I was wondering, how do you check if every element in a list is an integer or not? I can check the first element by using (integer? (car list), but if I do (integer? (cdr list), it always returns false (#f) because the whole of the last part of the list is not an integer as a group.
In this case let's say list is defined as.
(define list '(1 2 5 4 5 3))
(define get-integers
(lambda (x)
(if (null? x)
"All elements of list are integers"
(if (integer? (car x))
(get-integers (cdr x))
"Not all elements are an integer"))))
Practical Schemes provide functions for doing tests across whole sequences. An application of the andmap function, for example, would be appropriate. Racket provides a for/and to do something similar. If you really needed to write out the loop by hand, you'll be using recursion.
What you need to do is test each element in the list to see if it satisfies a condition (being an integer, in this case). When you evaluate (integer? (car list)) on a list of integers, you're checking if the first element in the list is an integer, and that's fine. But the expression (integer? (cdr list)) tests if a list is an integer (because cdr returns a list), and that won't work - you need to test the next element in the list, and the next, and so on until the list is empty.
There are several ways to do the above, the most straightforward would be to recur on the list testing each element in turn, returning false if a non-integer element was found or true if all the list was consumed without finding a non-integer element, like this:
(define (all-integers? lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #t)
((not (integer? (car lst))) #f)
(else (all-integers? (cdr lst)))))
A more practical approach would be to use a built-in procedure, like this:
(andmap integer? lst)
andmap will check if all the elements in lst evaluate to true for the given predicate. For example:
(andmap integer? '(1 2 3))
> #t
(andmap integer? '(1 "x" 3))
> #f
SRFI-1 uses the terms every and any rather than andmap and ormap. match can also be used:
(define list-of-integers?
(lambda (lst)
(match lst
(((? number?) ..1) #t)
(_ #f))))
Related
I am trying to implement a powerset function in Scheme in two ways.
One way is using tail recursion, and I did it like this:
(define (powerset list)
(if (null? list) '(()) ;; if list is empty, its powerset is a list containing the empty list
(let ((rest (powerset (cdr list)))) ;; define "rest" as the result of the recursion over the rest of list
(append (map (lambda (x) (cons (car list) x)) rest) ;; add the first element of list to the every element of rest (which is a sublist of rest)
rest)))) ;; and append it to rest itself (as we can either use the current element (car list), or not
Which works fine.
Another way is using foldr, and this is where I face some issues.
My current implementation is as follows:
(define (powerset-fr list)
(foldr (lambda (element result) ;; This procedure gets an element (and a result);
(if (null? result) ;; if starting with the empty list, there is nothing to "fold over".
(cons '() (cons element result))
(foldr (lambda (inner-element inner-result)
(append (cons element result) inner-result))
'(())
result)))
'() ;; The result is initialized to the empty list,
list)) ;; and the procedure is being applied for every element in the first list (list1)
Which yields a poor result.
I'll try to explain shortly how did I approach this problem so far:
foldr runs over every element in the given set. For each such element, I should add some new elements to the powerset.
Which elements should these be? One new element for each existing element in the powerset, where is append the current element in list to the existing element in powerset.
This is why I thought I should use foldr twice in a nested way - one to go over all items in given list, and for each item I use foldr to go over all items in "result" (current powerset).
I faced the problem of the empty list (nothing is being added to the powerset), and thus added the "if" section (and not just foldr), but it doesn't work very well either.
I think that's it. I feel close but it is still very challenging, so every help will be welcomed.
Thanks!
The solution is simpler, there's no need to use a double foldr, try this:
(define (powerset-fr lst)
(foldr (lambda (e acc)
(append (map (lambda (x) (cons e x))
acc)
acc))
'(())
lst))
If your interpreter defines append-map or something equivalent, then the solution is a bit shorter - the results will be in a different order, but it doesn't matter:
(define (powerset-fr lst)
(foldr (lambda (e acc)
(append-map (lambda (x) (list x (cons e x)))
acc))
'(())
lst))
Either way, it works as expected:
(powerset-fr '(1 2 3))
=> '((1 2 3) (1 2) (1 3) (1) (2 3) (2) (3) ())
I am looking for a built-in function in Racket that will return True iff all the items in a list are true.
I tried:
(define (all lst)
(when
(equal? lst '())
#t)
(if (not (car lst))
#f
(all (cdr lst))))
Giving error:
car: contract violation
expected: pair?
given: '()
A couple of testcases:
(all '(#t #f #t)) ; #f
(all '(#t #t #t)) ; #t
Could you please either fix it or point me to the built-in function?
(I googled, but got no meaningful result)
You've already accepted another answer that explains a nice way to do this, but I think it's worth pointing out what was wrong in your attempt, because it was actually very close. The problem is that true from the when block is completely ignored. It doesn't cause the function to return. So even when you have the empty list, you evaluate the when, and then keep on going into the other part where you call car and cdr with the same empty list:
(define (all lst)
(when ; The whole (when ...) expression
(equal? lst '()) ; is evaluated, and then its result
#t) ; is ignored.
(if (not (car lst))
#f
(all (cdr lst))))
A very quick solution would be to change it to:
(define (all lst)
(if (equal? lst '())
#t
(if (not (car lst))
#f
(all (cdr lst)))))
At that point, you can simplify a little bit by using boolean operators rather than returning true and false explicitly, and clean up a little bit by using empty?, as noted in the other answer:
(define (all lst)
(or (empty? lst)
(and (car lst)
(all (cdr lst)))))
You were actually very close at the start.
If you're looking for a builtin solution, you'll probably want to take a look at andmap, which applies a predicate over an entire list and ands the results together.
You could use this to implement all very simply.
(define (all lst)
(andmap identity lst))
By using identity from racket/function, all will just use the values in the list as-is. Instead of using identity explicitly, you could also use values, which is just the identity function on single values, so it's a somewhat common idiom in Racket.
There are two kinds of lists: empty ones and pairs.
Therefore we have the following structure:
(define (all xs)
(cond
[(empty? xs) ...]
[(pair? xs) ...]
[else (error 'all "expected a list, got: " xs)]))
Since all elements in the empty list are true, we get:
(define (all xs)
(cond
[(empty? xs) #t]
[(pair? xs) ...]
[else (error 'all "expected a list, got: " xs)]))
If a list begins with a pair, then all elements of the list are true,
if both the first element of the list and the rest of the elements of the list are true:
(define (all xs)
(cond
[(empty? xs) #t]
[(pair? xs) (and (first xs) (all (rest xs)))]
[else (error 'all "expected a list, got: " xs)]))
Note that part of the problem in your program is the use of when.
The result of
(when #t
'foo)
'bar
is 'bar. The construct when is only useful if you are using side effects (such as caused by set! and friends).
All is a higher order folding function. Scheme refers to these as "reductions" and reduce is available in SRFI-1
In Gauche Scheme:
(use srfi-1)
(define (all list-of-x)
(reduce (lambda (x y)
(and x y))
#t
list-of-x))
Will return #f or a value that evaluates to true. For example:
gosh> (all '(1 2 3))
1
If that's OK, then we're done. Otherwise we can always get #t with:
(use srfi-1)
(define (all-2 list-of-x)
(if (reduce (lambda (x y)
(and x y))
#t
list-of-x)
#t
#f))
And then wind up with:
gosh> (all '(1 2 3))
#t
I want to test if a list is even, in . Like (evenatom '((h i) (j k) l (m n o)) should reply #t because it has 4 elements.
From Google, I found how to check for odd:
(define (oddatom lst)
(cond
((null? lst) #f)
((not (pair? lst)) #t)
(else (not (eq? (oddatom (car lst)) (oddatom (cdr lst)))))))
to make it even, would I just swap the car with a cdr and cdr with car?
I'm new to Scheme and just trying to get the basics.
No, swapping the car and cdr won't work. But you can swap the #f and #t.
Also, while the list you gave has 4 elements, what the function does is actually traverse into sublists and count the atoms, so you're really looking at 8 atoms.
You found odd atom using 'Google' and need even atom. How about:
(define (evenatom obj) (not (oddatom obj)))
or, adding some sophistication,
(define (complement pred)
(lambda (obj) (not (pred obj))))
and then
(define evenatom (complement oddatom))
you are mixing a procedure to check if a list has even numbers of elements (not restricted to atoms) and a procedure that checks if there are an even number of atomic elements in the list structure. Example: ((a b) (c d e) f) has an odd number of elements (3) but an even number (6) of atoms.
If you had some marbles, how would you determine if you had an odd or even number of marbles? you could just count them as normal and check the end sum for evenness or count 1,0,1,0 or odd,even,odd,even so that you really didn't know how many marbles I had in the end, only if it's odd or even. Lets do both:
(define (even-elements-by-count x)
(even? (length x)))
(define (even-elements-by-boolean x)
(let loop ((x x)(even #t))
(if (null? x)
even
(loop (cdr x) (not even)))))
now imagine that you had some cups in addition and that they had marbles to and you wondered the same. You'd need to count the elements on the floor and the elements in cups and perhaps there was a cup in a cup with elements as well. For this you should look at How to count atoms in a list structure and use the first approach or modify one of them to update evenness instead of counting.
The equivalent of the procedure you link to, for an even number of atoms, is
(define (evenatom lst)
(cond
((null? lst) #t)
((not (pair? lst)) #f)
(else (eq? (evenatom (car lst)) (evenatom (cdr lst))))))
You need to swap #t and #f, as well as leave out the not clause of the last line.
I need to write a good set function that checks whether its argument lst is a properly represented set, i.e. it is a list consisting only of integers, with no duplicates, and returns true #t or false #f. For example:
(good-set? (1 5 2)) => #t
(good-set? ()) => #t
(good-set? (1 5 5)) => #f
(good-set? (1 (5) 2)) => #f
so I have began writing the function as:
(define (good-set? lst)
so I don't know how to proceed after this. Can anybody help?
One option would be to use andmap and sets, as has been suggested by #soegaard:
(define (good-set? lst) ; it's a good set if:
(and (andmap integer? lst) ; all its elements are integers and
(= (length lst) ; the list's length equals the size
(set-count (list->set lst))))) ; of a set with the same elements
But if you can't use sets or other advanced procedures, then traverse the list and test if the current element is an integer and is not present somewhere else in the list (use member for this), repeating this test for each element until there are no more elements in the list. Here's the general idea, fill-in the blanks:
(define (good-set? lst)
(cond (<???> ; if the list is empty
<???>) ; then it's a good set
((or <???> ; if the 1st element is not an integer or
<???>) ; the 1st element is in the rest of the list
<???>) ; then it's NOT a good set
(else ; otherwise
(good-set? <???>)))) ; advance recursion
Sets are built into the Racket standard library: I would recommend not reimplementing them in terms of lists unless you really need to do something customized.
If we need to treat this as a homework assignment, I would recommend using a design methodology to systematically attack this problem. In this case, see something like How to Design Programs with regards to designing functions that work on lists. As a brief sketch, we'd systematically figure out:
What's the structure of the data I'm working with?
What tests cases do I consider? (including the base case)
What's the overall shape of the function?
What's the meaning of the natural recursion?
How do I combine the result of the natural recursion in order to compute a solution to the total?
For this, check if the first number is duplicated, if it is not, then recurse by checking the rest. As such:
(define (good-set? list)
(or (null? list) ; nothing left, good!
(let ((head (car list)))
(rest (cdr list)))
(and (number? head) ; a number
(not (member = head rest)) ; not in the rest
(good-set? rest))))) ; check the rest
If you need member, then
(define (member pred item list)
(and (not (null? list))
(or (pred item (car list))
(member pred item (cdr list)))))
Hi I am trying to write a program where given a list of lists check to see if they are equal in size and return #t if they are.
So for example if i were to write (list-counter? '((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9))) the program would return #t, and (list-counter? '((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8))) would return #f.
SO far this is what I have done:
(define list-counter?
(lambda (x)
(if (list? x)
(if (list?(car x))
(let (l (length (car x))))
(if (equal? l (length(car x))))
(list-counter?(cdr x))
) ) ) ) )
I think where I am going wrong is after I set the length of l to the length of the first list. Any help would be appreciated.
There are several ways to solve this problem. For instance, by hand and going step-by-step:
(define (all-lengths lists)
(if (null? lists)
'()
(cons (length (car lists))
(all-lengths (cdr lists)))))
(define (all-equal? head lengths)
(if (null? lengths)
true
(and (= head (car lengths))
(all-equal? head (cdr lengths)))))
(define (list-counter? lists)
(let ((lengths (all-lengths lists)))
(all-equal? (car lengths) (cdr lengths))))
Let me explain the above procedures. I'm dividing the problem in two steps, first create a new list with the lengths of each sublist - that's what all-lengths does. Then, compare the first element in a list with the rest of the elements, and see if they're all equal - that's what all-equal? does. Finally, list-counter? wraps it all together, calling both of the previous procedures with the right parameters.
Or even simpler (and shorter), by using list procedures (higher-order procedures):
(define (list-counter? lists)
(apply = (map length lists)))
For understanding the second solution, observe that all-lengths and all-equal? represent special cases of more general procedures. When we need to create a new list with the result of applying a procedure to each of the elements of another list, we use map. And when we need to apply a procedure (= in this case) to all of the elements of a list at the same time, we use apply. And that's exactly what the second version of list-counter? is doing.
You could write an all-equal? function like so:
(define (all-equal? list)
;; (all-equal? '()) -> #t
;; (all-equal? '(35)) -> #t
;; (all-equal? '(2 3 2)) -> #f
(if (or (null? list) (null? (cdr list)))
#t
(reduce equal? list)
))
then do:
(all-equal? (map length listOfLists))
Alternatively you can do:
(define (lists-same-size? list-of-lists)
(if (== (length listOfLists) 0)
#t
(let*
(( firstLength
(length (car listOfLists)) )
( length-equal-to-first?
(lambda (x) (== (length x) firstLength)) )
)
(reduce and #t (map length-equal-to-first? listOfLists))
)
)))
What this says is: if the list length is 0, our statement is vacuously true, otherwise we capture the first element of the list's length (in the 'else' part of the if-clause), put it in the closure defined by let's syntactic sugar (actually a lambda), and use that to define an length-equal-to-first? function.
Unfortunately reduce is not lazy. What we'd really like is to avoid calculating lengths of lists if we find that just one is not equal. Thus to be more efficient we could do:
...
(let*
...
( all-match? ;; lazy
(lambda (pred list)
(if (null? list)
#t
(and (pred (first list)) (all-match? (cdr list)))
;;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ stops recursion if this is false
)) )
)
(all-match? length-equal-to-first? listOfLists)
)
)))
Note that all-match? is already effectively defined for you with MIT scheme's (list-search-positive list pred) or (for-all? list pred), or in Racket as andmap.
Why does it take so long to write?
You are forced to write a base-case because your reduction has no canonical element since it relies on the first element, and list manipulation in most languages is not very powerful. You'd even have the same issue in other languages like Python. In case this helps:
second method:
if len(listOfLists)==0:
return True
else:
firstLength = len(listOfLists[0])
return all(len(x)==firstLength for x in listOfLists)
However the first method is much simpler to write in any language, because it skirts this issue by ignoring the base-cases.
first method:
if len(listOfLists)<2:
return True
else:
return reduce(lambda a,b: a==b, listOfLists)
This might sound a bit weird, but I think it is easy.
Run down the list, building a new list containing the length of each (contained) list, i.e. map length.
Run down the constructed list of lengths, comparing the head to the rest, return #t if they are all the same as the head. Return false as soon as it fails to match the head.