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.
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.).
Write a Racket function count-occurrences that consumes two lists of symbols and produces a list of
natural numbers measuring how many times items in the first list occur in the second list. For example:
(count-occurrences (list 'a 'b 'a 'q) (list 'r 'a 'b 'e 'b 'g))
=> (list 1 2 1 0)
I've been struggling with this question - how do I use map to do it, since for this question it's specified we can't use recursion.
My original idea was to do the following:
(define (count-occurrences los1 los2)
(map
(length (filter (lambda (x) (symbol=? x (first los1))) los2))
los1))
but using length here can only get us the number 'a occurred, instead of going into recursion. and for abstract functions there can only be one argument for the inside function, so I'm totally lost.
If ... x ... is an open formula, i.e. an expression which references an unbound variable x, wrapping it in a lambda form makes it a function in x, like so:
(lambda (x) ... x ... )
where x becomes bound by that lambda form; a parameter to this so called lambda function, which is to say, an anonymous function introduced by a lambda form.
So, the solution for your troubles is quite simple: recognize that
(length
(filter (lambda (x)
(symbol=? x (first los1)))
los2))
should actually be
(length
(filter (lambda (x)
(symbol=? x y))
los2))
where y refers to each of the elements of los1 in turn, not just the first one; and that it is then an open formula in y – that is to say, y is unbound, free, there. So we must capture it, and make it bound, by ... yes, enclosing this expression in a lambda form, thereby making it a function in y! Like so:
(lambda (y)
(length
(filter (lambda (x)
(symbol=? x y))
los2)))
And this is what gets mapped over los1.
With this simple tweak, your code becomes a correct, working function definition.
Does this fit your requirements and restrictions?
(define (count-occurrences lst1 lst2)
(map (lambda (e1)
(count (lambda (e2) (eq? e1 e2))
lst2))
lst1))
A good way to keep track of keys and values is with a hash-table. While it is possible to write count-occurrences using map and passing a lambda, being explicit may make it easier to see what is going on.
;;; list list -> list
;;;
(define (count-occurrences keys values)
;; Create data structure
(define ht (make-hash))
;; Initialize data structure with keys
;; Set the value of each key to zero
;; Since we have not started counting
(for ([k keys])
(hash-set! ht k 0))
;; Iterate over values and
;; Increment hash table if
;; When value is a key
(for ([v values])
(if (hash-has-key? ht v)
(hash-set! ht v (+ (hash-ref ht v) 1))
null))
;; Iterate over keys and
;; Create list of values
(for/list ([k keys])
(hash-ref ht k)))
Since recursion is prohibited, explicitly looping may make for more maintainable/readable code than an implicit loop. Besides, the variations of for are worth knowing. Hash tables have the advantage that duplicate keys read the same value and there is no need to track the same key twice.
One of the engineering advantages of using for rather than map is that it is easier to reason about the running time. The running time for this code is 2m + n where m is keys and n is values. Solutions using map will typically be m * n. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it is worth recognizing.
In my OO World, I have an instance of "weapon" class called "max-damage". I asked to create a random number for a variable called "damage".
It says: The amount of "damage" suffered should be a random integer no more than the "max-damage", and at least 1.
I need some help to create that random integer, thanks!
PS: I can't ask more questions, in order to ask this question, I have changed the previous one, sorry..
You got the syntax of filter wrong, it's necessary that you pass a procedure as the first argument. Concretely, the procedure is a predicate (meaning: it evaluates to a boolean value), and the output list will only keep the elements in the original list that evaluate to #t when passed to the procedure. This is what I mean:
(define (remove-divisible lst value)
(filter (lambda (x) (not (zero? (remainder x value))))
lst))
If using a lambda bothers you, it's always possible to define a helper procedure, like this:
(define (remove-divisible lst value)
(define (not-divisible? x)
(not (zero? (remainder x value))))
(filter not-divisible? lst))
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.
I have tried to write a procedure that gets an integer as parameter and returns true if the number is a palindrome and false otherwise and it seems to be that there is a problem with changing a global parameter's value whithin an internal function block.
(define index 0)
(define (palindrome? x)
(if (= (lenght x) 1)
#t
(if (last_equal_first x)
(palindrome? (remove x))
#f)))
(define (lenght x)
(define index **(+ index 1))**
(if (= (modulo x (ten_power index)) x)
index
(lenght x)))
(define (last_equal_first x)
(if (= (modulo x 10) (modulo x (/ (ten_power (lenght x)) 10)))
#t
#f))
I would like to know what can I do about it
thanks!
Well, one problem is that you're redefining index after it's been used, in the length function. define doesn't really do what you want here - you want set!.
However, I think you'll find another bug when you try to call the length function more than once - you never set index to 0 after the first time, so I believe your length function will only work once.
However, this seems like it might be a homework assignment. Would you like clear instructions on fixing these problems, or would you like clues that lead you to understand the algorithm more?
What that (define ...) statement does in lenght is create a new variable called "index" that is more locally scoped than the "index" you defined at the top. That's only the superficial problem---more importantly, it looks like you're trying to write C code using Scheme. In a simple homework assignment like this, you should not need to use global variables, nor should you ever have to change a variable once it's created. Many programmers have trouble shifting how they think when first learning functional programming.
The way you've written lenght is not so much recursion as just a glorified while loop! There is no point to recursion if (lenght x) only calls (lenght x) again. For example, here's how I would write digits to count how many base-10 digits are in a number:
(define digits
(lambda (n)
(letrec ([digit-helper (lambda (n index)
(if (= (modulo n (expt 10 index)) n)
index
(digit-helper n (add1 index))))])
(digit-helper n 0))))
Notice how I never change a variable once it's been created, but only create new variables each time. Since I need to keep track of index, I created helper function digit-helper that takes two arguments to mask the fact that digit only takes one argument.