I am trying to do exercise 2.78 in SICP, but the functions put and get are unknown. I have tried multiple languages, like pretty big, racket, r5rs, mit-scheme, mzscheme, etc. I even downloaded the SICP support (http://www.neilvandyke.org/sicp-plt/), to no avail. How can I get these functions to work?
Yes, I found SICP a little annoying sometimes because of stuff like this. Functions that are assumed to exist but don't actually exist make it harder to try to the examples. I wrote my own (get) and (put) like so (this was in GNU guile):
(define global-array '())
(define (make-entry k v) (list k v))
(define (key entry) (car entry))
(define (value entry) (cadr entry))
(define (put op type item)
(define (put-helper k array)
(cond ((null? array) (list(make-entry k item)))
((equal? (key (car array)) k) array)
(else (cons (car array) (put-helper k (cdr array))))))
(set! global-array (put-helper (list op type) global-array)))
(define (get op type)
(define (get-helper k array)
(cond ((null? array) #f)
((equal? (key (car array)) k) (value (car array)))
(else (get-helper k (cdr array)))))
(get-helper (list op type) global-array))
Probably a naive implementation from the perspective of later in the book, but fairly simple and worked fine.
There is an implementation of put and get by Eli Bendersky.
These functions could be implemented using builtin Basic Hash Table Operations. Here is my modified version of Eli's code to work properly with MIT-Scheme Release 9.1.1.
(define *op-table* (make-hash-table))
(define (put op type proc)
(hash-table/put! *op-table* (list op type) proc))
(define (get op type)
(hash-table/get *op-table* (list op type) '()))
UPDATED:
I've found bug with above mentioned code after time. Empty lists are interpreted as true in conditional clauses by Scheme, so correct get implementation should be following:
(define (get op type)
(hash-table/get *op-table* (list op type) #f))
If you use Racket programming language please use these:
(define *op-table* (make-hash))
(define (put op type proc)
(hash-set! *op-table* (list op type) proc))
(define (get op type)
(hash-ref *op-table* (list op type) '()))
In subsection Creating local tables of 3.3.3 Representing Tables, there is an implementation.
mit-scheme has a built-in global table that you can use.
http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-scheme-ref/The-Association-Table.html
simply define get and put to:
(define get 2d-get)
(define put 2d-put!)
Related
I'm working on a project and want to create a function that will take a logical proposition in the form of a list as input and return a new list consisting of the variable names.
For example:
(A and (not B or C)) would return (A B C)
But I'm having a hard time with looping through the input list, especially when it involves nested lists like in the example.
edit: Thanks, got some code that works:
(define (flatten list)
(cond ((null? list) '())
((pair? (car list))
(append (flatten (car list))
(flatten (cdr list))))
(else (cons (car list) (flatten (cdr list))))))
(define (remove-element list)
(filter (lambda (x)
(and (and (and (not (equal? x 'and))
(not (equal? x 'or)))
(and (not (equal? x 'implies))
(not (equal? x 'not))) )
(not (equal? x 'iff))))
(flatten list)))
A typical beginner assignment is to flatten a list. You'll find lots of questions here about that and basically it will make '(A and (not B or C)) into (A and not B or C). Then you're almost there.
Basically there is no distinction between a variable and an operator since eg. not can come before and and can come between. I guess you cannot have variable names that are the same as your operators and you need to know the operators in advance. Then you can filter the flattened list to remove the operators. you'll then be left with (A B C).
It's difficult helping with specifics when you don't even have any code in your question so this is a s far as I can help you. Good luck.
I am on exercise 2.32 which presents the following code:
(define (subsets s)
(if (null? s)
(list nil)
(let ((rest (subsets (cdr s))))
(append rest (map <??> rest)))))
When I try to call the rest procedure in MIT Scheme 9.2 it doesn't recognize the procedure (there is a similar issue with nil in the book, which is replaced by () in modern Scheme). What is the equivalent rest procedure in modern Scheme? I don't believe it is cdr because cdr is used throughout the book.
You're misunderstanding the exercise - rest is not a procedure, is a local variable that corresponds the the rest of the subsets (perhaps you should take a look at the documentation regarding let). This is what the book is asking:
(define (subsets set)
(if (null? set)
(list '())
(let ((rest (subsets (cdr set))))
(append rest
(map (lambda (sets) (cons (car set) sets))
rest)))))
As #tfb points out, rest in this code is not a procedure, it is a locally-bound symbol.
Maybe you are misinterpreting an error message about rest; without seeing it, it is hard to say.
I am new on SCHEME programming and after some while I succeeded on writing a couple of scripts to deal with long maths formulas.
The issue is that its execution is pretty slow. After profiling I realized that the execution takes about 35% of the time executing the built-in functions equal? and member.
My question is regarding whether there exist more efficient version of those functions or I should re-factor the code in order to remove its calls?
I'm about to re-write the code so I would really appreciate any piece of advice.
Thanks!
EDIT 1:
I add some code for making the question clearer. The following function takes two parameters, a pair (x,y) and a term, x and y are usually variable names(symbols), but they may be a symbol and a number, a list and a symbol, etc. The term is a list such as
(+ w y z (* (- 1) x))
so after the function execution I would get something like
(+ w z)
The code looks like the following:
(define (simp-by-term_eq t_CC t)
(cond
((and (member (list '* (list '- 1) (car t_CC)) (cdr t))
(member (cadr t_CC) (cdr t)))
(delete-1st (cadr t_CC)
(delete-1st (list '* (list '- 1) (car t_CC)) (cdr t)))
)
((and (member (list '* (car t_CC) (list '- 1)) (cdr t))
(member (cadr t_CC) (cdr t)))
(delete-1st (cadr t_CC)
(delete-1st (list '* (car t_CC) (list '- 1)) (cdr t)))
)
(else t)
)
)
There are several conditions like the previous one on the function.
The equal function calls are mainly used into filter callse such as
(filter (lambda (x) (and (not (equal? (list '* (car t_CC) (list '- 1)) x))
(not (equal? (list '* (list '- 1) (car t_CC)) x)))) t)
equal? needs to test every part of list structure so basically it traverses both operands until it has touched all sequences and compared all atomic values. If you need to test if it's the same you can use eq? which only checks that the pair has the same address. Thus it will evaluate to #f even when the list structure look the same. Sometimes that's ok. eqv? is similar to eq? but it also works for numbers and characters (but not strings).
You can use memq that uses eq? instead of equal? and you can use memqv that uses eqv? which also works for numbers and characters.
I'm not that familiar with Guile but if you have performance issues and are using member perhaps you should consider hash tables instead?
It could happen you need to rethink the algorithm you use too if you really need to use equal?, but without specific code it's difficult to be more specific.
#lang racket
(define (remove-last lst)
(if (null? (cdr lst))
'()
(cons (car lst) (remove-last (cdr lst)))))
(remove-last '(Help Me Please))
This then prints out:
(Help Me)
How can I change this? For example if I wanted to remove me.
Like this, for example:
(define (remove-words lst words)
(cond
((null? lst)
'())
((member (car lst) words)
(remove-words (cdr lst) words))
(else
(cons (car lst) (remove-words (cdr lst) words)))))
then
> (remove-words '(Help Me Please) '(Me Help Not))
'(Please)
You can also use the procedures for sets:
(define (remove-words lst words)
(set-subtract lst words))
Please note that you are working with symbols here, not strings.
You can also solve the problem using filter-not and member together:
(define (remove-words lst words)
(filter-not (lambda (x) (member x words) lst))
If you want to cut down on the wordiness of that anonymous function, the tools most suited to that are curry and cut (with the latter needing a (require srfi/26) to use).
Currying a function turns it into a new function that accepts one argument, then returns another function that accepts one more argument, then again, then again, and so on until it has all the arguments it needs to call the original function. A curried version of remove-words would be called as ((remove-words lst) words) instead, and you could make it from our current implementation with (curry remove-words). This requires that the arguments be supplied in left to right order, which doesn't work for member. There's another form curryr that goes right-to-left, but because member takes an optional third argument it won't work.
You could use cut (from srfi 26) then, which lets you pick which arguments of a function you want to "lock-in" and which you want the new function to accept. (cut member <> words)creates a new function (lambda (arg) (member arg words)) and (cut * <> <> 8) creates (lambda (arg1 arg2) (* arg1 arg2 8)). So with this, remove-words looks like:
(require srfi/26)
(define (remove-words lst words)
(filter-not (cut member <> words) lst))
Although going with set-subtract is still probably the best solution since you should avoid reinventing the wheel as much as possible (unless you're trying to learn more about wheels). Nonetheless, it's very useful to have a firm grip on the general functions provided by Racket that make your life easier.
R5RS says...
Values might be defined as follows:
(define (values . things)
(call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (cont) (apply cont things))))
It doesn’t, however, say how call-with-values might be implemented if values were implemented this way. So, if values is implemented this way, how would call-with-values be implemented?
(This came up because I was trying to get some code that used call-with-values to work with TinyScheme, which doesn’t support it. I managed by faking values and call-with-values with lists, but—when I saw this in R5RS—I wanted to know if this might be a better workaround.)
Kent Dybvig defines call/cc, values and call-with-values thusly:
(define call/cc call/cc)
(define values #f)
(define call-with-values #f)
(let ((magic (cons 'multiple 'values)))
(define magic?
(lambda (x)
(and (pair? x) (eq? (car x) magic))))
(set! call/cc
(let ((primitive-call/cc call/cc))
(lambda (p)
(primitive-call/cc
(lambda (k)
(p (lambda args
(k (apply values args)))))))))
(set! values
(lambda args
(if (and (not (null? args)) (null? (cdr args)))
(car args)
(cons magic args))))
(set! call-with-values
(lambda (producer consumer)
(let ((x (producer)))
(if (magic? x)
(apply consumer (cdr x))
(consumer x))))))
The short answer is: You can't
The nifty implementation of values does not change the fact that there is no way to implement the other procedures if you don't have any of them to poke at the values. If you had one way to peek then you could implement the others with that.
(+ (values 4 5))
(apply + (values 4 5))
Doesn't work and that's why you need those other primitives.
When that said. There is no difference between returning more values and returning lists with values since the difference is optimization. You could make a macro that treats both of them as a binding and then the way you use them would be the same. The difference in performance is some pointer jumping and some consing which is reasonable fast for any lisp implementation. Heres a minimalistic implementation that will work given your code is correct:
(define values list)
(define (call-with-values producer consumer)
(apply consumer (producer)))