I'm trying to write some macros for constraint programming on integers and specifically I'm trying to expand
(int-constr (x y z)
(< 10
(+
(* x 4)
(* y 5)
(* z 6)))
(> 10
(+
(* x 1)
(* y 2)
(* z 3))))
into
(let ((x (in-between 0 1))
(y (in-between 0 1))
(z (in-between 0 1)))
(assert
(and (< 10
(+
(* x 4)
(* y 5)
(* z 6)))
(> 10
(+
(* x 1)
(* y 2)
(* z 3)))))
(list x y z))
When using syntax-rules recursively, I can create nested let at the beginning, but I think I lose the possibility of calling the list of arguments at the end. Is there any way to do it?
Even just sticking to syntax-rules, this macro is easy to write by using ellipses. Here’s an implementation of the behavior you describe:
(define-syntax int-constr
(syntax-rules ()
((_ (x ...) constr ...)
(let ((x (in-between 0 1)) ...)
(assert (and constr ...))
(list x ...)))))
Since ellipses can be used to repeat forms containing pattern variables, not just repeat plain pattern variables on their own, this macro is quite declarative, and it’s both simple to read and write.
Related
I would like to write a macro to create shorthand syntax for hiding more verbose lambda expressions, but I'm struggling to understand how to write macros (which I realize is an argument against using them).
Given this example:
(define alist-example
'((x 1 2 3) (y 4 5 6) (z 7 8 9)))
(define ($ alist name)
(cdr (assoc name alist)))
((lambda (a) (map (lambda (x y z) (+ x y z)) ($ a 'x) ($ a 'y) ($ a 'z))) alist-example)
((lambda (a) (map (lambda (y) (/ y (apply max ($ a 'y)))) ($ a 'y))) alist-example)
I would like to write a macro, with-alist, that would allow me to write the last two expressions similar to this:
(with-alist alist-example (+ x y z))
(with-alist alist-example (/ y (apply max y)))
Any advice or suggestions?
Here is a syntax-rules solution based on the feedback that I received in the other answer and comments:
(define ($ alist name)
(cdr (assoc name alist)))
(define-syntax with-alist
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ alist names expr)
(let ([alist-local alist])
(apply map (lambda names expr)
(map (lambda (name) ($ alist-local name)) (quote names))))]))
Here is some example usage:
> (define alist-example
'((x 1 2 3) (y 4 5 6) (z 7 8 9)))
> (with-alist alist-example (x) (+ x 2))
(3 4 5)
> (with-alist alist-example (x y) (+ x y))
(5 7 9)
> (with-alist alist-example (x y z) (+ x y z))
(12 15 18)
This answer stops short of solving the more complicated example, (with-alist alist-example (/ y (apply max y))), in my question, but I think this is a reasonable approach for my purposes:
> (with-alist alist-example (y) (/ y (apply max ($ alist-example 'y))))
(2/3 5/6 1)
EDIT: After some additional tinkering, I arrived at a slightly different solution that I think will provide more flexibility.
My new macro, npl, expands shorthand expressions into a list of names and procedures.
(define-syntax npl
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ (names expr) ...)
(list
(list (quote names) ...)
(list (lambda names expr) ...))]))
The output of this macro is passed to a regular procedure, with-list-map, that contains most the core functionality in the with-alist macro above.
(define (with-alist-map alist names-proc-list)
(let ([names-list (car names-proc-list)]
[proc-list (cadr names-proc-list)])
(map (lambda (names proc)
(apply map proc
(map (lambda (name) ($ alist name)) names)))
names-list proc-list)))
The 3 examples of with-alist usage above can be captured in a single call to with-alist-map.
> (with-alist-map alist-example
(npl ((x) (+ x 2))
((x y) (+ x y))
((x y z) (+ x y z))))
((3 4 5) (5 7 9) (12 15 18))
The immediate problem I see is that there is no way to tell which bindings to pick. Eg. is apply one of the elements in the alist or is it a global variable? That depends. I suggest you do:
(with-alist ((x y z) '((x 1 2 3) (y 4 5 6) (z 7 8 9)))
(+ x y z))
(let ((z 10))
(with-alist ((x y) alist-example)
(+ x y z)))
And that it should translate to:
(let ((tmp '((x 1 2 3) (y 4 5 6) (z 7 8 9))))
(apply map (lambda (x y z) (+ x y z))
(map (lambda (name) ($ tmp name)) '(x y z))))
(let ((z 10))
(let ((tmp alist-example))
(apply map (lambda (x y) (+ x y z))
(map (lambda (name) ($ tmp name)) '(x y)))))
This is then straight forward to do with syntax-rules. Eg. make a pattern and write the replacement. Good luck.
In the following code how can i have the x and y variables to reflect the expressions given at macro call time?
(defmacro defrule (init-form &rest replication-patterns)
(let (rule-table)
`(destructuring-bind (p x y) ',init-form
#'(lambda (w h) (list x y)))))
When expanding a call like:
(defrule (70 (* 1/2 w) (+ h 3)))
it returns:
(DESTRUCTURING-BIND (P X Y) '(70 (* 1/2 W) (+ H 3))
#'(LAMBDA (W H) (LIST X Y)))
where the original expressions with W and H references are lost. I tried back-quoting the lambda function creation:
(defmacro defrule (init-form &rest replication-patterns)
(let (rule-table)
`(destructuring-bind (p x y) ',init-form
`#'(lambda (w h) (list ,x ,y)))))
But a same call:
(defrule (70 (* 1/2 w) (+ h 3)))
expands to:
(DESTRUCTURING-BIND
(P X Y)
'(70 (* 1/2 W) (+ H 3))
`#'(LAMBDA (W H) (LIST ,X ,Y)))
which returns a CONS:
#'(LAMBDA (W H) (LIST (* 1/2 W) (+ H 3)))
which can not be used by funcall and passed around like a function object easily. How can i return a function object with expressions i pass in as arguments for the x y part of the init-form with possible W H references being visible by the closure function?
You're getting a cons because you have the backquotes nested.
You don't need backquote around destructuring-bind, because you're destructuring at macro expansion time, and you can do the destructuring directly in the macro lambda list.
(defmacro defrule ((p x y) &rest replication-patterns)
(let (rule-table)
`#'(lambda (w h) (list ,x ,y))))
Looking at your code:
(defmacro defrule (init-form &rest replication-patterns)
(let (rule-table)
`(destructuring-bind (p x y) ',init-form
#'(lambda (w h) (list x y)))))
You want a macro, which expands into code, which then at runtime takes code and returns a closure?
That's probably not a good idea.
Keep in mind: it's the macro, which should manipulate code at macro-expansion time. At runtime, the code should be fixed. See Barmar's explanation how to improve your code.
I need to write procedure for calculation of weighted sum in follow functionality:
((weighted-sum 1) 5)
5
((weighted-sum 1/2 1/2) 3 1)
2
etc..
So far I did only how to get parameters for procedure:
(define (weighted-sum x . xn) (cons x xs))
(weighted-sum 2 3)
> '(2 3)
How to get ((weighted-sum 2 3) X X) parameters?
Thank you.
Your question doesn't have one easy answer. It sounds like you're supposed to write a function that accepts a sequence of weights, and returns a function that accepts a sequence of weights, and sums the products of the weights and the sums (by the way, stating this yourself would have been really helpful...).
1) Is this your design, or someone else's? I would not design this function this way.
2) You can write functions that return functions in a bunch of different ways. E.g.:
;; these all do the same thing.
;; they all have the type (number -> (number -> number))
(define a (lambda (x) (lambda (y) (+ x y))))
(define ((a x) y) (+ x y))
(define (a x)
(define (b y) (+ x y))
b)
So weighted-sum takes a variable number of values as parameters (let's call them ws) , and returns a new procedures that, in its turn, takes a variable number of parameters (vs) and does the calculation.
In racket, the for/fold construct comes in handy:
(define (weighted-sum . ws)
(lambda vs
(for/fold ((res 0)) ((i (in-list ws))
(j (in-list vs)))
(+ res (* i j)))))
or even
(define ((weighted-sum . ws) . vs)
(for/fold ((res 0)) ((i (in-list ws))
(j (in-list vs)))
(+ res (* i j))))
Alternatively, using a more classic foldl returning a named inner procedure:
(define (weighted-sum . ws)
(define (sub . vs)
(foldl
(lambda (i j res) (+ res (* i j)))
0
ws
vs))
sub)
For any of those:
> ((weighted-sum 1) 5)
5
> ((weighted-sum 1/2 1/2) 3 1)
2
Question:
((lambda (x y) (x y)) (lambda (x) (* x x)) (* 3 3))
This was #1 on the midterm, I put "81 9" he thought I forgot to cross one out lawl, so I cross out 81, and he goes aww. Anyways, I dont understand why it's 81.
I understand why (lambda (x) (* x x)) (* 3 3) = 81, but the first lambda I dont understand what the x and y values are there, and what the [body] (x y) does.
So I was hoping someone could explain to me why the first part doesn't seem like it does anything.
This needs some indentation to clarify
((lambda (x y) (x y))
(lambda (x) (* x x))
(* 3 3))
(lambda (x y) (x y)); call x with y as only parameter.
(lambda (x) (* x x)); evaluate to the square of its parameter.
(* 3 3); evaluate to 9
So the whole thing means: "call the square function with the 9 as parameter".
EDIT: The same thing could be written as
((lambda (x) (* x x))
(* 3 3))
I guess the intent of the exercise is to highlight how evaluating a scheme form involves an implicit function application.
Let's look at this again...
((lambda (x y) (x y)) (lambda (x) (* x x)) (* 3 3))
To evaluate a form we evaluate each part of it in turn. We have three elements in our form. This one is on the first (function) position:
(lambda (x y) (x y))
This is a second element of a form and a first argument to the function:
(lambda (x) (* x x))
Last element of the form, so a second argument to the function.
(* 3 3)
Order of evaluation doesn't matter in this case, so let's just start from the left.
(lambda (x y) (x y))
Lambda creates a function, so this evaluates to a function that takes two arguments, x and y, and then applies x to y (in other words, calls x with a single argument y). Let's call this call-1.
(lambda (x) (* x x))
This evaluates to a function that takes a single argument and returns a square of this argument. So we can just call this square.
(* 3 3)
This obviously evaluates to 9.
OK, so after this first run of evaluation we have:
(call-1 square 9)
To evaluate this, we call call-1 with two arguments, square and 9. Applying call-1 gives us:
(square 9)
Since that's what call-1 does - it calls its first argument with its second argument. Now, square of 9 is 81, which is the value of the whole expression.
Perhaps translating that code to Common Lisp helps clarify its behaviour:
((lambda (x y) (funcall x y)) (lambda (x) (* x x)) (* 3 3))
Or even more explicitly:
(funcall (lambda (x y) (funcall x y))
(lambda (x) (* x x))
(* 3 3))
Indeed, that first lambda doesn't do anything useful, since it boils down to:
(funcall (lambda (x) (* x x)) (* 3 3))
which equals
(let ((x (* 3 3)))
(* x x))
equals
(let ((x 9))
(* x x))
equals
(* 9 9)
equals 81.
The answers posted so far are good, so rather than duplicating what they already said, perhaps here is another way you could look at the program:
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (call-with arg fun) (fun arg))
(call-with (* 3 3) square)
Does it still look strange?
(define (repeated f n)
if (= n 0)
f
((compose repeated f) (lambda (x) (- n 1))))
I wrote this function, but how would I express this more clearly, using simple recursion with repeated?
I'm sorry, I forgot to define my compose function.
(define (compose f g) (lambda (x) (f (g x))))
And the function takes as inputs a procedure that computes f and a positive integer n and returns the procedure that computes the nth repeated application of f.
I'm assuming that (repeated f 3) should return a function g(x)=f(f(f(x))). If that's not what you want, please clarify. Anyways, that definition of repeated can be written as follows:
(define (repeated f n)
(lambda (x)
(if (= n 0)
x
((repeated f (- n 1)) (f x)))))
(define (square x)
(* x x))
(define y (repeated square 3))
(y 2) ; returns 256, which is (square (square (square 2)))
(define (repeated f n)
(lambda (x)
(let recur ((x x) (n n))
(if (= n 0)
args
(recur (f x) (sub1 n))))))
Write the function the way you normally would, except that the arguments are passed in two stages. It might be even clearer to define repeated this way:
(define repeated (lambda (f n) (lambda (x)
(define (recur x n)
(if (= n 0)
x
(recur (f x) (sub1 n))))
(recur x n))))
You don't have to use a 'let-loop' this way, and the lambdas make it obvious that you expect your arguments in two stages.
(Note:recur is not built in to Scheme as it is in Clojure, I just like the name)
> (define foonly (repeat sub1 10))
> (foonly 11)
1
> (foonly 9)
-1
The cool functional feature you want here is currying, not composition. Here's the Haskell with implicit currying:
repeated _ 0 x = x
repeated f n x = repeated f (pred n) (f x)
I hope this isn't a homework problem.
What is your function trying to do, just out of curiosity? Is it to run f, n times? If so, you can do this.
(define (repeated f n)
(for-each (lambda (i) (f)) (iota n)))