quote (1 2 3 4))
(1 2 3 4)
> '(1 2 3 4)
(1 2 3 4)
> (1 2 3 4)
Exception: attempt to apply non-procedure 1
Type (debug) to enter the debugger.
The procedure call (mem '(1 2 3 4) 1) would evaluate the expression '(1 2 3 4) before passing that value to mem. Since the expression '(1 2 3 4) evaluates to a list, that list is the value which is passed to mem. This differs from the erroneous call (mem (1 2 3 4) 1), which attempts to evaluate the expression (1 2 3 4) by calling the (nonexistent) procedure 1 with the arguments 2, 3, and 4.
You could also use list to create the input: (mem (list 1 2 3 4) 1). list is also a procedure, and so it evaluates its arguments. Here the call to mem would evaluate the expression (list 1 2 3 4), and since list is a procedure the call to list would evaluate the arguments 1, 2, 3, and 4. Numbers are self-evaluating in Scheme, so the call to list would return a list (1 2 3 4); this list is the value passed to mem, which has now evaluated its argument (list 1 2 3 4).
Some Comments on the Posted Code
The cond form can take multiple conditional clauses, and there is no reason to use if here. Instead, you can do:
(define (mem lst ele)
(cond
((null? lst) #f)
((= ele (car lst)) #t)
(else
(mem (cdr lst) ele))))
The = predicate only works for numbers; to handle more general inputs you might choose equal?:
(define (mem lst ele)
(cond
((null? lst) #f)
((equal? ele (car lst)) #t)
(else
(mem (cdr lst) ele))))
Now you can work with, e.g., lists of symbols, or lists of lists:
> (mem '(a b c d) 'c)
#t
> (mem '(a b c d) 'e)
#f
> (mem '(1 (2 3) 4) '(2 3))
#t
> (mem '(1 (2 (3 4)) 5) '(2 (3 4)))
#t
> (mem '(1 (2 3) 4) 3) ;; does not descend into nested lists
#f
Note that changing the equality predicate to equal? will allow lists to be searched for at the top level of the input list, but no deeper. The list (2 (3 4)) can be found in the list (1 (2 (3 4)) 5) because it is at the top level of the list, i.e., (2 (3 4)) is an element of the list (1 (2 (3 4)) 5). But, (3 4) is not an element of the top level list, so the current mem procedure can't find it here. Another definition for mem would be needed to search within nested lists.

Answer 2

It seems from your example that you are looking for the list '(1 4 -2) in the list '(1), which should evaluate to #f. However your implementation expects all elements to be numbers since you compare with = which is a number only comparison procedure. If you want to compare any type you should use equal? which compares two objects of any type and supports comparing structures.

Answer 3

You were using an acute-accent instead of a single-quote for your literals.
#lang racket
(define (mem ele lst) ;; easier to read with one element -then- list
;; ..plus that's how you wrote your call to it,
;; so this arg-order makes more sense here.
(cond ;; cond doesn't need "else"
((null? lst) #f)
((if (= ele (car lst)) #t
(mem ele (cdr lst)))) ;; element, then list now
)
)
(mem 1 '(1 4 -2))
;; don't know why element needed to be wrapped in a '(1) literal list container
;; also literals require single-quote ' character, not the ’ acute-accent
https://docs.racket-lang.org/racket-cheat/index.html