I'm new to Scheme and to functional programming so please be gentle.
I'm trying to implement a function that takes a list and a pivot and return a list that contains the following 2 lists:
One for all elements that are less or equal to the pivot,
and one for all the elements that are greater than the pivot.
So I wrote the following code (EDITED (& WORKING) CODE - PROBLEM SOLVED):
define helper (lambda (lst pivot)
(define lst1 null)
(define lst2 null)
(define my-split (lambda (lst pivot lst1 lst2)
(if (null? lst)
(list lst1 lst2)
(if (<= (car lst) pivot)
(my-split (cdr lst) pivot (cons (car lst) lst1) lst2)
(my-split (cdr lst) pivot lst1 (cons (car lst) lst2))))))
(my-split lst pivot lst1 lst2)))
My current problem is that lst1 and lst2 are null at the end of the run so I guess the problem is with the lines (cons (car lst) lst1) & (cons (car lst) lst2))).
I saw some implementations on the web which use some complex commands that I'm not allowed to use (yes, it's homework).
Please offer ways to fix my code rather than offering your own.
Thanks
You correctly identified the two lines that are the main problem. cons just builds and returns a new list, whereas you're trying to mutate the variables lst1 and lst2. The correct way to do this is (set! lst1 (cons (car lst) lst1)) and (set! lst2 (cons (car lst) lst2)). Keep in mind, though, that good functional programming style avoids mutation. A good way to do that in this case would be to pass the two sub-lists as arguments as you recur down the main list, then return them when you get to the end.
Just like an expression like str.concat("hey") in Java doesn't change what str is (cons 1 lst1) doesn't change what lst1 is. It just returns a new value. Most of your function consist of dead code and if you really want to learn functional programming then altering bindings and objects are off limits.
You need to do something like this:
(define (count-odds lst)
(define (helper lst odds)
(cond ((null? lst)
odds)
((odd? (car lst))
(helper (cdr lst) (+ 1 odds)))
(else
(helper (cdr lst) odds))))
(helper lst 0))
(count-odds '(1 2 3))
; ==> 2
We never alter odds, we just update what is sent to the next recursion. Since Scheme has tail call elimination this is just like updating the variable in a while loop without actual mutation.
Related
I have code which is inserting new word on the right side of choosen word
(define insertR
(lambda (new old lst)
(cond
((null? lst) (lst))
(else (cond
((eq? (car lst) old)
(cons old
(cons new (cdr lst))))
(else (cons (car lst)
(insertR new old
(cdr lst)))))))))
i need to make it insert that word beside first appearance of word starting from the end of list. Tried to work with reverse but could not get that to work.
There are two strategies you can take to add it next to the last occurence.
The first is to use a helper and start off with the reverse list. This is very simple and my preferred solution.
(define (insert-by-last-match insert find lst)
(let loop ((lst (reverse lst)) (acc '()))
(if (null? lst)
acc
(let ((a (car lst)))
(if (equal? a find)
(append (reverse (cdr lst))
(list* find insert acc))
(loop (cdr lst) (cons a acc)))))))
The other one is kind of obscure. Whenever you find the element you replace last-match with a callback that replaces the computation since it was made and until it gets called with the replacement and the rest of the list, which of course is the correct result. The work done until the end of the list is simply discarded since it is not used, but we do it since we are not sure if we are going to find a later one and then all the work uptil that is of course included in the result.
(define (insert-by-last-match insert find lst)
(define (helper lst last-match)
(if (null? lst)
(last-match)
(let* ((a (car lst)) (d (cdr lst)))
(cons a
(if (equal? a find)
(let/cc k
(helper d (lambda () (k (cons insert d)))))
(helper d last-match))))))
(helper lst (lambda () lst)))
call/cc (or its variant let/cc) is often described as time travel or advanced goto. It is not very intuitive. Here is a CPS version:
(define (insert-by-last-match insert find lst)
(define (helper lst last-match k)
(if (null? lst)
(last-match)
(let* ((a (car lst)) (d (cdr lst)) (k2 (lambda (v) (k (cons a v)))))
(if (equal? a find)
(helper d (lambda () (k2 (cons insert d))) k2)
(helper d last-match k2)))))
(helper lst (lambda () lst) (lambda (v) v)))
Basically this is the same as the previous only that here I have written the CPS code and with the let/cc version the implementation does it for me and I get to use k exactly where I need it. In this version you see there is no magic or time travel but the execution that should happen later is simply replaced at a point.
Write in a similar way insertL and apply it to the reversed list.
And reverse the result. Then you will have an insertion beside first appearance of word starting from the end of list
(define insertL
(lambda (new old lst)
(cond ((null? lst) '())
((eq? (car lst) old) (cons new lst))
(else (cons (car lst) (insertL new old (cdr lst)))))))
(define last-insertR
(lambda (new old lst)
(let* ((rlst (reverse lst))
(result (insertL new old rlst)))
(reverse result))))
test:
(last-insertR 'aa 'a '(b c d a h i a g))
;; '(b c d a h i a aa g)
By the way, the beauty of cond is that you can put the conditions always at the beginning - listed one under the other.
So one can write your insertR nicer as:
(define insertR
(lambda (new old lst)
(cond ((null? lst) '())
((eq? (car lst) old) (cons old (cons new (cdr lst))))
(else (cons (car lst) (insertR new old (cdr lst)))))))
I am writing a program in Scheme and having difficulty with this one part. Below is an example to make my question clear
(endsmatch lst) should return #t if the first element in the list is the same as the last element in the list and return #f otherwise.
For example:
(endsmatch '(s t u v w x y z)) should return: #f
and
(endsmatch (LIST 'j 'k 'l 'm 'n 'o 'j)) should return: #t
Here is what I have so far (just error handling). The main issue I am having is solving this recursively. I understand there are easier solutions that are not recursive but I need to solve this using recursion.
My code so far:
(define (endsmatch lst)
(if (not(list? lst))
"USAGE: (endsmatch [list])"
(if (or (null? lst)
(= (length lst) 1))
#t
(equal? ((car lst)) (endsmatch(car lst)))
)))
I believe my code starting at "(equal? " is where it is broken and doesn't work. This is also where I believe recursion will take place. Any help is appreciated!
Easiest way is to use a (recursive) helper function to do the looping:
(define (endsmatch lst)
(define (helper no1 lst)
(if (null? (cdr lst))
(equal? no1 (car lst))
(helper no1 (cdr lst))))
(if (or (not (list? lst)) (null? lst))
"USAGE: (endsmatch [list])"
(helper (car lst) lst)))
The reason I pass lst and not (cdr lst) as the second argument in the last line is so that it also works for 1-element lists.
I tend to use KISS when programming. aka. "Keep it simple, stupid!"
With that regard I would have oped for:
(define (ends-match? lst)
(or (null? lst)
(equal? (car lst)
(last lst))))
Now last we can define like this:
(define (last lst)
(foldl (lambda (e a) e) last lst))
It's not perfect. It should signal an error if you pass an empty list, but in the ends-match? you check for this and thus it's not a problem.
This is the code I have so far. I believe that I'm close, but what returns is just #procedure, acknowledging that a procedure has created, it does not return the list with the newly added element. I have been working on this for hours and I am at a loss of where I have gone wrong.
(define (add-into new p lst)
(cond ((null? lst)
(cons new lst)
((eq? p 0)
(cons new lst)
(else
(cons (car lst) (add-into (- p 1) new (cdr l))))))))
You have parentheses problems, in one place you passed l instead of lst and the order of the parameters is incorrect when doing the recursive call. This should fix the errors:
(define (add-into new p lst)
(cond ((null? lst)
(cons new lst))
((= p 0)
(cons new lst))
(else
(cons (car lst) (add-into new (- p 1) (cdr lst))))))
Just pasting the code into DrRacket and pressing CTRL+i and I get this:
(define (add-into new p lst)
(cond ((null? lst)
(cons new lst)
((eq? p 0)
(cons new lst)
(else
(cons (car lst) (add-into (- p 1) new (cdr l))))))))
Notice that you only have one term. If (null? lst) is #f there are no more terms in the cond so it will evaluate to a implementation defined value as it is it is undefined in the specification. In #lang racket that value is the same as returned if you evaluate (void)
To fix it you need to close the terms in the cond so that you have 3 terms instead of one. You should have seen this when you press enter that the parentheses didn't align to the previous term. If you want to use another editor you should get one that aligns and indent lisp syntax as writing lisp without is slightly painful.
Consider:
(define (nested-reverse lst)
(cond ((null? lst) '())
((list? (car lst)) (nested-reverse (car lst)))
(else
(cons (nested-reverse (cdr lst))
(list (car lst))))))
When I input,
(nested-reverse '((a b c) 42))
it gives me ((() 42) (a b c)). It's supposed to give me (42 (c b a)). How I would change my code so that the nested lists also get reversed?
Keep in mind that a list (1 2 3) is (cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '()))). Using append is a very poor choice on how to reverse a list since append is implemented like this:
(define (append lst1 lst2)
(if (null? lst1)
lst2
(cons (car lst1) (append (cdr lst1) lst2))))
A list can be iterated from the first element towards the end while it can only be made in reverse. Thus the obvious none recursive reverse would look like something like this:
(define (simple-reverse lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (result '()))
(if (null? lst)
result
(loop (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) result)))))
To make it work for nested list you check if you need to reverse (car lst) by checking of it's a list or not and use the same procedure as you are creating to do the reverse on the element as well. Other than that it's very similar.
I'm new to Scheme, so can anyone give me an example? There's no local variable in Scheme, so how can I keep track of the number of zeros that being encountered.
I tried
#lang scheme
(define zeroes
(lambda (ll)
(cond ((null? ll)
0)
(else (= 0 (car ll))))
(zeroes (cdr ll))
)
)
But the compiler complained:
cdr: expects argument of type <pair>; given ()
Thanks,
Here's my solution (since the OP's already posted theirs):
(define (count-zeroes lst)
(let loop ((lst lst)
(count 0))
(cond ((null? lst) count)
((zero? (car lst)) (loop (cdr lst) (+ count 1)))
(else (loop (cdr lst) count)))))
Of course, no treatment of this subject can be considered complete without talking about fold, which is usually used to "summarise" a list down to a single object (like we're doing for this question):
(define (count-zeroes lst)
(fold (lambda (elem count)
(if (zero? elem) (+ count 1) count))
0 lst))
Just figured out the solution,
(define count
(lambda (lst)
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
((= 0 (car lst)) (+ 1 (count (cdr lst))))
(else (+ 0 (count (cdr lst))))
)
)
)
I'm keeping this at a hint level for now.
Your function is doing two things. First it computes 0 if its argument is an empty list, or #t or #f if its argument is a list that begins with 0 or not. Then it throws that result out and calls itself recursively on the rest of the list.
You're going to have to do two things to make this work: 1) combine the results of the individual zero tests somehow (for a thought experiment, look at your code; how would it ever return the value 2 if the list had two zeroes?); 2) "bottom out" successfully when it calls itself recursively on an empty list.