I have this curry function:
(define curry
(lambda (f) (lambda (a) (lambda (b) (f a b)))))
I think it's like (define curry (f a b)).
my assignment is to write a function consElem2All using curry，which should work like
(((consElem2All cons) 'b) '((1) (2 3) (4)))
>((b 1) (b 2 3) (b 4))
I have wrote this function in a regular way:
(define (consElem2All0 x lst)
(map (lambda (elem) (cons x elem)) lst))
but still don't know how to transform it with curry. Can anyone help me?
thanks in advance
bearzk
You should begin by reading about currying. If you don't understand what curry is about, it may be really hard to use it... In your case, http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~jeffm/Papers/curry.html may be a good start.
One very common and interesting use of currying is with functions like reduce or map (for themselves or their arguments).
Let's define two currying operators!
(define curry2 (lambda (f) (lambda (arg1) (lambda (arg2) (f arg1 arg2)))))
(define curry3 (lambda (f) (lambda (arg1) (lambda (arg2) (lambda (arg3) (f arg1 arg2 arg3))))))
Then a few curried mathematical functions:
(define mult (curry2 *))
(define double (mult 2))
(define add (curry2 +))
(define increment (add 1))
(define decrement (add -1))
And then come the curried reduce/map:
(define creduce (curry3 reduce))
(define cmap (curry2 map))
Using them
First reduce use cases:
(define sum ((creduce +) 0))
(sum '(1 2 3 4)) ; => 10
(define product (creduce * 1))
(product '(1 2 3 4)) ; => 24
And then map use cases:
(define doubles (cmap double))
(doubles '(1 2 3 4)) ; => (2 4 6 8)
(define bump (cmap increment))
(bump '(1 2 3 4)) ; => (2 3 4 5)
I hope that helps you grasp the usefulness of currying...
So your version of curry takes a function with two args, let's say:
(define (cons a b) ...)
and turns that into something you can call like this:
(define my-cons (curry cons))
((my-cons 'a) '(b c)) ; => (cons 'a '(b c)) => '(a b c)
You actually have a function that takes three args. If you had a curry3 that managed 3-ary functions, you could do something like:
(define (consElem2All0 the-conser x lst) ...)
(like you did, but allowing cons-like functions other than cons to be used!)
and then do this:
(define consElem2All (curry3 consElem2All0))
You don't have such a curry3 at hand. So you can either build one, or work around it by "manually" currying the extra variable yourself. Working around it looks something like:
(define (consElem2All0 the-conser)
(lambda (x lst) ...something using the-conser...))
(define (consElem2All the-conser)
(curry (consElem2All0 the-conser)))
Note that there's one other possible use of curry in the map expression itself, implied by you wrapping a lambda around cons to take the element to pass to cons. How could you curry x into cons so that you get a one-argument function that can be used directly to map?...
Perhaps better use a generalized version:
(define (my-curry f)
(lambda args
(cond ((= (length args) 1)
(lambda lst (apply f (cons (car args) lst))))
((>= (length args) 2)
(apply f (cons (car args) (cdr args)))))))
(define (consElem2All0 x lst)
(map ((curry cons) x) lst))
Related
I am new in Lisp and i need some help.
I need to simplify next expressions:
from (+ (+ A B) C) to (+ A B C)
and from (- (- A B) C) to (- A B C).
If you could help me with one of them I'll understand how i need to do this to the next one.
Thanks a lot.
Assuming you have an input that matches this pattern, (+ e1 ... en), you want to recursively simplify all e1 to en, which gives you s1, ..., sn, and then extract all the si that start with a + to move their arguments one level up, to the simplified expression you are building.
An expression e matches the above pattern if (and (consp e) (eq '+ (car e))).
Then, all the ei are just given by the list that is (cdr e).
Consider the (+) case, how could you simplify it?
To apply a function f to a list of values, call (mapcar #'f list).
To split a list into two lists, based on a predicate p, you might use a loop:
(let ((sat nil) (unsat nil))
(dolist (x list (values sat unsat))
(if (funcall predicate x)
(push x sat)
(push x unsat))))
There is a purely functional way to write this, can you figure it out?
Here is a trivial simplifier written in Racket, with an implementation of a rather mindless simplifier for +. Note that this is not intended as anything serious: it's just what I typed in when I was thinking about this question.
This uses Racket's pattern matching, probably in a naïve way, to do some of the work.
(define/match (simplify expression)
;; simplifier driver
(((cons op args))
;; An operator with some arguments
;; Note that this assumes that the arguments to operators are always
;; expressions to simplify, so the recursive level can be here
(simplify-op op (map simplify args)))
((expr)
;; anything else
expr))
(define op-table (make-hash))
(define-syntax-rule (define-op-simplifier (op args) form ...)
;; Define a simplifier for op with arguments args
(hash-set! op-table 'op (λ (args) form ...)))
(define (simplify-op op args)
;; Note the slightly arcane fallback: you need to wrap it in a thunk
;; so hash-ref does not try to call it.
((hash-ref op-table op (thunk (λ (args) (cons op args)))) args))
(define-op-simplifier (+ exprs)
;; Simplify (+ ...) by flattening + in its arguments
(let loop ([ftail exprs]
[results '()])
(if (null? ftail)
`(+ ,#(reverse results))
(loop (rest ftail)
(match (first ftail)
[(cons '+ addends)
(append (reverse addends) results)]
[expr (cons expr results)])))))
It is possible to be more aggressive than this. For instance we can coalesce runs of literal numbers, so we can simplify (+ 1 2 3 a 4) to
(+ 6 a 4) (note it is not safe in general to further simplify this to (+ 10 a) unless all arithmetic is exact). Here is a function which does this coalescing for for + and *:
(define (coalesce-literal-numbers f elts)
;; coalesce runs of literal numbers for an operator f.
;; This relies on the fact that (f) returns a good identity for f
;; (so in particular it returns an exact number). Thisis true for Racket
;; and CL and I think any Lisp worth its salt.
;;
;; Note that it's important here that (eqv? 1 1.0) is false.
;;;
(define id (f))
(let loop ([tail elts]
[accum id]
[results '()])
(cond [(null? tail)
(if (not (eqv? accum id))
(reverse (cons accum results))
(reverse results))]
[(number? (first tail))
(loop (rest tail)
(f accum (first tail))
results)]
[(eqv? accum id)
(loop (rest tail)
accum
(cons (first tail) results))]
[else
(loop (rest tail)
id
(list* (first tail) accum results))])))
And here is a modified simplifier for + which uses this. As well as coalescing it notices that (+ x) can be simplified to x.
(define-op-simplifier (+ exprs)
;; Simplify (+ ...) by flattening + in its arguments
(let loop ([ftail exprs]
[results '()])
(if (null? ftail)
(let ([coalesced (coalesce-literal-numbers + (reverse results))])
(match coalesced
[(list something)
something]
[exprs
`(+ ,#exprs)]))
(loop (rest ftail)
(match (first ftail)
[(cons '+ addends)
(append (reverse addends) results)]
[expr (cons expr results)])))))
Here is an example of using this enhanced simplifier:
> (simplify 'a)
'a
> (simplify 1)
1
> (simplify '(+ 1 a))
'(+ 1 a)
> (simplify '(+ a (+ b c)))
'(+ a b c)
> (simplify '(+ 1 (+ 3 c) 4))
'(+ 4 c 4)
> (simplify '(+ 1 2 3))
6
For yet more value you can notice that the simplifier for * is really the same, and change things to this:
(define (simplify-arith-op op fn exprs)
(let loop ([ftail exprs]
[results '()])
(if (null? ftail)
(let ([coalesced (coalesce-literal-numbers fn (reverse results))])
(match coalesced
[(list something)
something]
['()
(fn)]
[exprs
`(,op ,#exprs)]))
(loop (rest ftail)
(match (first ftail)
[(cons the-op addends)
#:when (eqv? the-op op)
(append (reverse addends) results)]
[expr (cons expr results)])))))
(define-op-simplifier (+ exprs)
(simplify-arith-op '+ + exprs))
(define-op-simplifier (* exprs)
(simplify-arith-op '* * exprs))
And now
(simplify '(+ a (* 1 2 (+ 4 5)) (* 3 4) 6 (* b)))
'(+ a 36 b)
Which is reasonably neat.
You can go further than this, For instance when coalescing numbers for an operator you can simply elide sequences of the identity for that operator: (* 1 1 a 1 1 b) can be simplified to (* a b), not (* 1 a 1 b). It may seem silly to do that: who would ever write such an expression, but they can quite easily occur when simplifying complicated expressions.
There is a gist of an elaborated version of this code. It may still be buggy.
I have a list of lists: (setq xs (list (list 1 2 3) (list 4 5 6) (list 7 8 9))). I want to remove a first element from each list to get ((2 3) (5 6) (8 9)). It's easy to do it non-destructively: (mapcar 'cdr xs). But I want mutate the original list. I tried:
(mapcar (lambda (x) (setf x (cdr x))) xs)
(mapcar (lambda (x) (pop x)) xs)
But it doesn't work. How to change each list of xs variable in-place, without creating any temporary lists, as efficiently as possible?
Use MAP-INTO:
CL-USER 16 > (let ((s (list (list 1 2 3)
(list 4 5 6)
(list 7 8 9))))
(map-into s #'rest s))
((2 3) (5 6) (8 9))
#Rainer Joswig's answer is correct, use map-into. The link gives example implementation using loop macro. If you want to implement map-into from scratch, or you use Emacs Lisp, you can also do it using dotimes. In Emacs Lisp dotimes is implemented in subr.el and doesn't require CL package. This is map-into with 1 sequence to map into the result sequence:
(defun map-into (r f xs)
(dotimes (i (min (length r) (length xs)) r)
(setf (elt r i)
(funcall f (elt xs i)))))
For version with variable amount of sequences we must sprinkle our code with apply and mapcar:
(defun map-into (r f &rest xss)
(dotimes (i (apply 'min (length r) (mapcar 'length xss)) r)
(setf (elt r i)
(apply f (mapcar (lambda (s) (elt s i))
xss)))))
We see, however, that elt inside dotimes makes our algorithm work in O(n2). We can optimize it to work in O(n) by using mapl (thanks #Joshua Taylor).
(defun map-into (rs f xs)
(mapl (lambda (r x) (setf (car r) (funcall f (car x)))) rs xs))
(defun map-into (rs f &rest xss)
(mapl (lambda (r xs)
(setf (car r)
(apply f (car xs))))
rs
(apply 'mapcar 'list xss))) ;; transpose a list of lists
The reason setf doesn't work inside mapcar is that setf is a complex macro that expands into expression that can manipulate the data it mutates. In a lambda scope inside mapcar it has access only to a variable, local to this lambda, not to the sequence passed to mapcar itself, so how should it know, where to put a modified value back? That's why mapcar code in the question returns modified list of lists but doesn't mutate it in-place. Just try (macroexpand '(setf (elt xs 0) (funcall 'cdr (elt xs 0)))) and see for yourself.
i am trying to write a function in lisp which have 2 parameters one function F and one list L
if i place '> in place of F and list L is '(1 2 3 4 5) it will return 5 as 5 is biggest.
and if we put '< then it compares all list elements and gives the smallest one as output.
and so on.
we can even put custom written function in place of F for comparison.
i wish i could provide more sample code but i am really stuck at the start.
(DEFUN givex (F L)
(cond
(F (car L) (car (cdr L))
;after this i got stuck
)
)
another attemp to write this function
(defun best(F list)
(if (null (rest list)) (first list)
(funcall F (first List) (best (F list)))))
You are almost there, just the else clause returns the f's return value instead of the the best element:
(defun best (F list)
(let ((first (first list))
(rest (rest list)))
(if (null rest)
first
(let ((best (best f rest)))
(if (funcall F first best)
best
first)))))
Examples:
(best #'< '(1 2 3))
==> 3
(best #'> '(1 2 3))
==> 1
Note that this recursive implementation is not tail-recursive, so it is not the most efficient one. You might prefer this instead:
(defun best (f list)
(reduce (lambda (a b) (if (funcall f a b) b a)) list))
Or, better yet,
(defmacro fmax (f)
`(lambda (a b) (if (,f a b) b a)))
(reduce (fmax <) '(1 2 3))
==> 1
(reduce (fmax >) '(1 -2 3 -4) :key #'abs)
==> 1
(reduce (fmax <) '(1 -2 3 -4) :key #'abs)
==> 4
This question already has answers here:
Using AND with the apply function in Scheme
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I tried it in Racket like this
> (apply and '(1 2 3))
. and: bad syntax in: and
> (and 1 2 3)
3
Does anyone have ideas about this?
and is not a function, it's a macro, so you cannot pass it around like a function.
The reason and is a macro, is to enable short-circuiting behaviour. You can make your own non-short-circuiting version:
(define (my-and . items)
(if (null? items) #t
(let loop ((test (car items))
(rest (cdr items)))
(cond ((null? rest) test)
(test (loop (car rest) (cdr rest)))
(else #f)))))
and my-and can be used with apply.
For comparison, here's what the macro (which does do short-circuiting) looks like:
(define-syntax and
(syntax-rules ()
((and) #t)
((and test) test)
((and test rest ...) (if test
(and rest ...)
#f))))
Chris Jester-Young's answer is right, but there's one other point I want to highlight. The standard and operator is a macro which delays the evaluation of its arguments, by (essentially, if not exactly) turning (and a b c) into (if a (if b c #f) #f). This means that if a is false, b and c do not get evaluated.
We also have the option of defining an and-function such that (and-function a b c) evaluates a, b, and c, and returns true when the values are all true. This means that all of a, b, and c get evaluated. and-function has the nice property that you can pass it around as function because it is a function.
There's still one option that seems to be missing: an and-function-delaying-evaluation that returns return if and only if a, b, and c all return true, but that doesn't evaluate, e.g., b and c if a produces false. This can be had, actually, with a function and-funcalling-function that requires its arguments to be a list of functions. For instance:
(define (and-funcalling-function functions)
(or (null? functions)
(and ((car functions))
(and-funcalling-function (cdr functions)))))
(and-funcalling-function
(list (lambda () (even? 2))
(lambda () (odd? 3))))
; => #t
(and-funcalling-function
(list (lambda () (odd? 2))
(lambda () (even? 3)))) ; (even? 3) does not get evaluated
; => #f
Using a macro and this idiom, we can actually implement something with the standard and semantics:
(define-syntax standard-and
(syntax-rules ()
((standard-and form ...)
(and-funcalling-function (list (lambda () form) ...)))))
(macroexpand '(standard-and (odd? 2) (even? 3)))
; =>
; (and-funcalling-function
; (list (lambda () (odd? 2))
; (lambda () (even? 3))))
The lesson to take away from this, of course, is that you can have an and-like function that you can pass around and still get delayed evaluation; you just need to delay evaluation by wrapping things in functions and letting the and-like function call those functions to produce values. (In Scheme, this might be an opportunity to use promises.)
I am a LISP newbie.
To get the running sum of a list, I am writing like --
(setf sum 0.0)
(mapcar #'(lambda(x)
(setf sum (+ sum x)) sum) values))
For example, if you give '(1 2 3 4) as input, the above code returns '(1 3 6 10) as output and so forth.
Is it possible to do the same thing (in a more elegant way) without using the global variable sum ?
(loop for x in '(1 2 3 4) sum x into y collect y)
scanl is a oneliner:
(defun scanl (f init xs)
(loop for x in xs collect (setf init (funcall f init x))))
You could use loop, like this:
(defun running-sum (xs)
(loop with sum = 0
for x in xs
collect (setf sum (+ sum x))))
(running-sum '(1 2 3 4))
It's fundamentally the same thing, but it uses a local variable instead of a global one, and might be more clear.
Alternatively, you could define a recursive function, and a wrapper function:
(defun running-sum-recursive (xs)
(running-sum-recursive2 0 xs))
(defun running-sum-recursive2 (sum xs)
(if (eq xs nil)
nil
(let ((new-sum (+ sum (car xs))))
(cons new-sum (running-sum-recursive2 new-sum (cdr xs))))))
(running-sum-recursive '(1 2 3 4))
However this seems needlessly complicated to me when loop is available.
Note that in Haskell, you could do a running sum like this:
runningSum xs = scanl1 (+) xs
runningSum [1, 2, 3, 4]
The key here is the scanl1 function. It's possible that something similar exists in Lisp (and we've very nearly written it twice now), but I haven't used Lisp in a while.
Edit: After some searching, I don't think Common Lisp includes anything quite like scanl or scanl1, so here they are:
(defun scanl (f val xs)
(loop for x in xs
collect (setf val (funcall f val x))))
(defun scanl1 (f xs)
(cons (car xs)
(scanl f (car xs) (cdr xs))))
(scanl1 #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
Edit: Thanks to huaiyuan's answer for a suggestion about how the loops could be shortened.
Or you could use higher-order functions
(define (running-sum ls)
(cdr (reverse (foldl (lambda (y xs) (cons (+ (car xs) y) xs)) '(0) ls))))
Haskell does have a rich inventory of functions for list recursion, but we've got reduce at least. Here is an elementary (i. e. without the loop magic) functional solution:
(defun running-sum (lst)
(reverse (reduce (lambda (acc x)
(cons (+ (first acc) x) acc))
(rest lst)
:initial-value (list (first lst)))))
I'm using the head of the original list as the initial value and walk through the rest of the list adding sums at the head (because it's natural to add at the head), finally reversing the list thus obtained.
One can use reduce in most cases when there's a need to traverse a sequence accumulating a value.
Here is an elementary iterative solution using the push-nreverse idiom:
(defun running-sum (lst)
(let ((sums (list (first lst))))
(dolist (x (rest lst))
(push (+ x (first sums)) sums))
(nreverse sums)))
In Scheme I would calculate the sum of the list recursively using an accumulator. Like so:
; Computes a list of intermediary results of list summation
(define list-sum
(lambda (l)
(letrec ((recsum (lambda (lst acc acclst)
(if (pair? lst)
(recsum (cdr lst) (+ acc (car lst)) (cons acc acclst))
(cons acc acclst)))))
(recsum (cdr l) (car l) '()))))
Output:
> (list-sum '(1 2 3 4))
(10 6 3 1)
> (list-sum '(2 4 6 8 10))
(30 20 12 6 2)
>
The trick to recurse over a list is to take the first element/car off each time and pass the rest/cdr. You can keep intermediary results by using an extra parameter (called an accumulator) and pass the sum in that. I've used two accumulators above: one for the last sum and one for a list of all previous sums.
I've never done anything in LISP, so I can't tell if this translates directly to your dialect(?), but it's conceptually simple and I'm sure it's doable in LISP as well.
Do ask if something is not immediately clear. It's been a while since I've used this family of languages :)