Say, I want to implement "declarative" object system in Scheme by defining object symbol and then appending methods and fields to that object. While doing so, I want to exploit the local environment of this object to properly bind it's fields in methods (which are added later), for instance (a very "hacked-together" example):
(define myobj
(begin
(define x 5) ; some local field (hard-coded for example)
(define (dispatch m d)
(cond ((eq? m 'add-meth) (define localmethod1 d))
((eq? m 'inv-meth) (localmethod1 d))))
dispatch
))
(myobj 'add-meth (lambda (y) (+ y x)) ;want this to bind to x of myobj
(myobj 'inv-meth 3) ;8
Don't mind silly dispatching mechanism and hard-coded "localmethod1" :) Also do mind, that x may not be available during definition of dispatcher.
First of all, I get problems with using define in define (Bad define placement).
Then: how to make sure that x in lambda binds to the right one (inside of myobj) and not to some x in global environment?
Last: Is there a way to mutate such local enivornments (closures, right?) at all?
EDIT2: I know that you can make this with local lists like "fields" and "methods" and then mutate those by a dispatcher. I wanted to know if there is a possibility of mutating local environment (produced by a dispatch lambda).
begin in Scheme does not produce local environment. To introduce local variables use let. Or, alternatively define an object, or rather a class to construct the object, as lambda-procedure, that will act as a constructor. This will solve your first two problems.
To mutate: you can mutate by having a right dispatch method. For example,
(define (make-object init-val)
(define x init-val)
(define (dispatch msg)
(cond ((eq? msg 'inc)
(lambda (y)
(set! x (+ x y))))
((eq? msg 'x)
x)
(else
(error "Unknown msg"))))
dispatch)
> (define obj (make-object 10))
> (obj 'x)
10
> ((obj 'inc) 20)
> (obj 'x)
30
SICP, Chapter 3 provides good examples of how to make objects with local state.
You are saying:
x may not be available during definition of dispatcher
and then you are asking:
Then: how to make sure that x in lambda binds to the right one (inside of myobj) and not to some x in global environment?
The short answer is: you can't.
The reason is that (see for instance the Mit-Scheme manual):
Scheme is a statically scoped language with block structure. In this respect, it is like Algol and Pascal, and unlike most other dialects of Lisp except for Common Lisp.
The fact that Scheme is statically scoped (rather than dynamically bound) means that the environment that is extended (and becomes current) when a procedure is called is the environment in which the procedure was created (i.e. in which the procedure's defining lambda expression was evaluated), not the environment in which the procedure is called. Because all the other Scheme binding expressions can be expressed in terms of procedures, this determines how all bindings behave.
(emphasis mine)
Related
Footnote #28 of SICP says the following:
Embedded definitions must come first in a procedure body. The management is not responsible for the consequences of running programs that intertwine definition and use.
What exactly does this mean? I understand:
"definitions" to be referring to both procedure creations and value assignments.
"a procedure body" to be as defined in section 1.1.4. It's the code that comes after the list of parameters in a procedure's definition.
"Embedded definitions must come first in a procedure body" to mean 'any definitions that are made and used in a procedure's body must come before anything else'.
"intertwine definition and use" to mean 'calling a procedure or assigned value before it has been defined;'
However, this understanding seems to contradict the answers to this question, which has answers that I can summarise as 'the error that your quote is referring to is about using definitions at the start of a procedure's body that rely on definitions that are also at the start of that body'. This has me triply confused:
That interpretation clearly contradicts what I've said above, but seems to have strong evidence - compiler rules - behind it.
SICP seems happy to put definition in a body with other definitions that use them. Just look at the sqrt procedure just above the footnote!
At a glance, it looks to me that the linked question's author's real error was treating num-prod like a value in their definition of num rather than as a procedure. However, the author clearly got it working, so I'm probably wrong.
So what's really going on? Where is the misunderstanding?
In a given procedure's definition / code,
"internal definitions" are forms starting with define.
"a procedure body" is all the other forms after the forms which start with define.
"embedded definitions must come first in a procedure body" means all the internal define forms must go first, then all the other internal forms. Once a non-define internal form appears, there can not appear an internal define form after that.
"no intertwined use" means no use of any name before it's defined. Imagine all internal define forms are gathered into one equivalent letrec, and follow its rules.
Namely, we have,
(define (proc args ...)
;; internal, or "embedded", definitions
(define a1 ...init1...)
(define a2 ...init2...)
......
(define an ...initn...)
;; procedure body
exp1 exp2 .... )
Any ai can be used in any of the initj expressions, but only inside a lambda expression.(*) Otherwise it would refer to the value of ai while aj is being defined, and that is forbidden, because any ai names are considered not yet defined while any of the initj expressions are being evaluated.
(*) Remember that (define (foo x) ...x...) is the same as (define foo (lambda (x) ...x...)). That's why the definitions in that sqrt procedure in the book you mention are OK -- they are all lambda expressions, and any name's use inside a lambda expression will only actually refer to that name's value when the lambda expression's value -- a lambda function -- will be called, not when that lambda expression is being evaluated, producing that lambda function which is its value.
The book is a bit vague at first with the precise semantics of its language but in Scheme the above code is equivalent to
(define proc
(lambda (args ...)
;; internal, or "embedded", definitions
(letrec ( (a1 ...init1...)
(a2 ...init2...)
......
(an ...initn...) )
;; procedure body
exp1 exp2 ....
)))
as can be seen explained, for instance, here, here or here.
For example,
;; or, equivalently,
(define (my-proc x) (define my-proc
(lambda (x)
(define (foo) a) (letrec ( (foo (lambda () a))
(define a x) (a x) )
;; my-proc's body ;; letrec's body
(foo)) (foo))))
first evaluates the lambda expression, (lambda () a), and binds the name foo to the result, a function; that function will refer to the value of a when (foo) will be called, so it's OK that there's a reference to a inside that lambda expression -- because when that lambda expression is evaluated, no value of a is immediately needed, just the reference to its future value, under the name a, is present there; i.e. the value that a will have after all the names in that letrec are initialized, and the body of letrec is entered. Or in other words, when all the internal defines are completed and the body proper of the procedure my-proc is entered.
So we see that foo is defined, but is not used during the initializations; a is defined but is not used during the initializations; thus all is well. But if we had e.g.
(define (my-proc x)
(define (foo) x) ; `foo` is defined as a function
(define a (foo)) ; `foo` is used by being called as a function
a)
then here foo is both defined and used during the initializations of the internal, or "embedded", defines; this is forbidden in Scheme. This is what the book is warning about: the internal definitions are only allowed to define stuff, but its use should be delayed for later, when we're done with the internal defines and enter the full procedure's body.
This is subtle, and as the footnote and the question you reference imply, the subtlties can vary depending on a particular language's implementation.
These issues will be covered in far more detail later in the book (Chapters 3 and 4) and, generally, the text avoids using internal definitions so that these issues can be avoided until they are examined in detail.
A key difference between between the code above the footnote:
(define (sqrt x)
(define (good-enough? guess)
(< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001))
(define (improve guess)
(average guess (/ x guess)))
(define (sqrt-iter guess)
(if (good-enough? guess)
guess
(sqrt-iter (improve guess))))
(sqrt-iter 1.0))
and the code in the other question:
(define (pi-approx n)
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (num-prod ind) (* (* 2 ind) (* 2 (+ ind 1)))) ; calculates the product in the numerator for a certain term
(define (denom-prod ind) (square (+ (* ind 2 ) 1))) ;Denominator product at index ind
(define num (product num-prod 1 inc n))
(define denom (product denom-prod 1 inc n))
is that all the defintions in former are procedure definitions, whereas num and denom are value defintions. The body of a procedure is not evaluated until that procedures is called. But a value definition is evaluated when the value is assigned.
With a value definiton:
(define sum (add 2 2))
(add 2 2) will evaluated when the definition is evaluated, if so add must already be defined. But with a procedure definition:
(define (sum n m) (add n m))
a procedure object will be assigned to sum but the procedure body is not yet evaluated so add does not need be defined when sum is defined, but must be by the time sum is called:
(sum 2 2)
As I say there is a lot sublty and a lot of variation so I'm not sure if the following is always true for every variation of scheme, but within 'SICP scheme' you can say..
Valid (order of evaluation of defines not significant):
;procedure body
(define (sum m n) (add m n))
(define (add m n) (+ m n))
(sum 2 2)
Also valid:
;procedure body
(define (sum) (add 2 2))
(define (add m n) (+ m n))
(sum)
Usually invalid (order of evaluation of defines is significant):
;procedure body
(define sum (add 2 2))
(define (add m n) (+ m n))
Whether the following is valid depends on the implementation:
;procedure body
(define (add m n) (+ m n))
(define sum (add 2 2))
And finally an example of intertwining definition and use, whether this works also depends on the implementation. IIRC, this would work with Scheme described in Chapter 4 of the book if the scanning out has been implemented.
;procedure body
(sum)
(define (sum) (add 2 2))
(define (add m n) (+ m n))
It is complicated and subtle, but the key points are:
value definitions are evaluated differently from procedure definitions,
behaviour inside blocks may be different from outside blocks,
there is variation between scheme implementations,
the book is designed so you don't have to worry much about this until Chapter 3,
the book will cover this in detail in Chapter 4.
You discovered one of the difficulties of scheme. And of lisp. Due to this kind of chicken and egg issue there is no single lisp, but lots of lisps appeared.
If the binding forms are not present in code in a letrec-logic in R5RS and letrec*-logic in R6RS, the semantics is undefined. Which means, everything depend on the will of the implementor of scheme.
See the paper Fixing Letrec: A Faithful Yet Efficient Implementation of Scheme’s Recursive Binding Construct.
Also, you can read the discussions from the mailing list from 1986, when there was no general consensus among different implementors of scheme.
Also, at MIT there were developed 2 versions of scheme -- the student version and the researchers' development version, and they behaved differently concerning the order of define forms.
I am learning Scheme and just came across Closures. The following example provided, demonstrating the use of Closures:
(define (create-closure x)
(lambda () x))
(define val (create-closure 10))
From what I understand, when the above code is evaluated, val will equal to 10. I realize this is just an example, but I don't understand just how a closure would be helpful. What are the advantages and what would a scenario where such a concept would be needed?
val is not 10 but a closure. If you call it like (val) it returns the value of x. x is a closure variable that still exists since it's still in use. A better example is this:
(define (larger-than-predicate n)
(lambda (v) (> v n )))
(filter (larger-than-predicate 5) '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10))
; ==> (6 7 8 9 10)
So the predicate compares the argument with v which is a variable that still holds 5. In a dynamic bound lisp this is not possible to do because n will not exist when the comparison happens.
Lecical scoping was introduces in Algol and Scheme. JavaScript, PHP amd C# are all algol dialects and have inherited it from there. Scheme was the first lisp to get it and Common Lisp followed. It's actually the most common scoping.
From this example you can see that the closure allows the functions local environment to remain accessible after being called.
(define count
(let ((next 0))
(lambda ()
(let ((v next))
(set! next (+ next 1))
v))))
(count)
(count)
(count)
0..1..2
I believe in the example you give, val will NOT equal to 10, instead, a lambda object (lambda () 10) will be assigned to val. So (val) equals to 10.
In the world of Scheme, there are two different concepts sharing the same term "closure". See this post for a brief introduction to both of these terms. In your case, I believe by "closure" you mean "lexical closure". In your code example, the parameter x is a free variable to the returned lambda and is referred to by that returned lambda, so a lexical closure is kept to store the value of x. I believe this post will give you a good explanation on what (lexical) closure is.
Totally agree with Lifu Huang's answer.
In addition, I'd like to highlight the most obvious use of closures, namely callbacks.
For instance, in JavaScript, I might write
function setup(){
var presses = 0;
function handleKeyPress(evt){
presses = presses + 1;
return mainHandler(evt);
}
installKeyHandler(handleKeyPress);
}
In this case, it's important to me that the function that I'm installing as the key handler "knows about" the binding for the presses variable. That binding is stored in the closure. Put differently, the function is "closed over" the binding for presses.
Similar things occur in nearly every http GET or POST call made in JS. It crops up in many many other places as well.
Btw, create-closure from your question is known by some as the Kestrel combinator, from the family of Combinator Birds. It is also known as True in Church encoding, which encodes booleans (and everything else) using lambdas (closures).
(define (kestrel a)
(lambda (b) a))
(define (create-list size proc)
(let loop ((x 0))
(if (= x size)
empty
(cons (proc x)
(loop (add1 x))))))
(create-list 5 identity)
; '(0 1 2 3 4)
(create-list 5 (kestrel 'a))
; '(a a a a a)
In Racket (I'm unsure about Scheme), this procedure is known as const -
(create-list 5 (const 'a))
; '(a a a a a)
If I have two variables, for example
(define x 10)
(define y 20)
And I want to create a new variable, using the values of x and y to create the name, how would I go about doing so?
For example let's say I want to make a new variable called variable-x-y
(define variable-x-y "some-value")
In this case, x would be 10 and y would be 20.
Basically to summarize everything, I want to be able to enter variable-10-20 and have it return "some-value"
I'm sorry if this sounds like a novice question. I'm quite new to Racket.
EDIT:
Also, how would I go about retrieving the values if just given the values of x and y (within the program)?
For example, let's say that somehow I was able to define the following:
(define variable-10-20 "some-value")
(define x 10)
(define y 20)
Is there a way for me to write variable-x-y and get back "some-value"?
EDIT 2
Here is the simplified code of what I'm trying to implement. What it does is it recursively reads each individual element into a local variable which can then be used after it's all been "read in". I'm sure if you tweak the code using the method found here it should work just fine.
(define (matrix->variables matrix)
(local [(define (matrix2->variables/acc matrix2 x y)
(cond
[;; the entire matrix has "extracted" it's elements into variables
(empty? matrix2)
#|This is where the main program goes for using the variables|#]
[;; the first row has "extracted" it's elements into variables
(empty? (first matrix2))
(matrix2->variables/acc (rest matrix2) 0 (add1 y))]
[else (local [(define element-x-y "some-value")]
;; Here is where I got stuck since I couldn't find a way to
;; name the variable being created (element-x-y)
(matrix2->variables/acc
(cons (rest (first matrix2)) (rest matrix2))
(add1 x) y))]))]
(matrix2->variables/acc matrix 0 0)))
I think you're misunderstanding how variable definition works. When you create a variable name, you have to know how to call it, you can't define names dynamically.
Perhaps a hash table for storing bindings will be useful, it's somewhat similar to what you ask and simulates having dynamically defined variables - but still I'm not sure why you want to do this, sounds more like an XY problem to me. Try this:
(define (create-key var1 var2)
(string->symbol
(string-append
"variable-"
(number->string var1)
"-"
(number->string var2))))
; create a new "variable"
(define x 10)
(define y 20)
(create-key x y)
=> 'variable-10-20
; use a hash for storing "variables"
(define vars (make-hash))
; add a new "variable" to hash
(hash-set! vars (create-key x y) "some-value")
; retrieve the "variable" value from hash
(hash-ref vars 'variable-10-20)
=> "some-value"
Contrary to what Mr. López said, variable names can be decided at runtime, but only at the top-level or module level. To do it in a module:
(compile-enforce-module-constants #f)
(eval `(define ,(string->symbol "foo") 'bar) (current-namespace))
Whether this is the right or wrong thing to do is a separate question entirely.
You'll run into the same problem when you try to access these variables, so you'll have to use eval there, too. You cannot export these variables with provide.
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.
rt.
I want to redefine a function at run time so that i can change the behavior of the system at run time.
thanks.
(define (foo x) ...stuff...)
(set! foo (lambda (x) ...different stuff...))
It might be advisable to use let to do this locally, this can also apply to keywords in this sense:
(let ((define +))
(define 2 3)) ; ===> 5
Or even redefine them to constants, remember, Scheme is a lisp-1:
(let ((define 2) (+ 4))
(- define +)) ; ===> -2
Or even:
(let ((quote /))
'3) ===> 1/3
Doing it only locally preserves the functional style.
Assuming you want to overload a function you defined earlier, simply define it again. This also works for redefining functions such as car and cdr, e.g. to make car into cdr:
(define (car x) (cdr x))
However, I think you won't be able to affect other already defined functions with such a redefinition, so a system function which uses car will still use the original system car and not yours:
(define (test x) (car x))
(define (car x) (cdr x))
(test '(1 2 3))
1
I guess the reason for this is that internally the symbols disappear once a function gets read or evaluated and the symbols are replaced by what they're bound to; in this case, the actual code of the function. So rebinding a symbol to a different function won't affect the rest of your already defined code. This is usually a good thing because it helps uphold referential transparency.
If you want to redefine scheme keywords such as lambda or cond, use let-syntax (see http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq-language)