The problem is when lists have a different length, any idea of how to do it?
I have to use functions like map or something like that
This is the code I wrote so far, it works with lists of the same length but it also needs to work with lists of different lengths. Thank you.
(define (interleave list1 list2)
(flatten [map (lambda (x y) (cons x (cons y null))) list1 list2]))
if lists have different length this is what I get:
map: all lists must have same size; arguments were: # '(1 2 3 4 5) '(a b c)
I'm trying to get (1 a 2 b 3 c 4 5)
#lang racket
(define (weave xs ys)
(match (list xs ys)
[(list (cons x xs) (cons y ys)) (cons x (cons y (weave xs ys)))]
[(list '() ys) ys]
[(list xs '()) xs]))
I'm assuming your desired behavior is that the lists are interleaved for as long as this is possible, and then whatever is left over from the nonempty list is appended to the end. In that case one possible implementation is
(define (interleave a b)
(if (null? a)
b
(cons (car a)
(interleave b (cdr a)))))
I think this is probably the simplest possible way to write what you're looking for.
Neither map nor fold-right would work because they either signal an error when one list is smaller than the other or they tend to stop at the shortest list. eg. SRFI-1's map (interleave '(1 2 3 4) (circular-list 9 8)) ; ==> (1 9 2 8 3 9 4 8). For a different behavior you need to roll your own.
A solution using simple list manipulation functions might be:
(define (interleave list1 list2)
(cond ((empty? list1) list2)
((empty? list2) list1)
(else
(append
(list (car list1) (car list2))
(interleave (cdr list1) (cdr list2))))))
Testing...
> (interleave '(1 2 3 4 5) '(a b c))
(1 a 2 b 3 c 4 5)
> (interleave '(1 2 3 4 5) '())
(1 2 3 4 5)
> (interleave '() '(a b c))
(a b c)
>
I think it is fairly self-documenting.
"There ain't nothin' you can't not do with fold-right and some of them con-tin-uations thingies", said a cowboy to another, spittin' into the campfire and puffin' on his cigar in the evening, sippin' his black coffee from his rugged banged up tin mug. "Yessa, nothin' in the whole darn world."
(define (interleave xs ys)
;; interleave xs ys = foldr g n xs ys
;; where
;; g x r (y:ys) = x : y : r ys
;; g x r [] = x : r []
;; n ys = ys
((foldr
(lambda (x r)
(lambda (ys)
(cond ((null? ys) (cons x (r '())))
(else (apply (lambda (y . ys)
(cons x (cons y (r ys))))
ys)))))
(lambda (ys) ys)
xs)
ys))
Related
I'm working on this project in Scheme and these errors on these three particular methods have me very stuck.
Method #1:
; Returns the roots of the quadratic formula, given
; ax^2+bx+c=0. Return only real roots. The list will
; have 0, 1, or 2 roots. The list of roots should be
; sorted in ascending order.
; a is guaranteed to be non-zero.
; Use the quadratic formula to solve this.
; (quadratic 1.0 0.0 0.0) --> (0.0)
; (quadratic 1.0 3.0 -4.0) --> (-4.0 1.0)
(define (quadratic a b c)
(if
(REAL? (sqrt(- (* b b) (* (* 4 a) c))))
((let ((X (/ (+ (* b -1) (sqrt(- (* b b) (* (* 4 a) c)))) (* 2 a)))
(Y (/ (- (* b -1) (sqrt(- (* b b) (* (* 4 a) c)))) (* 2 a))))
(cond
((< X Y) (CONS X (CONS Y '())))
((> X Y) (CONS Y (CONS X '())))
((= X Y) (CONS X '()))
)))#f)
Error:
assertion-violation: attempt to call a non-procedure [tail-call]
('(0.0) '())
1>
assertion-violation: attempt to call a non-procedure [tail-call]
('(-4.0 1.0) '())
I'm not sure what it is trying to call. (0.0) and (-4.0 1.0) is my expected output so I don't know what it is trying to do.
Method #2:
;Returns the list of atoms that appear anywhere in the list,
;including sublists
; (flatten '(1 2 3) --> (1 2 3)
; (flatten '(a (b c) ((d e) f))) --> (a b c d e f)
(define (flatten lst)
(cond
((NULL? lst) '())
((LIST? lst) (APPEND (CAR lst) (flatten(CDR lst))))
(ELSE (APPEND lst (flatten(CDR lst))))
)
)
Error: assertion-violation: argument of wrong type [car]
(car 3)
3>
assertion-violation: argument of wrong type [car]
(car 'a)
I'm not sure why this is happening, when I'm checking if it is a list before I append anything.
Method #3
; Returns the value that results from:
; item1 OP item2 OP .... itemN, evaluated from left to right:
; ((item1 OP item2) OP item3) OP ...
; You may assume the list is a flat list that has at least one element
; OP - the operation to be performed
; (accumulate '(1 2 3 4) (lambda (x y) (+ x y))) --> 10
; (accumulate '(1 2 3 4) (lambda (x y) (* x y))) --> 24
; (accumulate '(1) (lambda (x y) (+ x y))) --> 1
(define (accumulate lst OP)
(define f (eval OP (interaction-environment)))
(cond
((NULL? lst) '())
((NULL? (CDR lst)) (CAR lst))
(ELSE (accumulate(CONS (f (CAR lst) (CADR lst)) (CDDR lst)) OP))
)
)
Error:
syntax-violation: invalid expression [expand]
#{procedure 8664}
5>
syntax-violation: invalid expression [expand]
#{procedure 8668}
6>
syntax-violation: invalid expression [expand]
#{procedure 8672}
7>
syntax-violation: invalid expression [expand]
#{procedure 1325 (expt in scheme-level-1)}
This one I have no idea what this means, what is expand?
Any help would be greatly appreciated
code has (let () ...) which clearly evaluates to list? so the extra parentheses seems odd. ((let () +) 1 2) ; ==> 3 works because the let evaluates to a procedure, but if you try ((cons 1 '()) 1 2) you should get an error saying something like application: (1) is not a procedure since (1) isn't a procedure. Also know that case insensitivity is deprecated so CONS and REAL? are not future proof.
append concatenates lists. They have to be lists. In the else you know since lst is not list? that lst cannot be an argument of append. cons might be what you are looking for. Since lists are abstraction magic in Scheme I urge you to get comfortable with pairs. When I read (1 2 3) I see (1 . (2 . (3 . ()))) or perhaps (cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '()))) and you should too.
eval is totally inappropriate in this code. If you pass (lambda (x y) (+ x y)) which evaluates to a procedure to OP you can do (OP 1 2). Use OP directly.
I'm working on this procedure which is supposed to return a list of pairs from 2 given lists. So for example (pairs '(1 2 3) '(a b c)) should return '((1.a) (2.b) (3.c)).
This is my logic so far. I would take the first element of each list and recursively call the procedure again with cdr as the new arguments. My result is returning a list such as this: (1 a 2 b 3 c)
Where is my logic going wrong? I know there is a list missing somewhere, but I'm not an expert at Scheme.
Any suggestions?
(define pairs
(lambda (x y)
(if (or (null? x) (null? y))
'()
(cons (car x)
(cons (car y)
(pairs (cdr x)(cdr y)))))))
(pairs '(1 2 3) '(a b c))
Notice that you produce a value that prints as (1 . 3) by evaluating (cons 1 3). However in your program you are doing (cons 1 (cons 3 ...)) which will prepend 1 and 3 to the following list.
In other words: Instead of (cons (car x) (cons (car y) (pairs ...))
use (cons (cons (car x) (car y) (pairs ...)).
Using map simplifies it a lot:
(define (pairs x y)
(map (λ (i j) (list i j)) x y))
Testing:
(pairs '(1 2 3) '(a b c))
Output:
'((1 a) (2 b) (3 c))
The result you're looking for should look like this:
((1 a) (2 b) (3 c))
In reality this structure is similar to this:
(cons
(cons 1 a)
(cons
(cons 2 b)
(cons
(cons 3 c)
'()
)
)
)
So what you're looking for is to append pairs to a list instead of adding all items to the list like you do. Simply your result looks like this:
(1 (2 (pairs ...)))
Your code should look like this:
(define pairs
(lambda (x y)
(if (or (null? x) (null? y))
'()
(cons
(cons (car x) (car y))
(pairs (cdr x) (cdr y))))))
This code might work, but it isn't perfect. We could make the code pass the list we create as a third parameter to make the function tail recursive.
You'd have something like this:
(define pairs
(lambda (x y)
(let next ((x x) (y y) (lst '()))
(if (or (null? x) (null? y))
(reverse lst)
(next (cdr x)
(cdr y)
(cons
(cons (car x) (car y))
lst))))))
As you can see, here since we're adding next element at the beginning of the list, we have to reverse the lst at the end. The difference here is that every time next is called, there is no need to keep each state of x and y in memory. When the named let will return, it won't be necessary to pop all the values back to where it called. It will simply return the reversed list.
That said, instead of using reverse we could simply return lst and use (append lst (cons (car x) (car y))) which would append the pair at the end of the list... Since lists are linked lists... in order to append something at the end of the list, scheme has to walk over all list items... which migth not be good with big list. So the solution is to add everything and at the end reorder the list as you wish. The reverse operation would happen only once.
Currently I have
(define filter
(λ (f xs)
(letrec [(filter-tail
(λ (f xs x)
(if (empty? xs)
x
(filter-tail f (rest xs)
(if (f (first xs))
(cons (first xs) x)
'()
)))))]
(filter-tail f xs '() ))))
It should be have as a filter function
However it outputs as
(filter positive? '(-1 2 3))
>> (3 2)
but correct return should be (2 3)
I was wondering if the code is correctly done using tail-recursion, if so then I should use a reverse to change the answer?
I was wondering if the code is correctly done using tail-recursion.
Yes, it is using a proper tail call. You have
(define (filter-tail f xs x) ...)
Which, internally is recursively applied to
(filter-tail f
(some-change-to xs)
(some-other-change-to x))
And, externally it's applied to
(filter-tail f xs '())
Both of these applications are in tail position
I should use a reverse to change the answer?
Yep, there's no way around it unless you're mutating the tail of the list (instead of prepending a head) as you build it. One of the comments you received alluded to this using set-cdr! (see also: Getting rid of set-car! and set-cdr!). There may be other techniques, but I'm unaware of them. I'd love to hear them.
This is tail recursive, requires the output to be reversed. This one uses a named let.
(define (filter f xs)
(let loop ([ys '()]
[xs xs])
(cond [(empty? xs) (reverse ys)]
[(f (car xs)) (loop (cons (car xs) ys) (cdr xs))]
[else (loop ys (cdr xs))])))
(filter positive? '(-1 2 3)) ;=> '(2 3)
Here's another one using a left fold. The output still has to be reversed.
(define (filter f xs)
(reverse (foldl (λ (x ys) (if (f x) (cons x ys) ys))
'()
xs)))
(filter positive? '(-1 2 3)) ;=> '(2 3)
With the "difference-lists" technique and curried functions, we can have
(define (fold c z xs)
(cond ((null? xs) z)
(else (fold c (c (car xs) z) (cdr xs)))))
(define (comp f g) (lambda (x) ; ((comp f g) x)
(f (g x))))
(define (cons1 x) (lambda (y) ; ((cons1 x) y)
(cons x y)))
(define (filter p xs)
((fold (lambda (x k)
(if (p x)
(comp k (cons1 x)) ; nesting's on the left
k))
(lambda (x) x) ; the initial continuation, IC
xs)
'()))
(display (filter (lambda (x) (not (zero? (remainder x 2)))) (list 1 2 3 4 5)))
This builds
comp
/ \
comp cons1 5
/ \
comp cons1 3
/ \
IC cons1 1
and applies '() to it, constructing the result list in the efficient right-to-left order, so there's no need to reverse it.
First, fold builds the difference-list representation of the result list in a tail recursive manner by composing the consing functions one-by-one; then the resulting function is applied to '() and is reduced, again, in tail-recursive manner, by virtues of the comp function-composition definition, because the composed functions are nested on the left, as fold is a left fold, processing the list left-to-right:
( (((IC+k1)+k3)+k5) '() ) ; writing `+` for `comp`
=> ( ((IC+k1)+k3) (k5 '()) ) ; and `kI` for the result of `(cons1 I)`
<= ( ((IC+k1)+k3) l5 ) ; l5 = (list 5)
=> ( (IC+k1) (k3 l5) )
<= ( (IC+k1) l3 ) ; l3 = (cons 3 l5)
=> ( IC (k1 l3) )
<= ( IC l1 ) ; l1 = (cons 1 l3)
<= l1
The size of the function built by fold is O(n), just like the interim list would have, with the reversal.
Currently trying to write a filter function that takes a list of procedures and a list of numbers, deletes the procedures that does not return true on every element of the list of numbers.
What I have done is the following, currently taking a single procedure and runs through the list to create a list stating whether the procedure is true or false for each element.
Using foldr, or map if required (non recursive)
(define (my-filter ps xs)
(foldr (λ (x y)
(cons (ps x) y)) '() xs))
How do I delete the procedure if it has at lease one #f?
i.e.
currently
> (my-filter even? '(1 2 3 4))
(#f #t #f #t)
> (my-filter even? (2 4))
(#t #t)
want
> (my-filter (list even?) '(1 2 3 4))
(list)
> (my-filter (list even?) '(2 4))
(list even?)
You can solve this by using Racket's built-in andmap procedure, which tests if a condition is true for all elements in a list - like this:
(define (my-filter ps xs)
(foldr (lambda (f acc)
(if (andmap f xs) ; if `f` is true for all elements in `xs`
(cons f acc) ; then add `f` to the accumulated output
acc)) ; otherwise leave the accumulator alone
'() ; initially the accumulator is an empty list
ps)) ; iterate over the list of functions
Notice that we do not "delete" functions from the output list, instead at each step we decide whether or not we should add them to the output list.
The advantage of foldr is that it preserves the same order as the input list, if that's not a requirement, foldl is more efficient because internally it uses tail recursion. Either way, it works as expected:
(my-filter (list even?) '(1 2 3 4))
=> '()
(my-filter (list even?) '(2 4))
=> '(#<procedure:even?>)
Start with some wishful thinking. Say we have a know of knowing if all xs return #t for any given f
(define (my-filter fs xs)
(foldr (λ (f y)
(if (every? f xs)
(cons f y)
y))
'()
fs))
Now let's define every?
(define (every? f xs)
(cond [(null? xs) #t]
[(f (car xs)) (every? f (cdr xs))]
[else #f]))
Let's check it out for (list even?)
(my-filter (list even?) '(1 2 3 4)) ; ⇒ '()
(my-filter (list even?) '(2 4)) ; ⇒ '(#<procedure:even?>)
Let's add another test in the mix
(define (gt3? x) (> x 3))
(my-filter (list even? gt3?) '(2 4)) ; ⇒ '(#<procedure:even?>)
(my-filter (list even? gt3?) '(4 6)) ; ⇒ '(#<procedure:even?> #<procedure:gt3?>)
Cool !
If you want to see "pretty" procedure names instead of the #<procedure:...> stuff, you can map object-name over the resulting array
(map object-name (my-filter (list even? gt3?) '(4 6))) ; ⇒ '(even? gt3?)
Even though foldl will give you a reversed output, I still think it would be better to use foldl in this case. Just my 2 cents.
I have seen the following code:
#lang r5rs
(define ma-liste-1 (list 2 3 4 5))
(define ma-liste-2 (list 6 7 8 9))
(define (cons! e L)
(set-cdr! L (cons (car L) (cdr L)))
(set-car! L e))
(cons! 1 ma-liste-1)
ma-liste-1 ; (list 1 2 3 4 5)
I just do not understand why the following code does not work:
#lang r5rs
(define ma-liste-1 (list 2 3 4 5))
(define ma-liste-2 (list 6 7 8 9))
(define (cons! e L)
(set-cdr! L L)
(set-car! L e))
(cons! 1 ma-liste-1)
ma-liste-1 ; #0=(mcons 1 #0#)
Could anyone help?
(set-cdr! L L)
produces a cons cell whose cdr references itself circularly, in ASCII art
.-> ( CAR . CDR )
/ /
\___________/
while (set-cdr! L (cons (car L) (cdr L))) first reconstructs the cdr so that there's no circular reference.
You are forced to make a copy, else as you can see, you end up mutating an existing list, and end up making it a circular list (that notation is used for such shared structures).