As a result of musings around an exercism problem, I am trying to write a function that takes an input number and an arbitrary length list of divisors to test, along with the expected divisibility (i.e. remainder 0) as a boolean, returning true if all expectations are met (defaulting to true if unspecified).
example input:
(divisible-by 10 (5 t) (4 f) 2) => t
My reading has lead to this attempt at creating the input for the function:
(defun divisible-by (numerator &rest args (&key divisors (divisorp t)))
(loop...))
My simple test cases for such an input type error out in various ways, and my searching via Google and directly here on Stack Overflow have not proved fruitful, leading me to believe my understanding is insufficient to generate the right keywords.
Pointers on how to implement such a function, where my attempts fall down or why such a function cannot be implemented as I have outlined would be gratefully received.
You don't need anything beyond &rest:
(defun divisible-p (number &rest divisors)
"Check whether number is divisible by divisors."
(dolist (spec divisors t) ; For each 'divisor' in divisors
(etypecase spec
;; If divisor is a list, test if modulus of first value is 0
;; then compare to second (boolean)
(cons (unless (eq (zerop (mod number (first spec)))
(second spec))
(return nil)))
;; If divisor is an integer, return t if modulus == 0
(integer (unless (zerop (mod number spec))
(return nil))))))
(divisible-p 10 '(5 t) '(4 nil) 2)
==> T
(divisible-p 10 '(5 t) '(4 nil) 2 3)
==> NIL
Note that you need to quote list arguments, otherwise you will get an error that there is no function 5.
I am not sure what you were trying to accomplish by using &key, but they cannot be repeated in CL, i.e., if you write
(defun foo (&key a) (print a))
(foo :a 1 :a 2 :a 3)
only 3 will be printed, 1 & 2 will be ignored.
I don't see a productive way to mix &rest and &key for solving this problem. Here's an example using only &key:
(defun divisible-by (numerator &key divisors not-divisors)
(flet ((dividesp (denom) (= 0 (mod numerator denom))))
(and (every #'dividesp divisors)
(notany #'dividesp not-divisors))))
;; Call like:
(divisible-by 10 :divisors (list 2 5) :not-divisors (list 4 6))
=> t
Your lambda list has a syntax error, something close to what you wrote but valid would look and be called like this:
(defun divisible-by (numerator &rest args &key divisors (divisorp t))
(print args)
(print divisors)
(print divisorp))
;; Calling would look like this
(divisible-by 10 :divisors (list 11 2) :divisorp nil)
-> (:DIVISORS (11 2) :DIVISORP NIL)
-> (11 2)
-> NIL
Your desired input is not exactly possible for a function. Function calls don't alter the syntax of their arguments: (5 t) would be the function 5 called with the argument t, but 5 isn't a function so you get an error regardless of the lambda list.
Defun takes an ordinary lambda list. There is no destructuring in that.
&Rest takes exactly one symbol, which is bound to the rest of the arguments after all required and optional parameters are filled. If you want to destructure it, use destructuring-bind inside the function body.
Sometimes it may be worthwhile to use a macro, which takes a destructuring lambda list, to preprocess a function calling form.
Related
Let's take the following function to get a pair of numbers:
; (range 1 3) --> '(1 2 3)
(define (range a b)
(if (> a b) nil
(cons a (range (+ 1 a) b))))
; generate pair of two numbers with 1 <= i < j <= N
(define (get-pairs n)
(map (lambda (i)
(map (lambda (j) (list i j))
(range 1 (- i 1))))
(range 1 n)))
(get-pairs 2)
; (() ((2 1)))
(get-pairs 3)
(() ((2 1)) ((3 1) (3 2)))
Why does the above produce '() as the first element of the output? Comparing this with python, I would expect it to just give the three pairs, something like:
>>> for i in range(1,3+1): # +1 because the range is n-1 in python
... for j in range(1,i-1+1):
... print (i,j)
...
(2, 1)
(3, 1)
(3, 2)
I suppose maybe it has to do with when i is 1?
(map (lambda (j) (list 1 j)) '())
; ()
Is that just an identity in Scheme that a map with an empty list is always an empty list?
When i is 1, the inner map is over (range 1 0), which is () by your own definition. Since map takes a procedure and a list (or lists) of values, applies the procedure to each value in the list in turn, and returns a list containing the results, mapping any procedure over a list containing no values will return a list containing no values.
It might help to create a simple definition for map to see how this might work. Note that this definition is not fully featured; it only takes a single list argument:
(define (my-map proc xs)
(if (null? xs)
'()
(cons (proc (car xs))
(my-map proc (cdr xs)))))
Here, when the input list is empty, there are no values to map over, so an empty list is returned. Otherwise the procedure proc is applied to the first value in the input list, and the result is consed onto the result of mapping over the rest of the list.
A couple of observations:
First, the empty list is not represented by nil in either standard Scheme or vanilla Racket, and you should not be using it. In the early days of Scheme nil was allowed as a crutch for programmers coming from other lisps, but this has not been the case for a long time. I don't think that it was ever in any of the RnRS standards, but nil may have survived in some specific implementations until maybe R4RS (1991). SICP was from that era. Today you should use '() to represent empty list literals in Scheme so that your code can run on any Scheme implementation. Racket's #lang sicp allows code directly from the book to be run, but that should not keep you from using the common notation. Note that Common Lisp does use nil as a self-evaluating symbol to represent both the empty list, and boolean false. Seeing this in Scheme just doesn't look right today.
Second, you will probably be led astray more often than to wisdom by thinking in terms of Python when trying to understand Scheme code. In this particular case, map is an iteration construct, but it is not the same thing as a for loop. A for loop is usually used for side-effects, but map is used to transform a list. Scheme has a for-each form which is meant to be used for its side-effects, and in that sense is more like a for loop. The Python version that is posted above is not at all like the Scheme version, though. Instead of returning the results in a list, the results are printed. In the Scheme code, when i is 1, the inner mapping is over (range 1 0) --> (). But, in the Python code, when i is 1, the inner loop is over range(1, 1), so the body of this for loop is not executed and nothing is printed.
Better to think carefully about the Scheme code you want to understand, falling back on basic definitions, than to cobble together a model based on Python that has possibly unconsidered corner cases.
During the execution of my code I get the following errors in the different Scheme implementations:
Racket:
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: '(1 2 3)
arguments...:
Ikarus:
Unhandled exception
Condition components:
1. &assertion
2. &who: apply
3. &message: "not a procedure"
4. &irritants: ((1 2 3))
Chicken:
Error: call of non-procedure: (1 2 3)
Gambit:
*** ERROR IN (console)#2.1 -- Operator is not a PROCEDURE
((1 2 3) 4)
MIT Scheme:
;The object (1 2 3) is not applicable.
;To continue, call RESTART with an option number:
; (RESTART 2) => Specify a procedure to use in its place.
; (RESTART 1) => Return to read-eval-print level 1.
Chez Scheme:
Exception: attempt to apply non-procedure (1 2 3)
Type (debug) to enter the debugger.
Guile:
ERROR: In procedure (1 2 3):
ERROR: Wrong type to apply: (1 2 3)
Chibi:
ERROR in final-resumer: non procedure application: (1 2 3)
Why is it happening
Scheme procedure/function calls look like this:
(operator operand ...)
Both operator and operands can be variables like test, and + that evaluates to different values. For a procedure call to work it has to be a procedure. From the error message it seems likely that test is not a procedure but the list (1 2 3).
All parts of a form can also be expressions so something like ((proc1 4) 5) is valid syntax and it is expected that the call (proc1 4) returns a procedure that is then called with 5 as it's sole argument.
Common mistakes that produces these errors.
Trying to group expressions or create a block
(if (< a b)
((proc1)
(proc2))
#f)
When the predicate/test is true Scheme assumes will try to evaluate both (proc1) and (proc2) then it will call the result of (proc1) because of the parentheses. To create a block in Scheme you use begin:
(if (< a b)
(begin
(proc1)
(proc2))
#f)
In this (proc1) is called just for effect and the result of teh form will be the result of the last expression (proc2).
Shadowing procedures
(define (test list)
(list (cdr list) (car list)))
Here the parameter is called list which makes the procedure list unavailable for the duration of the call. One variable can only be either a procedure or a different value in Scheme and the closest binding is the one that you get in both operator and operand position. This would be a typical mistake made by common-lispers since in CL they can use list as an argument without messing with the function list.
wrapping variables in cond
(define test #t) ; this might be result of a procedure
(cond
((< 5 4) result1)
((test) result2)
(else result3))
While besides the predicate expression (< 5 4) (test) looks correct since it is a value that is checked for thurthness it has more in common with the else term and whould be written like this:
(cond
((< 5 4) result1)
(test result2)
(else result3))
A procedure that should return a procedure doesn't always
Since Scheme doesn't enforce return type your procedure can return a procedure in one situation and a non procedure value in another.
(define (test v)
(if (> v 4)
(lambda (g) (* v g))
'(1 2 3)))
((test 5) 10) ; ==> 50
((test 4) 10) ; ERROR! application: not a procedure
Undefined values like #<void>, #!void, #<undef>, and #<unspecified>
These are usually values returned by mutating forms like set!, set-car!, set-cdr!, define.
(define (test x)
((set! f x) 5))
(test (lambda (x) (* x x)))
The result of this code is undetermined since set! can return any value and I know some scheme implementations like MIT Scheme actually return the bound value or the original value and the result would be 25 or 10, but in many implementations you get a constant value like #<void> and since it is not a procedure you get the same error. Relying on one implementations method of using under specification makes gives you non portable code.
Passing arguments in wrong order
Imagine you have a fucntion like this:
(define (double v f)
(f (f v)))
(double 10 (lambda (v) (* v v))) ; ==> 10000
If you by error swapped the arguments:
(double (lambda (v) (* v v)) 10) ; ERROR: 10 is not a procedure
In higher order functions such as fold and map not passing the arguments in the correct order will produce a similar error.
Trying to apply as in Algol derived languages
In algol languages, like JavaScript and C++, when trying to apply fun with argument arg it looks like:
fun(arg)
This gets interpreted as two separate expressions in Scheme:
fun ; ==> valuates to a procedure object
(arg) ; ==> call arg with no arguments
The correct way to apply fun with arg as argument is:
(fun arg)
Superfluous parentheses
This is the general "catch all" other errors. Code like ((+ 4 5)) will not work in Scheme since each set of parentheses in this expression is a procedure call. You simply cannot add as many as you like and thus you need to keep it (+ 4 5).
Why allow these errors to happen?
Expressions in operator position and allow to call variables as library functions gives expressive powers to the language. These are features you will love having when you have become used to it.
Here is an example of abs:
(define (abs x)
((if (< x 0) - values) x))
This switched between doing (- x) and (values x) (identity that returns its argument) and as you can see it calls the result of an expression. Here is an example of copy-list using cps:
(define (copy-list lst)
(define (helper lst k)
(if (null? lst)
(k '())
(helper (cdr lst)
(lambda (res) (k (cons (car lst) res))))))
(helper lst values))
Notice that k is a variable that we pass a function and that it is called as a function. If we passed anything else than a fucntion there you would get the same error.
Is this unique to Scheme?
Not at all. All languages with one namespace that can pass functions as arguments will have similar challenges. Below is some JavaScript code with similar issues:
function double (f, v) {
return f(f(v));
}
double(v => v * v, 10); // ==> 10000
double(10, v => v * v);
; TypeError: f is not a function
; at double (repl:2:10)
// similar to having extra parentheses
function test (v) {
return v;
}
test(5)(6); // == TypeError: test(...) is not a function
// But it works if it's designed to return a function:
function test2 (v) {
return v2 => v2 + v;
}
test2(5)(6); // ==> 11
write a function in lisp called number(N) that you have to use a nonnegative integer N, and produce the list of all integers from 1 up to and including N.
(defun numbers (N)
(if (<= N 0)
nil
(cons N nil)
(numbers (- N 1)))
I checked some questions, but most of them use loop and range, but this question doesn't allowed me to do this, so I have to use recursion instead:
here is my code, but this code keeps giving me warning:
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
; The variable N is defined but never used.
;
; compilation unit finished
; caught 1 ERROR condition
; caught 1 STYLE-WARNING condition
I think my algorithm is correct ,but because I am new to lisp, I still don't know how to write the function properly. It is grateful if anyone could gave me any help.
IF has generally a common syntax, but there are exceptions
Generally in Lisps like Common Lisp the if operator allows the following syntax:
IF test-form then-form [else-form]
This means that in Lisp usually zero or one else-form are allowed. An example is if in Common Lisp.
In Emacs Lisp multiple else-forms are allowed. Emacs Lisp has the following syntax:
IF test-form then-form else-form*
This means that in Emacs Lisp zero or more else-forms are allowed.
Thus: it's important to mention which language&dialect you are actually using.
Your code
a) Let's assume that you use Common Lisp with its IF syntax.
Your code:
(defun numbers (N)
(if (<= N 0)
nil
(cons N nil)
(numbers (- N 1)))
Your code has the problem, that there are more than one else clauses. You need to write a version which has a single else clause.
b) Let's assume that you use Emacs Lisp with its IF syntax with multiple else forms.
Your code:
(defun numbers (N)
(if (<= N 0)
nil
(cons N nil)
(numbers (- N 1)))
Here the (cons N nil) form is allowed, but has no effect. Its return value is not used and it has no side effect. You could delete it and it would make no difference. Again: you would need how to combine its effect with the form (numbers (- N 1)).
Syntax error: missing closing parenthesis
There is another problem in your code. The s-expressions are not complete -> a closing parenthesis is missing:
(defun numbers (N)
(if (<= N 0)
nil
(cons N nil)
(numbers (- N 1)))
As you can see a closing parenthesis is missing at the end.
Thus your code can not be read by Lisp.
There are two ways one generally can avoid this problem:
count the parentheses and set them accordingly
use the editor to count the parentheses
Most people prefer the latter.
The way to think about this is to think about what the algorithm should be:
To compute the numbers from 1 to n:
if n is less than 1 then there are no numbers, so this is the empty list;
otherwise we want a list which looks like (... n), where ... is all the numbers from 1 to n-1.
Note that we want the numbers in forward order: this is going to be critical.
Doing this is slightly difficult in Lisp because we want the number to be at the end of the list, and access to the ends of lists is hard.
Here is the start of a version which builds the list backwards (so this is not the right answer).
(defun numbers (n)
(if (< n 1)
'() ;the empty list
;; n 1 or more, so build a list which is (n . ...)
(cons n <some function involving n>)))
Well, OK, what function should we call recursively? Do we have a function which returns the list we want? Well, yes: it's numbers, with an argument which is one less than n!
(defun numbers (n)
(if (< n 1)
'()
(cons n (numbers (- n 1)))))
And this function works. But it gets the wrong answer: the list is backwards:
> (numbers 10)
(10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1)
There are two fixes to this problem: the first is to build the list forwards, using append. This version looks like this (remember append wants to append two lists: it doesn't append an element to the end of a list):
(defun numbers (n)
(if (< n 1)
'()
(append (numbers (- n 1)) (list n))))
This gets the right answer:
> (numbers 10)
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
but it's a terrible answer: append has to walk all the way down the list (lists in Lisp are chains of conses: there is no fast access to the end of a list), copying it as it goes, to append the new element. So this has absolutely terrible space & time complexity. Programs written like this are why 'Lisp is slow'.
A better approach is to build the list backwards and then reverse it.
(defun numbers (n)
(reverse (numbers-backwards n)))
(defun numbers-backwards (n)
(if (< n 1)
'()
(cons n (numbers-backwards (- n 1)))))
The problem with this, from the homework perspective, might be that using reverse is not allowed. That's OK, we can write it, recursively. The implementation is slightly fiddly, but this is going to help us below.
(defun reverse-list (l)
;; in real life reverse-list-accumulator would be a local function
(reverse-list-accumulator l '()))
(defun reverse-list-accumulator (l accum)
(if (null l)
accum
(reverse-list-accumulator (rest l) (cons (first l) accum))))
The way this works is that reverse-list calls this auxiliary function with an extra argument. The auxiliary function then checks the list, and if it's not empty it calls itself with the tail of the list and the head of the list consed onto the auxiliary argument. If it is empty, it returns the auxiliary argument. It's a little subtle but you can see that this in fact reverses the list.
So now we can write our function using only recursive functions we wrote:
(defun numbers (n)
(reverse-list (numbers-backwards n)))
But now there should be a moment of inspiration: why are we doing this whole
build-it-backwards-and-reverse-it thing? Why don't we just make numbers do the accumulator trick itself! Well, we can do that:
(defun numbers (n)
(numbers-accumulator n '()))
(defun numbers-accumulator (n accum)
(if (< n 1)
accum
(numbers-accumulator (- n 1) (cons n accum))))
And now we don't need to reverse the list, and for added value our
function is 'tail recursive' and will generally be compiled much more
efficiently.
A real-life version of numbers might look more like this, using a local function:
(defun numbers (n)
(labels ((numbers-accumulator (m accum)
(if (< m 1)
accum
(numbers-accumulator (- m 1) (cons m accum)))))
(numbers-accumulator n '())))
Here is a comparison between the version of numbers using append and the above function, on an argument small enough that the append version does not overflow the stack.
> (time (progn (numbers/append 2000) (values)))
Timing the evaluation of (progn (numbers/append 2000) (values))
User time = 0.024
System time = 0.001
Elapsed time = 0.017
Allocation = 32176304 bytes
97 Page faults
> (time (progn (numbers 2000) (values)))
Timing the evaluation of (progn (numbers 2000) (values))
User time = 0.000
System time = 0.000
Elapsed time = 0.001
Allocation = 32000 bytes
0 Page faults
You can see how terrible the append version is, and how good the other one is: this is a 64-bit Lisp, and conses are two words or 16 bytes: it has allocated precisely 2000 cons cells which is the minimum it could do.
After reading Python's range() analog in Common Lisp, I went thinking that I didn't really like the function interfaces used on the answers.
Three different lambda lists appear there:
(start end &optional (step 1)): both the start and end arguments are mandatory.
(end &key (start 0) (step 1)): IMHO, using keyword arguments seems overkill for such simple function, and they are there just to hide the fact that end and start do not appear in the natural order (i.e. first start, then end)
(n &key (start 0) (step 1)) (from alexandria:iota): here, the optionality and order of the arguments are right, but at the expense of using a different abstraction.
The thing is that I would like to write (range 6) to generate (0 1 2 3 4 5) but also (range 3 6) to generate (3 4 5). And actually, it is easily doable; for instance:
(defun range (start_or_end &optional end (step 1))
(multiple-value-bind (start end)
(if end
(values start_or_end end)
(values 0 start_or_end))
(loop for n from start below end by step collect n)))
But well, I haven't seen this kind of argument fiddling in others code, and as a Lisp newbie I would like to know if that is an acceptable idiom or not.
Update: I have just discovered that Racket provides a range function similar to the one I was proposing (an also the in-range generator).
As Alessio Stalla pointed out, there's nothing the matter with this, but it's not something you'll see very often. Overloading by arity gets more complicated when the language permits optional and rest arguments.
I think the way that a case like this would typically be handled is to define things in terms of designators. You could state that a range is determined by three values: a start, an end, and a step. Then you can say that a range designator is a list of length at most three, with the following semantics:
(n) designates (:start 0 :end n :step 1)
(m n) designates (:start m :end n :step 1)
(m n s) designates (:start m :end n :step s)
Then you can do something like:
(defun range (&rest range-designator)
(destructuring-bind (a &optional (b nil bp) (c nil cp))
range-designator
(multiple-value-bind (start end step)
(cond
(cp (values a b c))
(bp (values a b 1))
(t (values 0 a 1)))
(loop for x from start to end by step
collect x))))
CL-USER> (range 5)
(0 1 2 3 4 5)
CL-USER> (range 2 7)
(2 3 4 5 6 7)
CL-USER> (range 2 7 3)
(2 5)
If you anticipate using range designators in other places, you can pull that inside stuff out a bit:
(defun to-range (designator)
(destructuring-bind (a &optional (b nil bp) (c nil cp))
designator
(cond
(cp (values a b c))
(bp (values a b 1))
(t (values 0 a 1)))))
(defun range (&rest range-designator)
(multiple-value-bind (start end step)
(to-range range-designator)
(loop for x from start to end by step collect x)))
It is acceptable, although you don't encounter it very frequently. I'm pretty sure there are functions in the standard with such a signature but I can't remember any at the moment.
One example that I do remember is the JFIELD primitive in ABCL: http://abcl.org/trac/wiki/JavaFfi#FunctionJFIELDJFIELD-RAWSETFJFIELD
If you're concerned about performance, since "parsing" the lambda list has a cost, you can use compiler macros to avoid paying it, especially in a case like yours where the behaviour of the function is driven only by the number of arguments (as opposed to their types).
I'm trying to create a function in elisp that returns another function. I looked at this answer to a similar question (how to return function in elisp) but did not understand the answer (I'm literally just starting learning elisp today, so please excuse my ignorance). I thought a simpler example would help. First, consider a function that test whether a number is divisible by 5:
(defun divisible-by-5 (x)
;; tests whether a number is divsible by 5.
(setq remainder (% x 5))
(if (= remainder 0) 1 0)
)
This works fine:
(divisible-by-5 25)
1
Now suppose I want to create a function that can create more of these kinds of test functions---something like:
(defun divisible-by-z (z)
(lambda (z)
(setq remainder (% x z))
(if (= remainder 0) 1 0))
)
This does not work. E.g.,
(defun divisible-by-3 (divisible-by-z 3))
(divisible-by-3 4)
returns an error. I think even seeing an elisp-idiomatic example of how one would implement this pattern would be helpful.
First, make sure you have lexical-binding enabled. The simplest way to do so is to evaluate (setq lexical-binding t) in your current buffer. More information on the topic can be found here.
Your definition of divisible-by-z is basically correct except that you have a mistype (naming both parameters z; the lambda's parameter should be x). Also, it would be more idiomatic to introduce the binding for remainder with let - setq is generally reserved for mutating bindings that already exist. Here's the result:
(defun divisible-by-z (z)
(lambda (x)
(let ((remainder (% x z)))
(if (= remainder 0) 1 0))))
You can't use defun to create divisible-by-3 in quite the way you've tried - it's expecting the argument list for a new function to be where you have the call to divisible-by-z.
You could either create a global, dynamic binding with
(defvar divisible-by-3 (divisible-by-z 3))
Or a local, lexical binding with
(let ((divisible-by-3 (divisible-by-z 3)))
...)
Either way, you'll then need to use funcall to call the function
(funcall divisible-by-3 9) ; => 1
Of course, you could also skip giving it its own name entirely and simply
(funcall (divisible-by-z 3) 10) ; => 0
funcall is necessary because Emacs Lisp is (basically) a Lisp-2, meaning it can attach both a function and a value to a given symbol. So when you're treating functions as values (returning one from a function or passing one in to a function as a parameter) you essentially have to tell it to look in that value "cell" rather than the usual function cell. If you search for "Lisp-1 vs Lisp-2" you'll find more than you want to know about this.
A possible solution:
(defun divisible-by-3 (x)
(funcall (divisible-by-z 3) x))
Another (perhaps simpler) method is to include x as a variable to be passed to the function:
(defun divisible-by-z (x z) "
Check if x is divisible by z.
If so, return 0.
If not, return the remainder."
(if (% x z) (% x z) 0))
thus:
(divisible-by-z 5 2) --> 1
(divisible-by-z 4 2) --> 0