(define (prime max)
(let ((a 2)))
(if not(= modulo max 2) 0)
((+ a 1)
prime(max))
)
It tells me bad let in form (let ((a 2))) but as far as I'm aware, the syntax and code is right
No, it is not right. let form has this syntax: (let binds body) Your bindings are ((a 2)). Where's your body? You put it outside the let form. This raises two problems: let is malformed by only having one argument instead of two, and a is undeclared at the location it appears in. (Without going into the logic of the code, which is also incorrect, assuming you are trying for a primality test function.)
let format is
(let ((<var1> <value1>)
(<var2> <value2>)
...
(<varN> <valueN>))
<expr1>
<expr2>
...
<exprN>)
Also the general form for calling a function is
(<function> <arg1> <arg2> ... <argN>)
so your not call is wrong, should be (not ...) and the call to prime should have the form (prime max).
You got the addition "operator" (+ a 1) correct but indeed one big difference between Lisp dialects and other languages is that you don't have special operators, just functions. (+ a 1) is just like (add a 1): you are just calling a function that is named +; no special unary prefix/postfix case or precedence and associativity rules... just functions: not is a function + is a function.
Lisp "syntax" may feel weird at first (if and because you've been exposed to other programming languages before), but the problem doesn't last long and after a little all the parenthesis just disappear and you begin to "see" the simple tree structure of the code.
On the other spectrum of syntax complexity you've for example C++ that is so complex that even expert programmers and compiler authors can debate long just about how to interpret and what is the semantic meaning of a given syntax construct. Not kidding there are C++ rules that goes more of less "if a syntax is ambiguous and could be considered both as a declaration and as an expression, then it's a declaration" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_vexing_parse). Go figure.
Related
Is it possible to quote result of function call?
For example
(quoteresult (+ 1 1)) => '2
At first blush, your question doesn’t really make any sense. “Quoting” is a thing that can be performed on datums in a piece of source code. “Quoting” a runtime value is at best a no-op and at worst nonsensical.
The example in your question illustrates why it doesn’t make any sense. Your so-called quoteresult form would evaluate (+ 1 1) to produce '2, but '2 evaluates to 2, the same thing (+ 1 1) evaluates to. How would the result of quoteresult ever be different from ordinary evaluation?
If, however, you want to actually produce a quote expression to be handed off to some use of dynamic evaluation (with the usual disclaimer that that is probably a bad idea), then you need only generate a list of two elements: the symbol quote and your function’s result. If that’s the case, you can implement quoteresult quite simply:
(define (quoteresult x)
(list 'quote x))
This is, however, of limited usefulness for most programs.
For more information on what quoting is and how it works, see What is the difference between quote and list?.
Arguments will be evaluated during a function call in Lisp. Is there any way besides macro to print the argument without evaluation?
Take an example in Common Lisp:
(defun foo (&rest forms)
(loop for i in forms collect i))
Call "foo" in REPL toplevel:
CL-USER> (foo (= 1 2) (< 2 3))
Got the result:
(NIL T)
Is there any way to get this result?:
((= 1 2) (< 2 3))
You can’t do that in either Scheme or Common Lisp without macros. Of course, it’s also pretty trivial with macros, so feel free to use them if they fit your use case.
That said, there’s a bit more to this question than you may have anticipated. You’re effectively asking for a feature that was present in older Lisps that has fallen out of fashion, known as fexprs. A fexpr is exactly what you describe: a function whose operands are passed to it without being evaluated.
Most modern dialects have done away with fexprs in favor of only using macros, and you can see this Stack Overflow question for more information on why. The gist is that fexprs are hard to optimize, difficult to reason about, and generally less powerful than macros, so they were deemed both redundant and actively harmful and were summarily removed.
Some modern Lisps still support fexprs or something like them, but those dialects are rare and uncommon in comparison to the relative giants that are Scheme and CL, which dominate the modern Lisp world. If you need this sort of thing, just use macros. Better yet, just quote the arguments so you don’t need any macros at all. You’ll be more explicit (and therefore much clearer), and you’ll get the same behavior.
Yes; you can get the result with an operator called quote, if you don't mind one more level of nesting:
(quote ((= 1 2) (< 2 3)))
-> ((1 2) (2 3))
quote isn't a macro; it is a special operator.
I've looked through On Lisp, Practical Common Lisp and the SO archives in order to answer this on my own, but those attempts were frustrated by my inability to name the concept I'm interested in. I would be grateful if anyone could just tell me the canonical term for this sort of thing.
This question is probably best explained by an example. Let's say I want to implement Python-style list comprehensions in Common Lisp. In Python I would write:
[x*2 for x in range(1,10) if x > 3]
So I begin by writing down:
(listc (* 2 x) x (range 1 10) (> x 3))
and then defining a macro that transforms the above into the correct comprehension. So far so good.
The interpretation of that expression, however, would be opaque to a reader not already familiar with Python list comprehensions. What I'd really like to be able to write is the following:
(listc (* 2 x) for x in (range 1 10) if (> x 3))
but I haven't been able to track down the Common Lisp terminology for this. It seems that the loop macro does exactly this sort of thing. What is it called, and how can I implement it? I tried macro-expanding a sample loop expression to see how it's put together, but the resulting code was unintelligible. Could anyone guide me in the right direction?
Thanks in advance.
Well, what for does is essentially, that it parses the forms supplied as its body. For example:
(defmacro listc (expr &rest forms)
;;
;;
;; (listc EXP for VAR in GENERATOR [if CONDITION])
;;
;;
(labels ((keyword-p (thing name)
(and (symbolp thing)
(string= name thing))))
(destructuring-bind (for* variable in* generator &rest tail) forms
(unless (and (keyword-p for* "FOR") (keyword-p in* "IN"))
(error "malformed comprehension"))
(let ((guard (if (null tail) 't
(destructuring-bind (if* condition) tail
(unless (keyword-p if* "IF") (error "malformed comprehension"))
condition))))
`(loop
:for ,variable :in ,generator
:when ,guard
:collecting ,expr)))))
(defun range (start end &optional (by 1))
(loop
:for k :upfrom start :below end :by by
:collecting k))
Apart from the hackish "parser" I used, this solution has a disadvantage, which is not easily solved in common lisp, namely the construction of the intermediate lists, if you want to chain your comprehensions:
(listc x for x in (listc ...) if (evenp x))
Since there is no moral equivalent of yield in common lisp, it is hard to create a facility, which does not require intermediate results to be fully materialized. One way out of this might be to encode the knowledge of possible "generator" forms in the expander of listc, so the expander can optimize/inline the generation of the base sequence without having to construct the entire intermediate list at run-time.
Another way might be to introduce "lazy lists" (link points to scheme, since there is no equivalent facility in common lisp -- you had to build that first, though it's not particularily hard).
Also, you can always have a look at other people's code, in particular, if they tries to solve the same or a similar problem, for example:
Iterate
Loop in SBCL
Pipes (which does the lazy list thing)
Macros are code transformers.
There are several ways of implementing the syntax of a macro:
destructuring
Common Lisp provides a macro argument list which also provides a form of destructuring. When a macro is used, the source form is destructured according to the argument list.
This limits how macro syntax looks like, but for many uses of Macros provides enough machinery.
See Macro Lambda Lists in Common Lisp.
parsing
Common Lisp also gives the macro the access to the whole macro call form. The macro then is responsible for parsing the form. The parser needs to be provided by the macro author or is part of the macro implementation done by the author.
An example would be an INFIX macro:
(infix (2 + x) * (3 + sin (y)))
The macro implementation needs to implement an infix parser and return a prefix expression:
(* (+ 2 x) (+ 3 (sin y)))
rule-based
Some Lisps provide syntax rules, which are matched against the macro call form. For a matching syntax rule the corresponding transformer will be used to create the new source form. One can easily implement this in Common Lisp, but by default it is not a provided mechanism in Common Lisp.
See syntax case in Scheme.
LOOP
For the implementation of a LOOP-like syntax one needs to write a parser which is called in the macro to parse the source expression. Note that the parser does not work on text, but on interned Lisp data.
In the past (1970s) this has been used in Interlisp in the so-called 'Conversational Lisp', which is a Lisp syntax with a more natural language like surface. Iteration was a part of this and the iteration idea has then brought to other Lisps (like Maclisp's LOOP, from where it then was brought to Common Lisp).
See the PDF on 'Conversational Lisp' by Warren Teitelmann from the 1970s.
The syntax for the LOOP macro is a bit complicated and it is not easy to see the boundaries between individual sub-statements.
See the extended syntax for LOOP in Common Lisp.
(loop for i from 0 when (oddp i) collect i)
same as:
(loop
for i from 0
when (oddp i)
collect i)
One problem that the LOOP macro has is that the symbols like FOR, FROM, WHEN and COLLECT are not the same from the "COMMON-LISP" package (a namespace). When I'm now using LOOP in source code using a different package (namespace), then this will lead to new symbols in this source namespace. For that reason some like to write:
(loop
:for i :from 0
:when (oddp i)
:collect i)
In above code the identifiers for the LOOP relevant symbols are in the KEYWORD namespace.
To make both parsing and reading easier it has been proposed to bring parentheses back.
An example for such a macro usage might look like this:
(iter (for i from 0) (when (oddp i) (collect i)))
same as:
(iter
(for i from 0)
(when (oddp i)
(collect i)))
In above version it is easier to find the sub-expressions and to traverse them.
The ITERATE macro for Common Lisp uses this approach.
But in both examples, one needs to traverse the source code with custom code.
To complement Dirk's answer a little:
Writing your own macros for this is entirely doable, and perhaps a nice exercise.
However there are several facilities for this kind of thing (albeit in a lisp-idiomatic way) out there of high quality, such as
Loop
Iterate
Series
Loop is very expressive, but has a syntax not resembling the rest of common lisp. Some editors don't like it and will indent poorly. However loop is defined in the standard. Usually it's not possible to write extentions to loop.
Iterate is even more expressive, and has a familiar lispy syntax. This doesn't require any special indentation rules, so all editors indenting lisp properly will also indent iterate nicely. Iterate isn't in the standard, so you'll have to get it yourself (use quicklisp).
Series is a framework for working on sequences. In most cases series will make it possible not to store intermediate values.
Let me establish that this is part of a class assignment, so I'm definitely not looking for a complete code answer. Essentially we need to write a converter in Scheme that takes a list representing a mathematical equation in infix format and then output a list with the equation in postfix format.
We've been provided with the algorithm to do so, simple enough. The issue is that there is a restriction against using any of the available imperative language features. I can't figure out how to do this in a purely functional manner. This is our fist introduction to functional programming in my program.
I know I'm going to be using recursion to iterate over the list of items in the infix expression like such.
(define (itp ifExpr)
(
; do some processing using cond statement
(itp (cdr ifExpr))
))
I have all of the processing implemented (at least as best I can without knowing how to do the rest) but the algorithm I'm using to implement this requires that operators be pushed onto a stack and used later. My question is how do I implement a stack in this function that is available to all of the recursive calls as well?
(Updated in response to the OP's comment; see the new section below the original answer.)
Use a list for the stack and make it one of the loop variables. E.g.
(let loop ((stack (list))
... ; other loop variables here,
; like e.g. what remains of the infix expression
)
... ; loop body
)
Then whenever you want to change what's on the stack at the next iteration, well, basically just do so.
(loop (cons 'foo stack) ...)
Also note that if you need to make a bunch of "updates" in sequence, you can often model that with a let* form. This doesn't really work with vectors in Scheme (though it does work with Clojure's persistent vectors, if you care to look into them), but it does with scalar values and lists, as well as SRFI 40/41 streams.
In response to your comment about loops being ruled out as an "imperative" feature:
(let loop ((foo foo-val)
(bar bar-val))
(do-stuff))
is syntactic sugar for
(letrec ((loop (lambda (foo bar) (do-stuff))))
(loop foo-val bar-val))
letrec then expands to a form of let which is likely to use something equivalent to a set! or local define internally, but is considered perfectly functional. You are free to use some other symbol in place of loop, by the way. Also, this kind of let is called 'named let' (or sometimes 'tagged').
You will likely remember that the basic form of let:
(let ((foo foo-val)
(bar bar-val))
(do-stuff))
is also syntactic sugar over a clever use of lambda:
((lambda (foo bar) (do-stuff)) foo-val bar-val)
so it all boils down to procedure application, as is usual in Scheme.
Named let makes self-recursion prettier, that's all; and as I'm sure you already know, (self-) recursion with tail calls is the way to go when modelling iterative computational processes in a functional way.
Clearly this particular "loopy" construct lends itself pretty well to imperative programming too -- just use set! or data structure mutators in the loop's body if that's what you want to do -- but if you stay away from destructive function calls, there's nothing inherently imperative about looping through recursion or the tagged let itself at all. In fact, looping through recursion is one of the most basic techniques in functional programming and the whole point of this kind of homework would have to be teaching precisely that... :-)
If you really feel uncertain about whether it's ok to use it (or whether it will be clear enough that you understand the pattern involved if you just use a named let), then you could just desugar it as explained above (possibly using a local define rather than letrec).
I'm not sure I understand this all correctly, but what's wrong with this simpler solution:
First:
You test if your argument is indeed a list:
If yes: Append the the MAP of the function over the tail (map postfixer (cdr lst)) to the a list containing only the head. The Map just applies the postfixer again to each sequential element of the tail.
If not, just return the argument unchanged.
Three lines of Scheme in my implementation, translates:
(postfixer '(= 7 (/ (+ 10 4) 2)))
To:
(7 ((10 4 +) 2 /) =)
The recursion via map needs no looping, not even tail looping, no mutation and shows the functional style by applying map. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding your point here, I don't see the need for all that complexity above.
Edit: Oh, now I read, infix, not prefix, to postfix. Well, the same general idea applies except taking the second element and not the first.
I'm fairly new to Scheme and am attempting to learn it on my own from scratch. I'm stuck on the syntax of this problem. I know that if I want to find out if a number is a power of 2, in C for instance, I would simply do:
return (x & (x - 1)) == 0;
which would return true or false. How would I be able to convert this into a couple simple lines in Scheme?
I'll give you a hint since you're trying to learn the language.
Scheme has a function called (bitwise-and ...) which is equivalent to the & operator in C (there is also (bitwise-xor ...), (bitwise-not ..), etc., which do the expected thing).
(Here is the documentation of the (bitwise-and ...) function)
Given that, would you be able to translate what you've written in your question into Scheme code?
N.B: For a problem like this, you really don't need to resort to bitwise operations when using Scheme. Realistically, you should be writing a (possibly probably tail) recursive function that will compute this for you.
You can do this using a built in bitwise operator.
(define (pow2? x)
(= (bitwise-and x (- x 1))
0))
Scheme also has biwise operators.
But if you really want to develop your scheme skills, you should write a function that decides if an integer is a power of 2 by recursively dividing it by 2 until you are left with either 2 or with an odd number. This would be very inefficient, but really cool nonetheless.