I have the following accumulate function:
; accumulate
(define (accumulate op initial sequence)
(if (null? sequence)
initial
(op (car sequence) (accumulate op initial (cdr sequence)))))
I'm trying to write a length function to get the length of a sequence using the accumulate function.
For the function to plug into accumulate, why is it (+ y 1) instead of (+ x 1) ? That's the part I can't figure out:
(define (length sequence)
(accumulate (lambda (x y) (+ x 1)) ; wrong
0
sequence))
(define (length sequence)
(accumulate (lambda (x y) (+ y 1)) ; correct
0
sequence))
Your problem is that x and y doesn't tell you anything what it is. However if you look at accumulate you can see how op is called:
(op (car sequence) ; first argument is the element
(accumulate op initial (cdr sequence))) ; second argument is the accumulated value
While it doesn't really look that way Imagine that the second argument is calling accumulate on the empty sequence. Then you get this:
(op (car sequence)
initial)
So lets make length:
(define (length sequence)
(accumulate (lambda (element initial)
;; initial is often also called acc / accumulator
(+ 1 initial))
0
sequence))
So the answer is that the first argument is the individual element while the second is either the initial value (0) or the previous calculated value which is 0 with as many 1 added as the tail of the sequence had. Thus a number. WHy you don't use the first argument is that you can't really use "a" or whatever the list contains to count elements since you need to just count them not use them as values. If you use the first argument and it happens to be strings what is (+ "a" 0) supposed to help in finding out that the list has length 1?
If you use (lambda (x y) (+ x 1)) as op, then your length (or to be precise, the accumulate) function will not use the result of the recursive calls to the accumulate function. It will essentially only do one computation, (+ x 1) ,where x is (car sequence), the first element of sequence -- and this one computation may or may not even make sense, depending on whether or not x is a number, and even if it did the answer would be wrong.
On the other hand, if op is (lambda (x y) (+ y 1)), then your function will replace
(op (car sequence) (accumulate op initial (cdr sequence)))
with
(+ (accumulate op initial (cdr sequence)) 1)
The recursion bottoms out with the computation (+ 0 1), so you ultimately get the length of the list, when each of the nested recursive calls to accumulate return the length of the sub-lists to their calling functions.
Related
I need to implement sublist? as a one-liner function that uses accumulate.
It is suppose to return true if set1 is in set2.
Something like this:
(define subset?
(lambda (set1 set2)
(accumulate member? (car set1) (lambda (x) x) set2)))
Honestly I think I'm just confused on how accumulate is suppose to work with member, or if member is even the right choice for the operator.
My accumulate function is:
(define accumulate
(lambda (op base func ls)
(if (null? ls)
base
(op (func (car ls))
(accumulate op base func (cdr ls))))))
and member?:
(define member?
(lambda (item ls)
(cond ((null? ls) #f)
((equal? item (car ls)) #t)
(else (member? item (cdr ls))))))
To give the correct definition of subset? first we must understand how the function accumulate works and the meaning of its parameters.
If we “unfold” the recursive definition, we can see that accumulate applies the binary operator op to all the results of applying func to the elements of list ls. And since the list can be empty, in these cases the function is defined to give back the value base.
So, for instance, assuming the recursive execution of the function, the following expression
(accumulate + 0 sqr '(1 2 3))
produces 14, since it is equivalent to:
(+ (sqr 1) (+ (sqr 2) (+ (sqr 3) 0)))
that is 1 + 4 + 9 + 0.
To solve your problem, you have to define a call to accumulate that applies the same operator to a list of elements and then combine the results. In you case, the operation to be applied is a test if an element is member of a list (member?), and you can apply it to all the elements of set1. And you should know, from the definition of the subset, that a set s1 is subset of another set s2 if and only if all the elements of s1 are contained in s2. So the operator that must be applied to combine all the results of the test is just the and boolean operator, so that it will be true if all the elements of s1 are member of s2 and false otherwise. The last thing to decide is the base value: this should be true, since an empty set is always contained in another set.
So this is a possible definition of subset?:
(define (subset? set1 set2)
(accumulate
(lambda (x y) (and x y)) ;; the combination operator
#t ;; the value for the empty list
(lambda(x) (member x set2)) ;; the function to be applied to all the elements of
set1)) ;; the set set1
I am trying to replace the elements in a scheme list with its position.
For example, calling:
(position '((a b) c))
should return:
'((0 1) 2)
So far, my code keeps the list format, but the index is not updating.
(define (position term1)
(define index 0)
(cond [(null? term1) '()]
[(list? term1) (cons (position (car term1)) (position(cdr term1)))]
[else (+ 1 index) index]))
When (position '((a b) c)) is called, it returns
'((0 0) 0)
Can anybody explain why the index isn't updating?
There are a couple things wrong: first notice that every time you recursively call position, index is bound to zero.
Second, look at your else branch. (+ 1 index) evaluates to 1 (it does not change any variables) and index evaluates to 0. This branch can only evaluate to one thing, so what happens is the last one is returned and the rest are discarded. This is where your zeroes come from.
It seems like within your function you are trying to keep a global state (the current index) and modify it each time you label a leaf. The "modifying state" part is not good functional style, but if you are okay with that then take a look at set!.
Here is one solution using CPS:
#lang racket
(define (index xs [i 0] [continue (λ (xs i) xs)])
(match xs
[(cons x xs) (index x i
(λ (js j)
(index xs j
(λ (ks k)
(continue (cons js ks) k)))))]
['() (continue '() i)]
[x (continue i (+ i 1))]))
; Example
;(index '((a b) (c d) x (e (f g) h)))
; '((0 1) (2 3) 4 (5 (6 7) 8))
Here (index xs i continue) replaces the elements in xs with their indices, the count starts from i. Let's say the result of indexing xs is js, then continue is called with the indexing result and the next index to be used: (continue js j).
Daenerys Naharis already pointed out what's wrong, so let me point out some features of Scheme and Racket you may be unaware of that you could use in a solution that maintains functional style.
This is called a named let:
(let loop ((index 0)
(result '()))
(if (= index 10)
(reverse result)
(loop (+ 1 index) (cons index result)))
Within the let form, loop is bound as a function that takes all the local variables as arguments. Calling it recursively calls the let form itself. This way you can make index an argument without making it an argument of position. You can also put the result in an argument, which allows you to make the call to loop a tail call.
The other feature is less widespread among existing Scheme implementations: Optional arguments. In Racket, they're defined like this:
(define (position term1 (index 0)) ...)
Then position can be called with or without the index argument.
An example using mutation that maintains it's own state so that each item of each list has a unique id.
Example Usage:
> (position '((a b) c))
'((0 1) 2)
> (position '((a b) c (d (e))))
'((3 4) 5 (6 (7)))
Example Implementation:
#lang racket
(provide position)
(define base -1)
(define (indexer)
(set! base (add1 base))
base)
(define (position list-of-x)
(cond [(null? list-of-x) null]
[else
(define head (first list-of-x))
(cond [(list? head)
(cons (position head)
(position (rest list-of-x)))]
[else (cons (indexer)
(position (rest list-of-x)))])]))
I have a project for school for which I'm supposed to optimize a compiler/evaluator for Scheme.
The task is to implement tail-call optimization wherever possible.
I'm aware of the known tail-call optimization as shown below:
(define (f x)
<send some rockets into space>
(f (+ x 1)))
However, I'm thinking about evaluating operands in tail position as well. Suppose the following:
; The function
(define (f a b c)
<send some monkeys into space>
1)
; Call the function with (f 3 4 5)
(f (+ 1 2) (begin (define x 4) x) 5))
Evaluating the operands (+ 1 2), (begin (define x 4)) and 5 could be done in tail position, right?
Each of the operands are evaluated in their own environment. I tried this by using the regular R5RS in DrRacket with the following expression:
(+ (begin (define x 5) x) x)
If the operands would be evaluated in the same environment I would be able to pass the x defined in the first operand as the second operand. This is however not possible.
So, is it correct for me to assume that each operand can be evaluated in tail position?
"Tail position" is always relative to some outer expression. For example, consider this:
(define (norm . args)
(define (sum-of-squares sum args)
(if (null? args)
sum
(let ((arg (car args)))
(sum-of-squares (+ sum (* arg arg)) (cdr args)))))
(sqrt (sum-of-squares 0 args)))
The recursive call to sum-of-squares is indeed in tail position relative to sum-of-squares. But is it in tail position relative to norm? No, because the return value from sum-of-squares is sent to sqrt, not directly to norm's caller.
The key to analysing whether an expression A is in tail position relative to outer expression B, is to see whether A's return value is directly returned by B, without any further processing.
In your case, with your expression (f (+ 1 2) (begin (define x 4) x) 5) (which isn't actually valid, by the way: perhaps you meant (f (+ 1 2) (let () (define x 4) x) 5) instead), none of the subexpressions (+ 1 2), (let () (define x 4) x), and 5 are in tail position with respect to f, since their values have to be collected first, and then passed to f (which is a tail call).
None of the operands of an application (op1 op2 ...) is in tail position.
For R5RS Scheme you can see the position in which an application occurs in a tail context here:
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/ftpdir/scheme-reports/r5rs-html.old/r5rs_22.html
So I finally figured it out.
In regular R6RS operands can never be evaluated in tail position because R6RS specifies that there is no strict order in which they are evaluated.
However, in this self-built evaluator for Scheme I do specify the order in which they are evaluated. Ergo, I can strictly define which operator is the last one, and that one can be evaluated in tail position.
(define (checksum-2 ls)
(if (null? ls)
0
(let ([n 0])
(+ (+ n 1))(* n (car ls))(checksum-2 (cdr ls)))))
Ok, I have this code, its suppose to, if I wrote it right, the number (n) should increase by one every time it goes through the list, so n (in reality) should be like 1 2 3 4, but I want n to be multiplied by the car of the list.
Everything loads, but when the answer is returned I get 0.
Thanks!
If you format your code differently, you might have an easier time seeing what is going on:
(define (checksum-2 ls)
(if (null? ls)
0
(let ([n 0])
(+ (+ n 1))
(* n (car ls))
(checksum-2 (cdr ls)))))
Inside the let form, the expressions are evaluated in sequence but you're not using the results for any of them (except the last one). The results of the addition and multiplication are simply discarded.
What you need to do in this case is define a new helper function that uses an accumulator and performs the recursive call. I'm going to guess this is homework or a learning exercise, so I'm not going to give away the complete answer.
UPDATE: As a demonstration of the sort of thing you might need to do, here is a similar function in Scheme to sum the integers from 1 to n:
(define (sum n)
(define (sum-helper n a)
(if (<= n 0)
a
(sum-helper (- n 1) (+ a n))))
(sum-helper n 0))
You should be able to use a similar framework to implement your checksum-2 function.
The following example involves jumping into continuation and exiting out. Can somebody explain the flow of the function. I am moving in a circle around continuation, and do not know the entry and exit points of the function.
(define (prod-iterator lst)
(letrec ((return-result empty)
(resume-visit (lambda (dummy) (process-list lst 1)))
(process-list
(lambda (lst p)
(if (empty? lst)
(begin
(set! resume-visit (lambda (dummy) 0))
(return-result p))
(if (= 0 (first lst))
(begin
(call/cc ; Want to continue here after delivering result
(lambda (k)
(set! resume-visit k)
(return-result p)))
(process-list (rest lst) 1))
(process-list (rest lst) (* p (first lst))))))))
(lambda ()
(call/cc
(lambda (k)
(set! return-result k)
(resume-visit 'dummy))))))
(define iter (prod-iterator '(1 2 3 0 4 5 6 0 7 0 0 8 9)))
(iter) ; 6
(iter) ; 120
(iter) ; 7
(iter) ; 1
(iter) ; 72
(iter) ; 0
(iter) ; 0
Thanks.
The procedure iterates over a list, multiplying non-zero members and returning a result each time a zero is found. Resume-visit stores the continuation for processing the rest of the list, and return-result has the continuation of the call-site of the iterator. In the beginning, resume-visit is defined to process the entire list. Each time a zero is found, a continuation is captured, which when invoked executes (process-list (rest lst) 1) for whatever value lst had at the time. When the list is exhausted, resume-visit is set to a dummy procedure. Moreover, every time the program calls iter, it executes the following:
(call/cc
(lambda (k)
(set! return-result k)
(resume-visit 'dummy)))
That is, it captures the continuation of the caller, invoking it returns a value to the caller. The continuation is stored and the program jumps to process the rest of the list.
When the procedure calls resume-visit, the loop is entered, when return-result is called, the loop is exited.
If we want to examine process-list in more detail, let's assume the list is non-empty. Tho procedure employs basic recursion, accumulating a result until a zero is found. At that point, p is the accumulated value and lst is the list containing the zero. When we have a construction like (begin (call/cc (lambda (k) first)) rest), we first execute first expressions with k bound to a continuation. It is a procedure that when invoked, executes rest expressions. In this case, that continuation is stored and another continuation is invoked, which returns the accumulated result p to the caller of iter. That continuation will be invoked the next time iter is called, then the loop continues with the rest of the list. That is the point with the continuations, everything else is basic recursion.
What you need to keep in mind is that, a call to (call/cc f) will apply the function f passed as argument to call/cc to the current continuation. If that continuation is called with some argument a inside the function f, the execution will go to the corresponding call to call/cc, and the argument a will be returned as the return value of that call/cc.
Your program stores the continuation of "calling call/cc in iter" in the variable return-result, and begins processing the list. It multiplies the first 3 non-zero elements of the list before encountering the first 0. When it sees the 0, the continuation "processing the list element 0" is stored in resume-visit, and the value p is returned to the continuation return-result by calling (return-result p). This call will make the execution go back to the call/cc in iter, and that call/cc returns the passed value of p. So you see the first output 6.
The rest calls to iter are similar and will make the execution go back and forth between such two continuations. Manual analysis may be a little brain-twisting, you have to know what the execution context is when a continuation is restored.
You could achieve the same this way:
(define (prod-iter lst) (fold * 1 (remove zero? lst)))
... even though it could perform better by traversing only once.
For continuations, recall (pun intended) that all call/cc does is wait for "k" to be applied this way:
(call/cc (lambda (k) (k 'return-value)))
=> return-value
The trick here is that you can let call/cc return its own continuation so that it can be applied elsewhere after call/cc has returned like this:
;; returns twice; once to get bound to k, the other to return blah
(let ([k (call/cc (lambda (k) k))]) ;; k gets bound to a continuation
(k 'blah)) ;; k returns here
=> blah
This lets a continuation return more than once by saving it in a variable. Continuations simply return the value they are applied to.
Closures are functions that carry their environment variables along with them before arguments get bounded to them. They are ordinary lambdas.
Continuation-passing style is a way to pass closures as arguments to be applied later. We say that these closure arguments are continuations. Here's half of the current code from my sudoku generator/solver as an example demonstrating how continuation-passing style can simplify your algorithms:
#| the grid is internally represented as a vector of 81 numbers
example: (make-vector 81 0)
this builds a list of indexes |#
(define (cell n) (list (+ (* (car 9) (cadr n))))
(define (row n) (iota 9 (* n 9)))
(define (column n) (iota 9 n 9))
(define (region n)
(let* ([end (+ (* (floor-quotient n 3) 27)
(* (remainder n 3) 3))]
[i (+ end 21)])
(do ([i i
(- i (if (zero? (remainder i 3)) 7 1))]
[ls '() (cons (vector-ref *grid* i) ls)])
((= i end) ls))))
#| f is the continuation
usage examples:
(grid-ref *grid* row 0)
(grid-set! *grid* region 7) |#
(define (grid-ref g f n)
(map (lambda (i) (vector-ref g i)) (f n)))
(define (grid-set! g f n ls)
(for-each (lambda (i x) (vector-set! g i x))
(f n) ls))