I understand I can't define a function inside an expression, but I'm getting errors defining one after an expression within the same nested function. I'm using R5RS with DrScheme.
For example, this throws an error, 'define: not allowed in an expression context':
(define (cube x)
(if (= x 0) 0) ;just for example, no reason to do this
(define (square x) (* x x))
(* x (square x)))
In R5RS you can only use define in rather specific places: in particular you can use it at the beginning (only) of forms which have a <body>. This is described in 5.2.2. That means in particular that internal defines can never occur after any other expression, even in a <body>.
Native Racket (or whatever the right name is for what you get with#lang racket) is much more flexible in this regard: what you are trying to do would (apart from the single-armed if) be legal in Racket.
You can use define inside another definition. Some Schemes won't allow you to have an if without the else part, though. This works for me:
(define (cube x)
(if (= x 0) 0 1) ; just for example, no reason to do this
(define (square x) (* x x))
(* x (square x)))
Have you tried making the definition at the beginning? maybe that could be a problem with your interpreter.
define inside a procedure body (that includes all forms that are syntactic sugar for procedures, like let, let*, and letrec) are only legal before other expressions and never after the first expression and it can not be the last form.
Your example shows no real reason for why you would want to have an expression before definitions. There is no way you can get anything more than moving all define up to the beginning. eg.
(define (cube x)
;; define moved to top
(define (square x) (* x x))
;; dead code moved under define and added missing alternative
(if (= x 0) 0 'undefined)
(* x (square x)))
If the code isn't dead. eg. it's the tail expression you can use let to make a new body:
(define (cube x)
(if (= x 0)
0
(let ()
;; this is top level in the let
(define (square x) (* x x))
;; required expression
(* x (square x)))))
I think perhaps we would need an example where you think it would be warranted to have the define after the expression and we'll be happy to show how to scheme it up.
Related
In the following code:
(define x 14)
(display x) ; x = 14
(set! x 13)
(display x) ; x = 13
(define x 14)
(display x) ; x = 14
(set! y 13) ; SchemeError: y not found!
(display y)
What we a use case where someone would want to use set! over just define, if define can be used for everything that set! can be used for + the actual definition itself?
define creates a new binding between a name and a value (a variable), set! mutates an existing binding. These are not the same operation, languages like Python which confuse the operations notwithstanding.
In particular something like
(define x 1)
...
(define x 2)
is illegal: you can only create the variable once. Implementations may not check this, but that doesn't make it legal. Once you've created the binding, if you want to modify it you need to do that with set!.
A particular case where implementations (including Racket) are intentionally sloppy about this is when they are being used interactively. Quite often if you're interacting with the system you may want to say, for instance:
> (define square (λ (x) (+ x x)))
... ooops, that's not right, is it?
... Better fix it using the command-line editing
> (define square (λ (x) (* x x)))
In cases like that it's clearly better for the implementation just to allow this repeated definition of things, because it's going to make the life of users enormously easier.
But in programs such repeated definitions in the same scope are (almost?) always bugs, and they really ought to be caught: if you want to mutate a binding, use set!. Racket in particular will certainly puke on these.
Finally note that define is simply not legal in all the places set! is: even in Racket (which allows define in many more places than Scheme does) this is not even slightly legal code:
(define (foo x)
(define v x)
(if (odd? x)
(define v (* v 2))
(define v (/ v 2)))
v)
While this is
(define (foo x)
(define v x)
(if (odd? x)
(set! v (* v 2))
(set! v (/ v 2)))
v)
(It's still terrible code, but it is legal.).
When I write code in Dr Racket, I got error message
unsaved-editor:8:2: define: expected only one expression for the
function body, but found 3 extra parts in: (define (improve guess x)
(average guess (/ x guess)))
But this code can run in Racket or repl.it.
I want to know why error is happening in Dr Racket and is my code really wrong?
My code is this:
(define (average x y) (/ (+ x y) 2))
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (sqrt1 x)
(define (good-enough? guess x)
(< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001))
(define (improve guess x)
(average guess (/ x guess)))
(define (sqrt-iter guess x)
(if (good-enough? guess x)
guess
(sqrt-iter (improve guess x) x)))
(sqrt-iter 1.0 x))
(sqrt1 9)
Your code is OK for Scheme/Racket. However Student Language is a subset of Scheme, highly limited so it's easier for beginners. It's also used in How To Design Programs book. You can read more about Student Languages (actually there is five of them) on https://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/index.html.
In case of define there are important limitations:
You can have only one expression in the function body.
In function body you can only use expressions, not definitions (so no define inside define).
To make your code valid for Student Language, depending on Level (Beginner, Intermediate etc), you can:
use letrec* or local instead of define for all local definitions
or
define good-enough, improve and sqrt-iter as top level functions.
I am now writing a scheme's interpreter by using c++. I got a question about define and lambda.
(define (add x y) (+ x y))
is expanded as
(define add (lambda (x y) (+ x y)))
by lispy.py
what's the difference between this two expression?
why need expand the expression? Just because it is easy to evaluate the expression?
They are the same, since one gets expanded into the other. The first expression is easier to both write & read; having it expand into the second simplifies the interpreter (something you should appreciate).
They are equivalent in R5RS:
5.2 Definitions
(define (<variable> <formals>) <body>)
<Formals> should be either a sequence of zero or more variables, or a
sequence of one or more variables followed by a space-delimited period
and another variable (as in a lambda expression). This form is
equivalent to
(define <variable>
(lambda (<formals>) <body>)).
I'm reading about lazy evaluation and having trouble understanding a basic example they gave.
#lang racket
(define (bad-if x y z)
(if x y z))
(define (factorial-wrong x)
(bad-if (= x 0)
1
(* x (factorial-wrong (- x 1)))))
(factorial-wrong 4)
I'm a little confused as to why this program never terminates. I know the following code works just fine:
(define (factorial x)
(if (= x 0)
1
(* x (factorial (- x 1)))))
(factorial 4)
So I'm assuming it has something to do with scope. I tried step by step debugging and factorial-wrong executes the recursion function even when x is mapped to 0.
The standard if
(if test-expr then-expr else-expr)
will only evaluate either then-expr or else-expr, depending on test-expr, because this if is either a special form or a syntactic extension based on a special form, which means it doesn't follow the normal evaluation rules.
bad-if, on the other hand, is a standard procedure. In that case, Scheme first evaluates both expressions since they are parameters to the procedure bad-if before actually executing bad-if. So, even for x = 0, (* x (factorial -1)) will be evaluated, which will in turn evaluate (* x (factorial -2)) and so on, in an endless loop.
Use the stepper!
To be more specific:
Snip the #lang racket off the top of your program
Change the language level to "Intermediate Student"
Click on the Step button. Watch carefully to see where things go off the rails.
The following Scheme code
(let ((x 1))
(define (f y) (+ x y))
(set! x 2)
(f 3) )
which evaluates to 5 instead of 4. It is surprising considering Scheme promotes static scoping. Allowing subsequent mutation to affect bindings in the closed environment in a closure seems to revert to kinda dynamic scoping. Any specific reason that it is allowed?
EDIT:
I realized the code above is less obvious to reveal the problem I am concerned. I put another code fragment below:
(define x 1)
(define (f y) (+ x y))
(set! x 2)
(f 3) ; evaluates to 5 instead of 4
There are two ideas you are confusing here: scoping and indirection through memory. Lexical scope guarantees you that the reference to x always points to the binding of x in the let binding.
This is not violated in your example. Conceptually, the let binding is actually creating a new location in memory (containing 1) and that location is the value bound to x. When the location is dereferenced, the program looks up the current value at that memory location. When you use set!, it sets the value in memory. Only parties that have access to the location bound to x (via lexical scope) can access or mutate the contents in memory.
In contrast, dynamic scope allows any code to change the value you're referring to in f, regardless of whether you gave access to the location bound to x. For example,
(define f
(let ([x 1])
(define (f y) (+ x y))
(set! x 2)
f))
(let ([x 3]) (f 3))
would return 6 in an imaginary Scheme with dynamic scope.
Allowing such mutation is excellent. It allows you to define objects with internal state, accessible only through pre-arranged means:
(define (adder n)
(let ((x n))
(lambda (y)
(cond ((pair? y) (set! x (car y)))
(else (+ x y))))))
(define f (adder 1))
(f 5) ; 6
(f (list 10))
(f 5) ; 15
There is no way to change that x except through the f function and its established protocols - precisely because of lexical scoping in Scheme.
The x variable refers to a memory cell in the internal environment frame belonging to that let in which the internal lambda is defined - thus returning the combination of lambda and its defining environment, otherwise known as "closure".
And if you do not provide the protocols for mutating this internal variable, nothing can change it, as it is internal and we've long left the defining scope:
(set! x 5) ; WRONG: "x", what "x"? it's inaccessible!
EDIT: your new code, which changes the meaning of your question completely, there's no problem there as well. It is like we are still inside that defining environment, so naturally the internal variable is still accessible.
More problematic is the following
(define x 1)
(define (f y) (+ x y))
(define x 4)
(f 5) ;?? it's 9.
I would expect the second define to not interfere with the first, but R5RS says define is like set! in the top-level.
Closures package their defining environments with them. Top-level environment is always accessible.
The variable x that f refers to, lives in the top-level environment, and hence is accessible from any code in the same scope. That is to say, any code.
No, it is not dynamic scoping. Note that your define here is an internal definition, accessible only to the code inside the let. In specific, f is not defined at the module level. So nothing has leaked out.
Internal definitions are internally implemented as letrec (R5RS) or letrec* (R6RS). So, it's treated the same (if using R6RS semantics) as:
(let ((x 1))
(letrec* ((f (lambda (y) (+ x y))))
(set! x 2)
(f 3)))
My answer is obvious, but I don't think that anyone else has touched upon it, so let me say it: yes, it's scary. What you're really observing here is that mutation makes it very hard to reason about what your program is going to do. Purely functional code--code with no mutation--always produces the same result when called with the same inputs. Code with state and mutation does not have this property. It may be that calling a function twice with the same inputs will produce separate results.