I am using following code modified from Solving Infix Arithmatic in LISP with definition of atom from Check if an argument is a list or an atom to have an infix arithmetic solver:
(define atom? (or/c number? symbol? boolean? string?))
(define (solve expression)
(define templist '())
(println expression)
(if (atom? expression)
expression
(begin
(set! templist (list (second expression)
(solve (first expression))
(solve (third expression)) ))
(println templist)
(eval templist) ) ) )
(solve '(3 + 2))
The output is as follows:
'(3 + 2)
3
2
'(+ 3 2)
+: unbound identifier;
also, no #%app syntax transformer is bound in: +
Hence, the templist is created all right (+ 3 2) but there is error at eval level. Why is '+' seen as an 'unbound identifier'? The eval function otherwise works well on the command line in DrRacket:
> (eval '(+ 3 2))
5
Where is the problem and how can it be solved? Thanks.
Have you not been learning from the answers to your previous questions? Do not use set!, it is not good Scheme/Racket style. It’s especially egregious here because it is doing absolutely nothing at all; take it out and use let (or local, or block with internal definitions, if you’d prefer).
That aside, eval is equally evil, and you don’t need it here. Functions are first class; create a mapping between symbols and functions, then just use the mapping to fetch the relevant function to invoke.
(define (operator->procedure op)
(case op
[(+) +]
[(-) -]
[(*) *]
[(/) /]
[else (error 'operator->procedure "unknown operator ~v" op)]))
(define (solve expression)
(if (atom? expression)
expression
((operator->procedure (second expression))
(solve (first expression))
(solve (third expression)))))
To be even clearer, you could use Racket’s pattern-matching form, match:
(define (solve expression)
(match expression
[(? atom) expression]
[(list a op b)
((operator->procedure op) (solve a) (solve b))]))
Related
I'm looking for functionality like this:
(op (+ 1 2))
; +
I can’t for the life of me seem to figure out how to do this using define-macro. Any help?
Thanks,
Edit:
It's especially confusing cause I can do:
(car '(+ 1 2))
; +
But if I do:
(define-macro (op expr)
(car expr))
(op '(+ 1 2))
It doesn't work.
OP has defined the macro op as if it were a function, but Lisp macros do not work this way. The macro form is evaluated to produce a new form which substitutes for the original macro call, yet the macro arguments are passed into the macro body unevaluated. This means that within the macro body of op, car operates not on the data (+ 1 2), but rather on the data (quote (+ 1 2)).
The goal of the macro op is not to evaluate (car expr), but to produce the form (car expr) (where expr is replaced by the value of the macro argument), which is then evaluated in the REPL after the macro expansion has taken place. One could do this either using list:
(define-macro (opl expr)
(list 'car expr))
or using quasiquotation:
(define-macro (opq expr)
`(car ,expr))
Here, the backquote introduces a template for a list, and the comma causes the symbol expr to be evaluated to its value ((quote (+ 1 2))), and the result inserted into the list. A simple quoted list, e.g. '(car expr) would evaluate to the list (car expr), where expr is just the symbol expr. With quasiquotation, ,expr evaluates to the value of the argument provided in a macro call, e.g. `(car ,expr) --> (car '(+ 1 2)). Note that (list 'car expr) produces the same form when expr is '(+ 1 2), as with (opl '(+ 1 2))
This define-macro syntax is almost identical to the traditional defmacro syntax of Common Lisp, the difference there being that with defmacro the name of the macro goes before a list of formal parameters, e.g. (defmacro op (expr) ;...). define-macro is not available in Standard Scheme, but some Scheme implementations do support it. Guile Scheme supports both defmacro and define-macro. Both of the above macro solutions work in Guile:
scheme#(guile-user)> (opl '(+ 1 2))
$2 = +
scheme#(guile-user)> (opq '(+ 1 2))
$3 = +
I'm reading The Little Schemer. And thanks to my broken English, I was confused by this paragraph:
(cond ... ) also has the property of not considering all of its
arguments. Because of this property, however, neither (and ... ) nor
(or ... ) can be defined as functions in terms of (cond ... ), though
both (and ... ) and (or ... ) can be expressed as abbreviations of
(cond ... )-expressions:
(and a b) = (cond (a b) (else #f)
and
(or a b) = (cond (a #t) (else (b))
If I understand it correctly, it says (and ...) and (or ...) can be replaced by a (cond ...) expression, but cannot be defined as a function that contains (cond ...). Why is it so? Does it have anything to do with the variant arguments? Thanks.
p.s. I did some searching but only found that (cond ...) ignores the expressions when one of its conditions evaluate to #f.
Imagine you wrote if as a function/procedure rather than a user defined macro/syntax:
;; makes if in terms of cond
(define (my-if predicate consequent alternative)
(cond (predicate consequent)
(else alternative)))
;; example that works
(define (atom? x)
(my-if (not (pair? x))
#t
#f))
;; example that won't work
;; peano arithemtic
(define (add a b)
(my-if (zero? a)
b
(add (- a 1) (+ b 1))))
The problem with my-if is that as a procedure every argument gets evaluated before the procedure body gets executed. thus in atom? the parts (not (pair? x)), #t and #f were evaluated before the body of my-if gets executed.
For the last example means (add (- a 1) (+ b 1)) gets evaluated regardless of what a is, even when a is zero, so the procedure will never end.
You can make your own if with syntax:
(define-syntax my-if
(syntax-rules ()
((my-if predicate consequent alternative)
(cond (predicate consequent)
(else alternative)))))
Now, how you read this is the first part is a template where the predicate consequent and alternative represent unevaluated expressions. It's replaced with the other just reusing the expressions so that:
(my-if (check-something) (display 10) (display 20))
would be replaced with this:
(cond ((check-something) (display 10))
(else (display 20)))
With the procedure version of my-if both 10 and 20 would have been printed. This is how and and or is implemented as well.
You cannot define cond or and or or or if as functions because functions evaluate all their arguments. (You could define some of them as macros).
Read also the famous SICP and Lisp In Small Pieces (original in French).
I'm currently writing metacircular evaluator in Scheme, following the SICP book's steps.
In the exercise I am asked to implement letrec, which I do in the following way:
(define (letrec->let exp)
(define (make-unassigned var)
(list var '*unassigned*))
(define (make-assign binding)
(list 'set! (letrec-binding-var binding)
(letrec-binding-val binding)))
(let ((orig-bindings (letrec-bindings exp)))
(make-let
(map make-unassigned
(map letrec-binding-var orig-bindings))
(sequence->exp
(append
(map make-assign orig-bindings)
(letrec-body exp))))))
However, when I evaluate the expression as follows, it goes into infinite loop:
(letrec
((a (lambda () 1)))
(+ 1 (a)))
Do I miss anything?
(Full Source Code at GitHub).
I checked result transformation result of (let ((x 1)) x) and got:
((lambda (x) (x)) 1)
instead of:
((lambda (x) x) 1)
obviously problem is in let body processing. If I were you, I would use utility function:
(define (implicit-begin exps)
(if (= 1 (length x))
(car x)
(cons 'begin x)))
By the way: I would say, that your letrec implementation is not very correct. Your transformation returns:
(let ((x1 *unassigned*>) ... (xn *unassigned*))
(set! x1 ...)
...
(set! xn ...)
body)
It much more resembles letrec* which evaluates expressions for variable bindings in left-ro-right order (Scheme itself doesn't specify arguments evaluation order):
syntax: letrec* bindings body
Similar to ‘letrec’, except the INIT expressions are bound to their
variables in order.
‘letrec*’ thus relaxes the letrec restriction, in that later INIT
expressions may refer to the values of previously bound variables.
The more correct code would be:
(let ((x1 *unassigned*) ... (xn *unassigned*))
(let ((t1 ...) ... (tn ...))
(set! x1 t1)
...
(set! xn tn))
body)
I'm reading The Little Schemer. And thanks to my broken English, I was confused by this paragraph:
(cond ... ) also has the property of not considering all of its
arguments. Because of this property, however, neither (and ... ) nor
(or ... ) can be defined as functions in terms of (cond ... ), though
both (and ... ) and (or ... ) can be expressed as abbreviations of
(cond ... )-expressions:
(and a b) = (cond (a b) (else #f)
and
(or a b) = (cond (a #t) (else (b))
If I understand it correctly, it says (and ...) and (or ...) can be replaced by a (cond ...) expression, but cannot be defined as a function that contains (cond ...). Why is it so? Does it have anything to do with the variant arguments? Thanks.
p.s. I did some searching but only found that (cond ...) ignores the expressions when one of its conditions evaluate to #f.
Imagine you wrote if as a function/procedure rather than a user defined macro/syntax:
;; makes if in terms of cond
(define (my-if predicate consequent alternative)
(cond (predicate consequent)
(else alternative)))
;; example that works
(define (atom? x)
(my-if (not (pair? x))
#t
#f))
;; example that won't work
;; peano arithemtic
(define (add a b)
(my-if (zero? a)
b
(add (- a 1) (+ b 1))))
The problem with my-if is that as a procedure every argument gets evaluated before the procedure body gets executed. thus in atom? the parts (not (pair? x)), #t and #f were evaluated before the body of my-if gets executed.
For the last example means (add (- a 1) (+ b 1)) gets evaluated regardless of what a is, even when a is zero, so the procedure will never end.
You can make your own if with syntax:
(define-syntax my-if
(syntax-rules ()
((my-if predicate consequent alternative)
(cond (predicate consequent)
(else alternative)))))
Now, how you read this is the first part is a template where the predicate consequent and alternative represent unevaluated expressions. It's replaced with the other just reusing the expressions so that:
(my-if (check-something) (display 10) (display 20))
would be replaced with this:
(cond ((check-something) (display 10))
(else (display 20)))
With the procedure version of my-if both 10 and 20 would have been printed. This is how and and or is implemented as well.
You cannot define cond or and or or or if as functions because functions evaluate all their arguments. (You could define some of them as macros).
Read also the famous SICP and Lisp In Small Pieces (original in French).
I'm trying to make a recursive definition that reads and execute user expressions, such as (3 + 5). Everything is working, except of one problem with the arithmetic symbol.
I managed to replicate the error in a simpler example:
(define v '(1 + 3))
((cadr v) 2 4)
The (cadr v) is the + symbol, but for some reason the procedure can't be executed on the two arguments that followed. Am I missing something?
I think that's because
(cadr v)
returns '+ not + (literal + not a + function).
You need to evaluate it before applying it to arguments.
This should work:
((eval (cadr v)) 2 4)
^evaluates the '+ to +
edit
This worked in racket in interactive mode.
I'm not really sure what's the difference, but made it work in r5rs mode in racket (a script):
#lang r5rs
;required by r5rs
(define user-initial-environment (scheme-report-environment 5))
(define v '(1 + 2))
;eval expects a quoted expression
;(it seems that if it's a function it has to have arguments too)
;and evaluation environment.
((eval (cadr v) user-initial-environment) 2 4)
As others have pointed out, the problem is that the list you've constructed contains the symbol plus, rather than the function plus.
At its heart, this is the same reason that '(a b) returns a list of two symbols, rather than signalling an unbound identifier error; the quote starts a term in a "data language" where legal identifiers are interpreted as symbols, rather than as variable references.
The question, of course, is what you should do about it. Some here have suggested using 'eval'; this is probably a bad idea, for reasons that I think Matthew Flatt captures elegantly in his blog post on the topic.
Instead, you should probably write a simple mapping function. Here's the way I'd write it. If you use my code in an assignment, be sure to credit me :).
#lang racket
;; a mapping from symbols to operators
(define operator-hash
(hash '+ +
'- -
'* *))
;; ... and whatever other operators you want.
;; example of using it:
(hash-ref operator-hash '+) ;; ==> +
Try this:
(define v '(1 + 3))
(let ((operator (eval (cadr v)))
(operand1 (car v))
(operand2 (caddr v)))
(apply operator (list operand1 operand2)))
You can do it this way with eval in Guile:
(define (infix-eval v)
(eval (list (cadr v)(car v)(caddr v))
(interaction-environment)))
> (infix-eval '(1 + 2))
3
Rather than using interaction-environment, you could supply another environment for evaluation, where you could also define some other symbols not found in standard Scheme, so that expressions like (7 % 3) and (2 ^ 6) would also work.