How to write a program in scheme that takes an arbitrary
sexpression consisting of integers and which returns an sexpression that is identical to
the original but with all the integers doubled?
We want a procedure that takes an S-expression as input, and outputs an S-expression with the same structure, but where each integer is doubled; generally, a procedure to map S-expressions:
(define (double x)
(if (number? x)
(* x 2)
x)))
(define (sexp-map op sexp)
...)
(sexp-map double some-sexpression)
The S-expression we get (SEXP) is going to be either an atom, in which case the result is (OP SEXP), or a list of S-expressions. We might think to map OP across SEXP in this case, but S-expressions nest arbitrarily deep. What we should actually do is map a procedure that will transform each element in the smaller S-expression with OP. Well would you look at that, that's just another way to describe of the goal of the procedure we're currently trying to write. So we can map SEXP-MAP across SEXP.
Well, no we can't actually, because SEXP-MAP needs to be called with two arguments, and MAP will only give it the one. To get around that, we use a helper procedure F of one argument:
(define (sexp-map op sexp)
(define (f x)
(if (list? x)
(map f x)
(op x)))
(f sexp))
F winds up doing all the real work. SEXP-MAP is reduced to being a facade that's easier to use for the programmer.
It sounds like what you want is to find each integer in the s-expression, then double it, while keeping the rest of it the same.
If you're not aware, s-expressions are just lists that may happen to contain other lists, and it makes sense to deal with them in levels. For instance, here's a way to print all the values on level one of an s-expression:
(define (print-level-one sexp)
(display (car sexp))
(print-level-one (cdr sexp)))
This will end up calling display on the car of every part of the s-expression.
You could do something similar. You'll need the functions integer? and pair? to check whether something is an integer, which should be doubled, or another list, which should be treated just like the top-level list.
(Note: I'm being deliberately vague because of the comment about homework above. If you just want the answer, rather than help figuring out the answer, say so and I'll change this.)
An Sexp of numbers is one of
-- Number
-- ListOfSexp
A ListOfSexp is one of
-- empty
-- (cons Sexp ListOfSexp)
So, you'll need one function to handle both of those data definitions. Since the data definitions cross-reference each other, the functions will do the same. Each individual function is pretty straight forward.
(define (double E)
(cond ((null? E) '())
((list? (car E)) (cons (double (car E)) (double (cdr E))))
((number? E) (list E))
(else (cons (* 2 (car E)) (double (cdr E))))
))
(map (lambda (x) (* x 2)) '(1 2 3 4 5)) => '(2 4 6 8 10)
What does it do? (lambda (x) (* x 2)) takes a number and doubles it, and map applies that function to every element of a list.
Edit: Oh, but it won't go into trees.
(define double
(lambda (x)
(cond ((null? x) (list))
((list? (car x)) (cons (double (car x)) (double (cdr x))))
(else (cons (* 2 (car x)) (double (cdr x)))))))
EDIT
Fixed this. Thanks to Nathan Sanders for pointing out my initial oversight concerning nested lists.
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 wanted to write a code in Scheme that writes the square odd elements in list.For example (list 1 2 3 4 5) for this list it should write 225.For this purpose i write this code:
(define (square x)(* x x))
(define (product-of-square-of-odd-elements sequence)
(cond[(odd? (car sequence)) '() (product-of-square-of-odd-elements (cdr sequence))]
[else ((square (car sequence)) (product-of-square-of-odd-elements (cdr sequence)))]))
For run i write this (product-of-square-of-odd-elements (list 1 2 3 4 5))
and i get error like this:
car: contract violation
expected: pair?
given: '()
What should i do to make this code to run properly? Thank you for your answers.
First of all, you need to do proper formatting:
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (product-of-square-of-odd-elements sequence)
(cond
[(odd? (car sequence))
'() (product-of-square-of-odd-elements (cdr sequence))]
[else
((square (car sequence)) (product-of-square-of-odd-elements (cdr sequence)))]))
Now there are multiple issues with your code:
You are trying to work recursively on a sequence, but you are missing a termination case: What happens when you pass '() - the empty sequence? This is the source of your error: You cannot access the first element of an empty sequence.
You need to build up your result somehow: Currently you're sending a '() into nirvana in the first branch of your cond and put a value into function call position in the second.
So let's start from scratch:
You process a sequence recursively, so you need to handle two cases:
(define (fn seq)
(if (null? seq)
;; termination case
;; recursive case
))
Let's take the recursive case first: You need to compute the square and multiply it with the rest of the squares (that you'll compute next).
(* (if (odd? (car seq)
(square (car seq))
1)
(fn (cdr seq)))
In the termination case you have no value to square. So you just use the unit value of multiplication: 1
This is not a good solution, as you can transform it into a tail recursive form and use higher order functions to abstract the recursion altogether. But I think that's enough for a start.
With transducers:
(define prod-square-odds
(let ((prod-square-odds
((compose (filtering odd?)
(mapping square)) *)))
(lambda (lst)
(foldl prod-square-odds 1 lst))))
(prod-square-odds '(1 2 3 4 5))
; ==> 225
It uses reusable transducers:
(define (mapping procedure)
(lambda (kons)
(lambda (e acc)
(kons (procedure e) acc))))
(define (filtering predicate?)
(lambda (kons)
(lambda (e acc)
(if (predicate? e)
(kons e acc)
acc))))
You can decompose the problem into, for example:
Skip the even elements
Square each element
take the product of the elements
With this, an implementation is naturally expressed using simpler functions (most of which exist in Scheme) as:
(define product-of-square-of-odd-elements (l)
(reduce * 1 (map square (skip-every-n 1 l))))
and then you implement a helper function or two, like skip-every-n.
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.
I'm doing the exercises from SICP (not homework) and exercise 2.20 introduces dotted-tail notation, which is where you use (define (f a . b) ...) to pass a variable number of arguments (which end up in a list b). This problem in particular wants a procedure which takes an integer a and returns a list of all arguments with parity equal to a's. The problem is not difficult; here is my solution:
(define (same-parity a . b); a is an int, b is any number of int arguments
(let ((parity (remainder a 2)))
(define (proc li)
(cond ((null? li) null)
; If parity of the head of the list is = parity of a,
((= (remainder (car li) 2) parity)
; keep it and check the rest of the list.
(cons (car li) (proc (cdr li))))
; Otherwise ignore it and check the rest of the list.
(else (proc (cdr li)))))
(cons a (proc b))))
My question is that I don't seem to be using the dotted-tail feature at all. I might as well have just accepted exactly two arguments, a number and a list; I'm effectively wrapping the algorithm in a procedure proc which does away with the dotted-tail thing.
Before I wrote this solution, I wanted to have a recursive call resembling
(same-parity a . (cdr b))
or something spiritually similar, but no matter how I tried it, I kept passing lists of lists or extra procedures or whatever. This could be because I don't know exactly what . does, only what I want it to do (the Racket docs didn't clear anything up either). To sum up,
Is my solution what was intended for this exercise, or is there a way to actually use the dot notation (which seems to be the point of the exercise) in the algorithm?
You can't use (same-parity a . (cdr b)) (since that would be read in as (same-parity a cdr b)), but you can use (apply same-parity a (cdr b)). That's how you "splat" a list into arguments.
However, the "inner procedure" approach you had is generally more efficient, as there is less list copying going on.
In Exercise 30.1.1 of HtDP, I started off using local and then modified it to use lambda in order to answer the question.
(define (add-to-each2 accu a-list)
(cond
[(empty? a-list) empty]
[else (local ((define s (+ accu (first a-list))))
(cons s (add-to-each2 s (rest a-list))))]))
and
(define (add-to-each5 accu a-list)
(cond
[(empty? a-list) empty]
[else (cons ((lambda (x y)
(first (map + (list (first y))
(list x)))) accu a-list)
(add-to-each5 (+ accu (first a-list))(rest a-list)))]))
In this particular instance, to me, the local version is easier to read. Are there situations where the lambda version would be preferred? Thank you.
First off, I think you might be getting relative-2-absolute confused with add-to-each, since add-to-each just adds the same number to each element of the list, rather than incrementing an accumulator. The rest of this post assumes that's the case, and just takes out that incrementing.
I think let would be my first choice for the local binding. Your lambda example uses a common pattern that simulates let using lambda and application:
(let ([x e]) body)
Is equivalent to:
((lambda (x) body) e)
If you use this transformation from lambda to let in your example, you get:
(define (add-to-each5 n a-list)
(cond
[(empty? a-list) empty]
[else (cons (let ([x n] [y a-list])
(first (map + (list (first y))
(list x))))
(add-to-each5 n (rest a-list)))]))
A good compiler will likely generate the same code for this as for your two examples, so it mostly comes down to style. The "left-left lambda" pattern can be more difficult to read, as you note, so I prefer let.
However, Exercise 30.1.1 is trying to make you use map as a replacement for the explicit recursion that occurs in each of your examples. You are using map in your example but only for a single addition at a time, which makes map kind of painful: why bother wrapping up (list (first y)) and (list x) when you just want (+ (first y) x)?
Let's look at a simple definition of map to see how it might be helpful, rather than painful, for this problem:
(define (map f ls)
(cond
[(empty? ls) empty]
[else (cons (f (first ls)) (map f (rest ls)))]))
Right away, you should notice some similarities to add-to-each: the first line of the cond checks for empty, and the second line conses something to do with the first element onto a recursive call to map on the rest. The key, then, is to pass map an f that does what you want to do to each element.
In the case of add-to-each, you want to add a particular number to each element. Here's an example of adding 2:
> (map (lambda (n) (+ 2 n)) (list 1 2 3 4 5))
(3 4 5 6 7)
Notice that map and lambda are both here as 30.1.1 requests, and they act on an entire list without the explicit recursion of the original add-to-each: the recursion is all abstracted away in map.
This should be enough to get you to a solution; I don't want to give away the final answer, though :)