I am trying to concatenate all elements in the list argument into a single list.
I have this code:
(define (concatenate . lsts)
(let rec ([l lsts]
[acc '()])
(if (empty? l)
acc
(rec (cons (list* l)
acc)))))
An example of output is here:
> (concatenate '(1 2 3) '(hi bye) '(4 5 6))
'(1 2 3 hi bye 4 5 6)
But I keep getting this error:
rec: arity mismatch;
the expected number of arguments does not match the given number
expected: 2
given: 1
Can someone please explain this?
Another answer explains the OP error,
and shows how the code can be fixed using append.
But there could be reasons for append to be disallowed in this assignment
(of course, it could be replaced with, for example, an inner "named let" iteration).
This answer will present an alternative approach and describe how it can be derived.
#lang racket
(require test-engine/racket-tests)
(define (conc . lols) ;; ("List of Lists" -> List)
;; produce (in order) the elements of the list elements of lols as one list
;; example: (conc '(1 2 3) '(hi bye) '(4 5 6)) => '(1 2 3 hi bye 4 5 6)
(cond
[(andmap null? lols) empty ] ;(1) => empty result
[else
(cons (if (null? (car lols)) ;(2) => head of result
(car (apply conc (cdr lols)))
(caar lols))
(apply conc ;(3) => tail of result
(cond
[(null? (car lols))
(list (cdr (apply conc (cdr lols)))) ]
[(null? (cdar lols))
(cdr lols) ]
[else
(cons (cdar lols) (cdr lols)) ]))) ]))
(check-expect (conc '() ) '())
(check-expect (conc '() '() ) '())
(check-expect (conc '(1) ) '(1))
(check-expect (conc '() '(1) ) '(1))
(check-expect (conc '() '(1 2) ) '(1 2))
(check-expect (conc '(1) '() ) '(1))
(check-expect (conc '(1) '(2) ) '(1 2))
(check-expect (conc '(1 2) '(3 4) ) '(1 2 3 4))
(check-expect (conc '(1 2 3) '(hi bye) '(4 5 6)) '(1 2 3 hi bye 4 5 6))
(test)
Welcome to DrRacket, version 8.6 [cs].
Language: racket, with debugging; memory limit: 128 MB.
All 8 tests passed!
>
How was this code derived?
"The observation that program structure follows data structure is a key lesson in
introductory programming" [1]
A systematic program design method can be used to derive function code from the structure
of arguments. For a List argument, a simple template (natural recursion) is often appropriate:
(define (fn lox) ;; (Listof X) -> Y ; *template*
;; produce a Y from lox using natural recursion ;
(cond ;
[(empty? lox) ... ] #|base case|# ;; Y ;
[else (... #|something|# ;; X Y -> Y ;
(first lox) (fn (rest lox))) ])) ;
(Here the ...s are placeholders to be replaced by code to create a particular list-argumented
function; eg with 0 and + the result is (sum list-of-numbers), with empty and cons it's
list-copy; many list functions follow this pattern. Racket's "Student Languages" support
placeholders.)
Gibbons [1] points out that corecursion, a design recipe based on result structure, can also
be helpful, and says:
For a structurally corecursive program towards lists, there are three questions to ask:
When is the output empty?
If the output isn’t empty, what is its head?
And from what data is its tail recursively constructed?
So for simple corecursion producing a List result, a template could be:
(define (fn x) ;; X -> ListOfY
;; produce list of y from x using natural corecursion
(cond
[... empty] ;(1) ... => empty
[else (cons ... ;(2) ... => head
(fn ...)) ])) ;(3) ... => tail data
Examples are useful to work out what should replace the placeholders:
the design recipe for structural recursion calls for examples that cover all possible input variants,
examples for co-programs should cover all possible output variants.
The check-expect examples above can be worked through to derive (1), (2), and (3).
[1] Gibbons 2021 How to design co-programs
Assuming you are allowed to call append, for simplicity. You have
(define (concatenate . lsts)
(let rec ([l lsts]
[acc '()])
(if (empty? l)
acc
(rec (cons (list* l) ; only ONE
acc) ; argument
))))
calling rec with only one argument. I have added a newline there so it becomes more self-evident.
But your definition says it needs two. One way to fix this is
(define (conc . lsts)
(let rec ([ls lsts]
[acc '()])
(if (empty? ls)
acc
(rec (cdr ls) ; first argument
(append acc (car ls)) ; second argument
))))
Now e.g.
(conc (list 1 2) (list 3 4))
; => '(1 2 3 4)
I used append. Calling list* doesn't seem to do anything useful here, to me.
(edit:)
Using append that way was done for simplicity. Repeatedly appending on the right is actually an anti-pattern, because it leads to quadratic code (referring to its time complexity).
Appending on the left with consequent reversing of the final result is the usual remedy applied to that problem, to get the linear behavior back:
(define (conc2 . lsts)
(let rec ([ls lsts]
[acc '()])
(if (empty? ls)
(reverse acc)
(rec (cdr ls)
(append (reverse (car ls))
acc)))))
This assumes that append reuses its second argument and only creates new list structure for the copy of its first.
The repeated reverses pattern is a bit grating. Trying to make it yet more linear, we get this simple recursive code:
(define (conc3 . lols)
(cond
[(null? lols) empty ]
[(null? (car lols))
(apply conc3 (cdr lols)) ]
[else
(cons (caar lols)
(apply conc3
(cons (cdar lols) (cdr lols))))]))
This would be even better if the "tail recursive modulo cons" optimization was applied by a compiler, or if cons were evaluated lazily.
But we can build the result in the top-down manner ourselves, explicitly, set-cdr!-ing the growing list's last cell. This can be seen in this answer.
(define (evenList xs)
(cond
((null? xs) '())
((eq? (cdr xs) '()) '())
(else (cons (cadr xs) (evenList (cddr xs))))))
I'm using this code but it doesn't create the list the way I want it. (evenList (list 1 2 3 4)) evaluates to (cons 2 (cons 4 '())) in the REPL, but I want it to be like (list 2 4).
Your code works and gives the correct output as far as I can tell. I'm guessing that you are using the Beginning Student Language. The list (2 4) is represented as(cons 2 (cons 4 '())) in the REPL when using the Beginning Student Language; this same list is represented as (list 2 4) in the REPL when using the Intermediate Student Language. In #lang racket you would see this represented as '(2 4) in the REPL. In all cases the underlying list data structure is the same; this is just a matter of the printed representation of the list.
In Arc there's a macro called in
> (let x 1
(in x 4 5 6))
nil
> (let x 1
(in x 1 5 6))
t
that checks if its first parameter is equal to any of the rest. I want a version of this that takes a parameter plus a list (semantically identical to Python's in), so I wrote:
(assign weak-tens* '(11 12))
(mac in? (elt lst)
(cons 'in (cons elt lst)))
(def transform-deck (deck)
(map [if (in? _ weak-tens*) #\T _] deck))
output:
arc> (load "main.arc")
*** redefining in?
map: contract violation
expected: list?
given: '(_ . weak-tens*)
argument position: 2nd
other arguments...:
#<procedure:ac-niltree>
To answer your immediate question, you can use mem, as follows:
arc> (let x 3
(mem x '(1 2 3 4)))
(3 4)
Also, there's no reason this should be a macro. It doesn't do anything that requires a macro.
But let's look at why the macro doesn't work:
arc> (macex1 '(in? 1 '(1 2 3)))
(in 1 quote (1 2 3))
Ah, we're putting the value "quote".
Here's how we want the code to expand:
(in? 1 '(1 2 3))
should expand to:
(in 1 1 2 3)
But as mentioned, we don't even want this to be a macro in the first place. Ignoring mem, it could be written as follows:
(def in? (elt lst)
(if (no lst)
nil
(is elt ;;if we've found the element
(car lst))
t
(in? elt (cdr lst)))) ;;otherwise recurse
I'm having issues trying to form code for a problem I want to resolve. It goes like this:
~ Goal: flatten a nested list into one number
If the object is a list, replace the list with the sum of its atoms.
With nested lists, flatten the innermost lists first and work from there.
Example:
(CONDENSE '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5))
(2 3 4 (6) (2 3 (3)) 5)
(2 3 4 (6) (8) 5)
(28)
=> 28
I've tried to implement the flatten list function for this problem and I ended up with this:
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst)))
(t (append (flatten (apply #'+ (cdr lst))))))
But it gives me errors :(
Could anyone explain to me what is wrong with my processing/code? How can I improve it?
UPDATE: JUNE 5 2012
(defun condense(lxt)
(typecase lxt
(number (abs lxt))
(list
(if (all-atoms lxt)
(calculate lxt)
(condense (mapcar #'condense lxt))))))
So here, in this code, my true intent is shown. I have a function calculate that performs a calculation based off the values in the list. It is not necessarily the same operation each time. Also, I am aware that I am returning the absolute value of the number; I did this because I couldn't find another way to return the number itself. I need to find a way to return the number if the lxt is a number. And I had it recurse two times at the bottom, because this is one way that it loops on itself infinitely until it computes a single number. NOTE: this function doesn't implement a flatten function anymore nor does it use anything from it.
Imagine you have your function already. What does it get? What must it produce?
Given an atom, what does it return? Given a simple list of atoms, what should it return?
(defun condense (x)
(typecase x
(number
; then what?
(condense-number x))
(list
; then what?
(if (all-atoms x)
(condense-list-of-atoms x) ; how to do that?
(process-further-somehow
(condense-lists-inside x))))
; what other clauses, if any, must be here?
))
What must condense-lists-inside do? According to your description, it is to condense the nested lists inside - each into a number, and leave the atoms intact. So it will leave a list of numbers. To process that further somehow, we already "have" a function, condense-list-of-atoms, right?
Now, how to implement condense-lists-inside? That's easy,
(defun condense-lists-inside (xs)
(mapcar #'dowhat xs))
Do what? Why, condense, of course! Remember, we imagine we have it already. As long as it gets what it's meant to get, it shall produce what it is designed to produce. Namely, given an atom or a list (with possibly nested lists inside), it will produce a number.
So now, fill in the blanks, and simplify. In particular, see whether you really need the all-atoms check.
edit: actually, using typecase was an unfortunate choice, as it treats NIL as LIST. We need to treat NIL differently, to return a "zero value" instead. So it's better to use the usual (cond ((null x) ...) ((numberp x) ...) ((listp x) ...) ... ) construct.
About your new code: you've erred: to process the list of atoms returned after (mapcar #'condense x), we have a function calculate that does that, no need to go so far back as to condense itself. When you substitute calculate there, it will become evident that the check for all-atoms is not needed at all; it was only a pedagogical device, to ease the development of the code. :) It is OK to make superfluous choices when we develop, if we then simplify them away, after we've achieved the goal of correctness!
But, removing the all-atoms check will break your requirement #2. The calculation will then proceed as follows
(CONDENSE '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5))
==
(calculate (mapcar #'condense '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5)))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 (condense '(3 1 1 1)) (condense '(2 3 (1 2))) 5))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 (calculate '(3 1 1 1))
(calculate (list 2 3 (calculate '(1 2)))) 5))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 6 (calculate '(2 3 3)) 5))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 6 8 5))
==
28
I.e. it'll proceed in left-to-right fashion instead of the from the deepest-nested level out. Imagining the nested list as a tree (which it is), this would "munch" on the tree from its deepest left corner up and to the right; the code with all-atoms check would proceed strictly by the levels up.
So the final simplified code is:
(defun condense (x)
(if (listp x)
(reduce #'+ (mapcar #'condense x))
(abs x)))
a remark: Looking at that last illustration of reduction sequence, a clear picture emerges - of replacing each node in the argument tree with a calculate application. That is a clear case of folding, just such that is done over a tree instead of a plain list, as reduce is.
This can be directly coded with what's known as "car-cdr recursion", replacing each cons cell with an application of a combining function f on two results of recursive calls into car and cdr components of the cell:
(defun condense (x) (reduce-tree x #'+ 0))
(defun reduce-tree (x f z)
(labels ((g (x)
(cond
((consp x) (funcall f (g (car x)) (g (cdr x))))
((numberp x) x)
((null x) z)
(T (error "not a number")))))
(g x)))
As you can see this version is highly recursive, which is not that good.
Is this homework? If so, please mark it as such. Some hints:
are you sure the 'condensation' of the empty list in nil? (maybe you should return a number?)
are you sure the condensation of one element is a list? (maybe you should return a number?)
are you sure the condensation of the last case is a list? (shouldn't you return a number)?
In short, how is your condense ever going to return 28 if all your returned values are lists?
Task: With nested lists, flatten the innermost lists first and work from there
sum
flatten lists
For sum use REDUCE, not APPLY.
For flatten lists you need a loop. Lisp already provides specialized mapping functions.
Slightly more advanced: both the sum and the flatten can be done by a call to REDUCE.
You can also write down the recursion without using a higher-order function like APPLY, REDUCE, ... That's a bit more work.
Here's added the explanation of the errors you were having, actually you were close to solving your problem, just a bit more effort and you would get it right.
; compiling (DEFUN CONDENSE ...)
; file: /tmp/file8dCll3
; in: DEFUN CONDENSE
; (T (APPEND (FLATTEN (APPLY #'+ (CDR LST)))))
;
; caught WARNING:
; The function T is undefined, and its name is reserved
; by ANSI CL so that even
; if it were defined later, the code doing so would not be portable.
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined function:
; T
; caught 1 WARNING condition
;STYLE-WARNING: redefining CONDENSE in DEFUN
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst)))
;.------- this is a function call, not a condition
;| (you closed the parens too early)
(t (append (flatten (apply #'+ (cdr lst))))))
;; Argument Y is not a NUMBER: (3 1 1 1)
;; [Condition of type SIMPLE-TYPE-ERROR]
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst)); .-- not a number!
;You are calling #'+ -------. |
;on something, which | '(3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5)
; is not a number. | |
(t (append (flatten (apply #'+ (cdr lst)))))))
;; You probably wanted to flatten first, and then sum
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil); .--- returns just the
((atom lst) (list lst)); / atom 28, you can
; .---------------------/ just remove it.
(t (append (apply #'+ (flatten lst))))))
;; Now, you are lucky that append would just return the
;; atom if it's not a list
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst))
(t (apply #'+ (flatten lst)))))
;; Again, you are lucky because (apply can take enough arguments
;; while your list is reasonably small - this will not always be
;; the case, that is why you need to use something more durable,
;; for example, reduce.
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst))
(t (reduce #'+ (flatten lst)))))
;; Whoa!
(condense '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5))
This is all given the flatten function actually works.
If your lisp already implements flatten and reduce functions (such as Clojure, which I will use here), you can just do something like:
user=> (defn condense [l] (reduce + 0 (flatten l)))
#'user/condense
user=> (condense [1 [2 [[3 4] 5]]])
15
user=>
Failing that, a naive implementation of those functions might be:
(defn flatten [l]
(cond (nil? l) l
(coll? l) (let [[h & t] l]
(concat (flatten h) (flatten t)))
true [l]))
and:
(defn reduce [op initial-value [h & t]]
(if (nil? t)
(op initial-value h)
(op initial-value (reduce op h t))))
But make sure to check the semantics of the particular Lisp you are using. Also, if you are implementing reduce and flatten, you may want to make them tail recursive which I didn't so as to maintain clarity.
In Common Lisp you would do something like:
(defun flatten (l)
(cond ((null l) l)
((atom l) (list l))
(t (append (flatten (car l))
(flatten (cdr l))))))
and use apply instead of reduce:
(defun condense (l) (apply #'+ (flatten l)))
Does someone know why the following produces the expected result - (2 4 6)
(defmacro mult2 (lst)
(define (itter x)
(list '* 2 x))
`(list ,#(map itter lst)))
(mult2 (1 2 3))
while I expected that this one would (with the list identifier)
(defmacro mult2 (lst)
(define (itter x)
(list '* 2 x))
`(list ,#(map itter lst)))
(mult2 '(1 2 3))
Macro "arguments" are not evaluated. So, when you pass in '(1 2 3), i.e., (quote (1 2 3)), that is exactly what the macro sees.
P.S. You are much better off using hygienic macros in Scheme. Here's an example using syntax-case:
(define-syntax mult2
(lambda (stx)
(define (double x)
#`(* 2 #,x))
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ lst)
#`(list #,#(map double (syntax-e #'lst)))))))
(That's still not how such a macro is idiomatically written, but I tried to mirror your version as closely as possible.)
That's because the '(1 2 3) is expanded by the reader into (quote (1 2 3)). Since you only destructure one list in your macro, it won't work as expected.
Some general advice: if you're working in Racket you probably want to avoid using defmacro. That is definitely not the idiomatic way to write macros. Take a look at syntax-rules and, if you want to define more complicated macros, syntax-parse. Eli also wrote an article explaining syntax-case for people used to defmacro.