Is it possible to do an operation on a previous function, i have a list of values say (1,2,3,4,5), first function needs to multiply them by 2, while 2nd function adds 1 to result of previous function, so first we would get (2,4,6,8,10), and then (3,5,7,9,11) i got this, function g does extra work, is it possible nstead of doing operations on the element do it on function F or results from function F
#lang racket
(define test (list 1 1 2 3 5))
(define (F)
(map (lambda (element) (* 2 element))
test))
(define (G)
(map (lambda (element) (+ 1 (* 2 element)))
test))
First you need to correctly define your procedures to take a list parameter (called lst in this case):
(define (F lst)
(map (lambda (e) (* 2 e)) lst))
(define (G lst)
(map add1 lst))
Then
> (F '(1 2 3 4 5))
'(2 4 6 8 10)
> (G '(2 4 6 8 10))
'(3 5 7 9 11)
or, if you need to combine both procedures:
> (G (F '(1 2 3 4 5)))
'(3 5 7 9 11)
This is a follow-up to your previous question. As stated in my answer there, you should pass the right parameters to the functions - in particular, pass the input lists as parameter, so you can use the result from one function as input for the next function:
(define test (list 1 1 2 3 5))
(define (multiply-list test)
(map (lambda (element) (* 2 element))
test))
(define (add-list test)
(map (lambda (element) (+ 1 element))
test))
Now, if we want to add one to each element in the input list:
(add-list test)
=> '(3 3 5 7 11)
Or if we want to multiply by two each element in the input list:
(multiply-list test)
=> '(2 2 4 6 10)
And if we want to add one first, then multiply by two we can chain the functions! the result from one becomes the input for the other, and the final result will be as follows:
(multiply-list (add-list test))
=> '(6 6 10 14 22)
NB! You have tagged scheme but you use racket (the language). Not all of my examples will work in scheme.
Yes! you even do it yourself in your definition of G where you add a value and the result of a multiplication.
Its possible to chain map
(map f3 (map f2 (map f1 lst)))
Thus if you instead make a function that takes a list and doubles it:
(define (list-double lst)
(map (lambda (x) (* x 2)) lst))
You can chain it to quadruple it:
(define (list-quadruple lst)
(list-double (list-double lst)))
Now it's not optimal to chain map if you can avoid it. Instead you can compose the procedures together:
(define (double x) (* x 2))
(define (list-quadrouple lst)
(map (compose1 double double) lst))
compose1 here is the same as making a anonymous function where you chain the arguments. Eg. the last would be (lambda (x) (double (double x))). A more complex one compose can do more than one value between procedures. eg. (compose + quotient/remainder)
Related
I've asked a few questions here about Scheme/SICP, and quite frequently the answers involve using the apply procedure, which I haven't seen in SICP, and in the book's Index, it only lists it one time, and it turns out to be a footnote.
Some examples of usage are basically every answer to this question: Going from Curry-0, 1, 2, to ...n.
I am interested in how apply works, and I wonder if some examples are available. How could the apply procedure be re-written into another function, such as rewriting map like this?
#lang sicp
(define (map func sequence)
(if (null? sequence) nil
(cons (func (car sequence)) (map func (cdr sequence)))))
It seems maybe it just does a function call with the first argument? Something like:
(apply list '(1 2 3 4 5)) ; --> (list 1 2 3 4 5)
(apply + '(1 2 3)) ; --> (+ 1 2 3)
So maybe something similar to this in Python?
>>> args=[1,2,3]
>>> func='max'
>>> getattr(__builtins__, func)(*args)
3
apply is used when you want to call a function with a dynamic number of arguments.
Your map function only allows you to call functions that take exactly one argument. You can use apply to map functions with different numbers of arguments, using a variable number of lists.
(define (map func . sequences)
(if (null? (car sequences))
'()
(cons (apply func (map car sequences))
(apply map func (map cdr sequences)))))
(map + '(1 2 3) '(4 5 6))
;; Output: (5 7 9)
You asked to see how apply could be coded, not how it can be used.
It can be coded as
#lang sicp
; (define (appl f xs) ; #lang racket
; (eval
; (cons f (map (lambda (x) (list 'quote x)) xs))))
(define (appl f xs) ; #lang r5rs, sicp
(eval
(cons f (map (lambda (x) (list 'quote x))
xs))
(null-environment 5)))
Trying it out in Racket under #lang sicp:
> (display (appl list '(1 2 3 4 5)))
(1 2 3 4 5)
> (display ( list 1 2 3 4 5 ))
(1 2 3 4 5)
> (appl + (list (+ 1 2) 3))
6
> ( + (+ 1 2) 3 )
6
> (display (appl map (cons list '((1 2 3) (10 20 30)))))
((1 10) (2 20) (3 30))
> (display ( map list '(1 2 3) '(10 20 30) ))
((1 10) (2 20) (3 30))
Here's the link to the docs about eval.
It requires an environment as the second argument, so we supply it with (null-environment 5) which just returns an empty environment, it looks like it. We don't actually need any environment here, as the evaluation of the arguments has already been done at that point.
I have the following filter procedure:
; (2) filter
(define (filter test sequence)
; return a list of the elements that pass the predicate test
(let ((elem (if (null? sequence) nil (car sequence)))
(rest (if (null? sequence) nil (cdr sequence))))
(cond ((null? sequence) nil)
((test elem) (cons elem (filter test rest)))
(else (filter test rest)))))
And here would be an example of using it to return the even-numbered elements of a list:
(define even? (lambda (x) (= (modulo x 2) 0)))
(define sequence '(1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 17))
(filter even? sequence)
; (2 4 8 14 16)
Is there a simple way to use the not test to invert the selection? For example, I thought the following might work:
(filter (not even?) sequence)
But it returns an error. I can define odd separately, of course:
(define odd? (lambda (x) (not (even? x))))
But I'm trying not to do this. Is there a way to write the odd procedure without defining it directly, but instead using the not directly like I'm trying to do above?
There is a complement function in Common Lisp that does what I think you are looking for. complement is a higher-order procedure that takes a procedure as its argument, and returns a procedure that takes the same arguments as the input procedure and performs the same actions, but the returned truth value is inverted.
Racket has a similar procedure, negate, and it is easy enough to implement this in Scheme:
(define (complement f)
(lambda xs (not (apply f xs))))
> (filter even? '(1 2 3 4 5))
(2 4)
> (filter (complement even?) '(1 2 3 4 5))
(1 3 5)
> (> 1 2 3 4 5)
#f
> ((complement >) 1 2 3 4 5)
#t
And in Racket:
scratch.rkt> (filter even? '(1 2 3 4 5))
'(2 4)
scratch.rkt> (filter (negate even?) '(1 2 3 4 5))
'(1 3 5)
scratch.rkt> (> 1 2 3 4 5)
#f
scratch.rkt> ((negate >) 1 2 3 4 5)
#t
The general answer to this is to simply compose not and the function you care about. Racket has a compose function which does this, but you can easily write a simple one yourself:
(define (compose-1 . functions)
;; simple-minded compose: each function other than the last must
;; take just one argument; all functions should return just one
;; value.
(define (compose-loop fns)
(cond
((null? fns)
(λ (x) x))
((null? (cdr fns))
(car fns))
(else
(λ (x) ((car fns) ((compose-loop (cdr fns)) x))))))
(compose-loop functions))
Making it efficient and more general takes more work of course.
Then you can define odd? (which is already defined of course):
(define odd? (compose-1 not even)
Or in fact define a more general CL-style complement function:
(define (complement f)
(compose-1 not f))
One option is to write an invert function which will curry things along (so the initial function still accepts one argument) until the final evaluation occurs:
(define invert (lambda (func) (lambda (x) (not (func x)))))
(define sequence '(1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 17))
(filter (invert even?) sequence)
; (1 3 5 9 11 13 15 17)
I started to learn Racket and I don't know how to check if a list is found in another list. Something like (member x (list 1 2 3 x 4 5)), but I want that "x" to be a a sequence of numbers.
I know how to implement recursive, but I would like to know if it exists a more direct operator.
For example I want to know if (list 3 4 5) is found in (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 )
I would take a look at this Racket Object interface and the (is-a? v type) -> boolean seems to be what you are looking for?, simply use it while looping to catch any results that are of a given type and do whatever with them
you may also want to look into (subclass? c cls) -> boolean from the same link, if you want to catch all List types in one go
should there be a possiblity of having a list inside a list, that was already inside a list(1,2,(3,4,(5,6))) i'm afraid that recursion is probally the best solution though, since given there is a possibility of an infinit amount of loops, it is just better to run the recursion on a list everytime you locate a new list in the original list, that way any given number of subList will still be processed
You want to search for succeeding elements in a list:
(define (subseq needle haystack)
(let loop ((index 0)
(cur-needle needle)
(haystack haystack))
(cond ((null? cur-needle) index)
((null? haystack) #f)
((and (equal? (car cur-needle) (car haystack))
(loop index (cdr cur-needle) (cdr haystack)))) ; NB no consequence
(else (loop (add1 index) needle (cdr haystack))))))
This evaluates to the index where the elements of needle is first found in the haystack or #f if it isn't.
You can use regexp-match to check if pattern is a substring of another string by converting both lists of numbers to strings, and comparing them, as such:
(define (member? x lst)
(define (f lst)
(foldr string-append "" (map number->string lst)))
(if (regexp-match (f x) (f lst)) #t #f))
f converts lst (a list of numbers) to a string. regexp-match checks if (f x) is a pattern that appears in (f lst).
For example,
> (member? (list 3 4 5) (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
#t
One can also use some string functions to join the lists and compare them (recursion is needed):
(define (list-in-list l L)
(define (fn ll)
(string-join (map number->string ll))) ; Function to create a string out of list of numbers;
(define ss (fn l)) ; Convert smaller list to string;
(let loop ((L L)) ; Set up recursion and initial value;
(cond
[(empty? L) #f] ; If end of list reached, pattern is not present;
[(string-prefix? (fn L) ss) #t] ; Compare if initial part of main list is same as test list;
[else (loop (rest L))]))) ; If not, loop with first item of list removed;
Testing:
(list-in-list (list 3 4 5) (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 ))
Output:
#t
straight from the Racket documentation:
(member v lst [is-equal?]) → (or/c list? #f)
v : any/c
lst : list?
is-equal? : (any/c any/c -> any/c) = equal?
Locates the first element of lst that is equal? to v. If such an element exists, the tail of lst starting with that element is returned. Otherwise, the result is #f.
Or in your case:
(member '(3 4 5) (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
where x is '(3 4 5) or (list 3 4 5) or (cons 3 4 5)
it will return '(3 4 5 6 7) if x ( searched list '(3 4 5) ) was found in the list or false (#f) if it was not found
or you can use assoc to check if your x is met in one of many lists, or :
(assoc x (list (list 1 2) (list 3 4) (list x 6)))
will return :
'(x 6)
There are also lambda constructions but I will not go in depth since I am not very familiar with Racket yet. Hope this helps :)
EDIT: if member gives you different results than what you expect try using memq instead
For the built-in function foldr, I know the function blueprint is the following:
(foldr combine base alist)
combine is supposed to take in two parameters:
an item that foldr consumes
the result of applying foldr to the rest of alist
I cannot seem to understand how to put point #2 in parameter form ever. How did you do it?
combine is not a built-in function. I would have to code it myself based on the requirements.
Think of second parameter as the accumulated value so far. For example, if we are adding the elements, then acc is the sum of all the previous eles and we need to add the current element:
(foldr (lambda (ele acc) (+ ele acc))
0 ; we're adding numbers, so the base is 0
'(1 2 3 4 5))
=> 15
Another example - if we're copying the list, then acc contains the previous eles in the list (starting from the last one and going back from there) and we have to cons the current element at the head :
(foldr (lambda (ele acc) (cons ele acc))
'() ; we're creating a list, so the base is an empty list
'(1 2 3 4 5))
=> '(1 2 3 4 5)
The exact nature of acc depends on the problem to be solved, but you should be able get the idea from the previous examples.
Think of it as the result computed so far and that foldr iterates from end to beginning while a foldl iterates from beginning to end. It's easier to see if you look at a simple implementation of it:
(define (foldr1 f init lst)
(let r ((lst lst))
(if (null? lst)
init
(cons (f (car lst)) (r (cdr lst))))))
(foldr1 combine base '(1 2 3)) ; ==
(combine 1 (combine 2 (combine 3 base)))
(define (foldl1 f init lst)
(let r ((lst lst) (acc init))
(if (null? lst)
acc
(r (cdr lst) (f (car lst))))))
(foldl1 combine base '(1 2 3)) ; ==
(combine 3 (combine 2 (combine 1 base)))
Also note that the order or the arguments change in some implementations. Racket and SRFI-1 always have the accumulator as the last argument, but in R6RS the argument order changes for fold-left (but not fold-right):
#!r6rs
(import (rnrs))
;; swap argument order
(fold-left (lambda (acc e) (cons e acc)) '() '(1 2 3))
; ==> (3 2 1)
You are given a list of strings.
Generate a procedure such that applying this procedure to such a list
would result in a list of the lengths of each of the strings in the
input.
Use map, filter, or fold-right.
(lengths (list "This" "is" "not" "fun")) => (4 2 3 3)
(define lengths (lambda (lst) your_code_here))
I got stuck in the following code and I do not understand how can I use filter.
(define lengths
(lambda (lst)
(if (null? lst)
nil
(fold-right list (string-length (car lst)) (cdr lst)))))
This seems like a work for map, you just have to pass the right procedure as a parameter:
(define (lengths lst)
(map string-length lst))
As you should know, map applies a procedure to each of the elements in the input list, returning a new list collecting the results. If we're interested in building a list with the lengths of strings, then we call string-length on each element. The procedure pretty much writes itself!
A word of advice: read the documentation of the procedures you're being asked to use, the code you're writing is overly complicated. This was clearly not a job for filter, although fold-right could have been used, too. Just remember: let the higher-order procedure take care of the iteration, you don't have to do it explicitly:
(define (lengths lst)
(fold-right (lambda (x a)
(cons (string-length x) a))
'()
lst))
This looks like homework so I'll only give you pointers:
map takes a procedure and applies to to every element of a list. Thus
(define (is-strings lst)
(map string? lst))
(is-strings '("hello" 5 sym "89")) ; (#t #f #f #t)
(define (add-two lst)
(map (lambda (x) (+ x 2)) lst))
(add-two '(3 4 5 6)) ; ==> (5 6 7 8)
filter takes procedure that acts as a predicate. If #f the element is omitted, else the element is in the resulting list.
(define (filter-strings lst)
(filter string? lst))
(filter-strings '(3 5 "hey" test "you")) ; ==> ("hey" "you")
fold-right takes an initial value and a procedure that takes an accumulated value and a element and supposed to generate a new value:
(fold-right + 0 '(3 4 5 6)) ; ==> 18, since its (+ 3 (+ 4 (+ 5 (+ 6 0))))
(fold-right cons '() '(a b c d)) ; ==> (a b c d) since its (cons a (cons b (cons c (cons d '()))))
(fold-right - 0 '(1 2 3)) ; ==> -2 since its (- 1 (- 2 (- 3 0)))
(fold-right (lambda (e1 acc) (if (<= acc e1) acc e1)) +Inf.0 '(7 6 2 3)) ; ==> 2
fold-right has a left handed brother that is iterative and faster, though for list processing it would reverse the order after processing..
(fold-left (lambda (acc e1) (cons e1 acc)) '() '(1 2 3 4)) ; ==> (4 3 2 1)