I am new to Lisp-scheme and fairly new to the functional paradigm as a whole, and am currently doing an assignment which requires me to overload a function with the same name, but different sets of parameters in racket. Below is an example of what I'm trying to achieve:
#lang racket
(define (put-ball-in-box two-by-fours nails ball)
... )
(define (put-ball-in-box box ball)
... )
These are not the actual functions, but close enough. As implied, both functions would put a ball in a box, but one would assemble the box from its components first, then call the other. Obviously, when I try the above in DrRacket or using the command line, I get a module: duplicate definition for identifier ... error.
Is there a way to achieve this in racket?
Maybe the answer is right in front of me, but I have spent the last two hours searching for this and couldn't find anything, so would appreciate any pointers.
Thank you.
It doesn't in the usual sense of "writing another definition somewhere else."
It allows shadowing, which is defining a procedure with the same name as an imported procedure. Thus you can (define + ...) and your definition of + will hide the + from racket/base. If you want the original procedure, then you can do something like the following, where I define + to be either addition or string-appending.
#lang racket/base
(require (rename-in racket/base (+ base:+)))
(define (+ . args)
(if (andmap string? args)
(apply string-append args)
(apply base:+ args)))
Another thing you can do is use racket/match to have different behavior based on the shape of the argument.
#lang racket/base
(require racket/match)
(define (fib . arg)
(match arg
[(list n) (fib n 1 0)]
[(list 1 a b) a]
[(list 0 a b) b]
[(list n a b) (fib (sub1 n) (+ a b) a)]))
This second example still doesn't quite do what you want since you have to go to the original definition point and modify the match clauses. But it might be sufficient for your purposes.
A more complicated example would be to use custom syntax to create a define/overload form. But I think you'll find the racket/match solution to be best.
You have the concept of default values as in JS and PHP:
(define (fib n (a 0) (b 1))
(if (zero? n)
a
(fib (sub1 n) b (+ a b))))
(fib 10) ; ==> 55
Now if you had 5 optional parameters you need to order them and even pass some values just to be able to add a later one. To avoid that you can use keywords:
(define (test name #:nick [nick name] #:job [job "vacant"])
(list name nick job))
(test "sylwester" #:job "programmer")
; ==> ("sylwester" "sylwester" "programmer")
Now Racket has classes. You can call a method like (send object method args ...).
(define circle%
(class object%
(super-new)
(init-field radius)
(define/public (area)
(* radius radius 3.1415))))
(define cube%
(class object%
(super-new)
(init-field side)
(define/public (area)
(* side side))))
(define circle (new circle% [radius 7]))
(define cube (new cube% [side 7]))
(map
(lambda (o) (send o area))
(list circle cube))
; ==> (153.9335 49)
Notice that the two classes hasn't really commited to a joint interface with area so this is pure duck typing. Thus you can make a function that expects a class that implements a message and it doesn't need to worry about other aspects of the class at all.
Related
I am trying to define a class method like so:
#lang racket
(define foo% (class object%
(super-new)
(define/public plus-one (curry + 1))))
But this code produces the following error:
eval:2:0: class: bad form for method definition
According to the Racket documentation, it should be possible to define a method using the syntax (define/public id expr), so I don't understand why this isn't working.
There is an easy workaround by using the (define/public (id . formals) body ...+) syntax, of course, but I would like to understand why the current code isn't accepted.
In the documentation for class*, see the nonterminals named method-definition and method-procedure. They describe the constraints on a legal method definition. A paragraph later in the class docs says that each private, public, etc declaration must correspond to a method-definition. So it isn't a bug, it's the intended behavior.
The reason behind the behavior, by the way, is that Racket's class macro implements methods by rewriting the method's lambda (or case-lambda) expression(s) to add an implicit argument for this. The same argument is also implicitly used to access the object's public and private fields. Restricting method definitions to certain shapes makes it possible to find the right lambda expressions to adjust.
Here's one way of rewriting your example:
#lang racket
(define do-plus-one (curry + 1))
(define foo% (class object%
(super-new)
(define/public (plus-one n) (do-plus-one n)))
This has the following nice properties: do-plus-one is computed only once, and it doesn't take a field slot in each foo% object.
It might be a bug. Imagine we have the usuall way:
(define/public (plus-one n) (+ 1 n))
The define way with name and arguments in parentheses are sugar for a id and lambda and that works:
(define/public plus-one (lambda (n) (+ 1 n)))
I'm getting that (curry + 1) returns a similar lambda and that that object should be working, but it isn't.
The whole point with a class method is using the private fields from the object and none of them do that, however only curry version makes it obvious that it will not be able to since the resulting procedure won't be having the scope of the object.
If you imagined we used a private variable for the increment you couldn't use curry since it would cache it. eg. you can't replicate this:
(define increaser%
(class object%
(init inc)
(define increment inc)
(super-new)
(define/public (set-inc inc)
(set! increment inc))
(define/public (increase n)
(+ increment n))))
(define test (new increaser% [inc 2]))
(send test increase 1) ; ==> 3
(send test set-inc 3)
(send test increase 1) ; ==> 4
(define test2 (new increaser% [inc 21]))
(define value 13)
(map (lambda (obj) (send obj increase value)) (list test test2))
; ==> (16 34)
In Section 12.4 of On Lisp, Paul Graham writes, "Unfortunately, we can't define a correct _f with define-modify-macro, because the operator to be applied to the generalized variable is given as an argument."
But what's wrong with something like this?
(define-modify-macro _f (op operand)
(lambda (x op operand)
(funcall op x operand)))
(let ((lst '(1 2 3)))
(_f (second lst) #'* 6)
lst)
=> (1 12 3)
Has there perhaps been a change made to define-modify-macro in ANSI Common Lisp that wasn't valid at the time On Lisp was written? Or are there reasons other than the one stated for not using define-modify-macro here?
It appears that Graham want's to be able to make a call such as
(_f * (second lst) 6)
rather than
(_f #'* (second lst) 6)
But surely that's not in keeping with a Lisp2 such as Common Lisp?
According to both Lispworks's Hyperspec and CLtL2 (look for define-modify-macro), the function is assumed to be a symbol (to a function or a macro). As far as I know, the following definition might not be conforming the specification:
(define-modify-macro _f (op operand)
(lambda (x op operand)
(funcall op x operand)))
But of course, it is possible that an implementation allows it.
To be sure you are conforming to the standard, you can define your own function, or even a macro:
(defmacro funcall-1 (val fun &rest args)
`(funcall ,fun ,val ,#args))
(define-modify-macro _ff (&rest args) funcall-1)
(let ((x (list 1 2 3 4)))
(_ff (third x) #'+ 10)
x)
If you wanted to have the function as a second argument, you could define another macro:
(defmacro ff (fun-form place &rest args)
`(_ff ,place ,fun-form ,#args))
Basically, your approach consists in wrapping funcall in define-modify-macro, and give the desired function as an argument of that function. At first sight, it looks like a hack, but as we can see below, this gives the same macroexanded code as the one in On Lisp, assuming we modify the latter a little.
The macroexpansion of the above is:
(LET ((X (LIST 1 2 3 4)))
(LET* ((#:G1164 X) (#:G1165 (FUNCALL #'+ (THIRD #:G1164) 10)))
(SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA (CDDR #:G1164) #:G1165))
X)
The version in On Lisp behaves as follows:
(defmacro _f (op place &rest args)
(multiple-value-bind (vars forms var set access)
(get-setf-expansion
place)
`(let* (,#(mapcar #'list vars forms)
(, (car var) (,op ,access ,#args)))
,set)))
(let ((x (list 1 2 3 4)))
(_f * (third x) 10)
x)
Macroexpansion:
(LET ((X (LIST 1 2 3 4)))
(LET* ((#:G1174 X) (#:G1175 (* (THIRD #:G1174) 10)))
(SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA (CDDR #:G1174) #:G1175))
X)
Here, the * is injected directly by the macroexpansion, which means that the resulting code has no possible runtime overhead (though compilers would probably handle your (funcall #'+ ...) equally well). If you pass #'+ to the macro, it fails to macroexpand. This is the major difference with your approach, but not a big limitation. In order to allow the On Lisp version to accept #'*, or even (create-closure) as an operator, it should be modified as follows:
(defmacro _f (op place &rest args)
(multiple-value-bind (vars forms var set access)
(get-setf-expansion
place)
`(let* (,#(mapcar #'list vars forms)
(, (car var) (funcall ,op ,access ,#args)))
,set)))
(see the call to funcall)
The previous example is then expanded as follows, for #'*:
(LET ((X (LIST 1 2 3 4)))
(LET* ((#:G1180 X) (#:G1181 (FUNCALL #'* (THIRD #:G1180) 10)))
(SB-KERNEL:%RPLACA (CDDR #:G1180) #:G1181))
X)
Now, it is exactly as your version. On Lisp uses _f to demonstrate how to use get-setf-expansion, and _f is a good example for that. But on the other hand, your implementation seems equally good.
On the question of whether one might prefer to pass * or #'*, we can also note that the define-modify-macro version of _f and #coredump's adapted version (with funcall) both accept lambda forms in the op position with or without #' e.g. both (lambda (x y) (* x y)) and #'(lambda (x y) (* x y)), whereas Graham's original version accepts only the former.
Interestingly in his book Let over Lambda, Doug Hoyte draws attention to a remark by Graham in his book ANSI Common Lisp that being able to omit the #' before a lambda form provides "a specious form of elegance at best" before going on to prefer to omit it.
I'm not taking a stand either way, merely pointing out that given Graham's choice for _f, the absence of the #' is no longer specious but necessary.
I am not very good in Lisp and I need to do a function which allows evaluating of infix expressions. For example: (+ 2 3) -> (infixFunc 2 + 3). I tried some variants, but none of them was successful.
One of them:
(defun calcPrefInf (a b c)
(funcall b a c))
OK, let's do it just for fun. First, let's define order of precedence for operations, since when one deals with infix notation, it's necessary.
(defvar *infix-precedence* '(* / - +))
Very good. Now imagine that we have a function to-prefix that will convert infix notation to polish prefix notation so Lisp can deal with it and calculate something after all.
Let's write simple reader-macro to wrap our calls of to-prefix, for aesthetic reasons:
(set-dispatch-macro-character
#\# #\i (lambda (stream subchar arg)
(declare (ignore sub-char arg))
(car (reduce #'to-prefix
*infix-precedence*
:initial-value (read stream t nil t)))))
Now, let's write a very simple function to-prefix that will convert infix notation to prefix notation in given list for given symbol.
(defun to-prefix (lst symb)
(let ((pos (position symb lst)))
(if pos
(let ((e (subseq lst (1- pos) (+ pos 2))))
(to-prefix (rsubseq `((,(cadr e) ,(car e) ,(caddr e)))
e
lst)
symb))
lst)))
Good, good. Function rsubseq may be defined as:
(defun rsubseq (new old where &key key (test #'eql))
(labels ((r-list (rest)
(let ((it (search old rest :key key :test test)))
(if it
(append (remove-if (constantly t)
rest
:start it)
new
(r-list (nthcdr (+ it (length old))
rest)))
rest))))
(r-list where)))
Now it's time to try it!
CL-USER> #i(2 + 3 * 5)
17
CL-USER> #i(15 * 3 / 5 + 10)
19
CL-USER> #i(2 * 4 + 7 / 3)
31/3
CL-USER> #i(#i(15 + 2) * #i(1 + 1))
34
etc.
If you want it to work for composite expressions like (2 + 3 * 5 / 2.4), it's better to convert it into proper prefix expression, then evaluate it. You can find some good example of code to do such convetion here: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/code/logic/algorithms/infix.lisp or in Piter Norvigs "Paradigs of Artificial Intelligence Programming" book. Code examples here: http://www.norvig.com/paip/macsyma.lisp
It's reall too long, to be posted in the aswer.
A different approach for "evaluating infix expressions" would be to enable infix reading directly in the Common Lisp reader using the "readable" library, and then have users use the notation. Then implement a traditional Lisp evaluator (or just evaluate directly, if you trust the user).
Assuming you have QuickLisp enabled, use:
(ql:quickload "readable")
(readable:enable-basic-curly)
Now users can enter any infix expression as {a op b op c ...}, which readable automatically maps to "(op a b c ...)". For example, if users enter:
{2 + 3}
the reader will return (+ 2 3). Now you can use:
(eval (read))
Obviously, don't use "eval" if the user might be malicious. In that case, implement a function that evaluates the values the way you want them to.
Tutorial here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/readable/wiki/Common-lisp-tutorial/
Assuming that you're using a lisp2 dialect, you need to make sure you're looking up the function you want to use in the function namespace (by using #'f of (function f). Otherwise it's being looked up in the variable namespace and cannot be used in funcall.
So having the definition:
(defun calcPrefInf (a b c)
(funcall b a c))
You can use it as:
(calcPrefInf 2 #'+ 3)
You can try http://www.cliki.net/infix.
(nfx 1 + (- x 100)) ;it's valid!
(nfx 1 + (- x (3 * 3))) ;it's ALSO valid!
(nfx 1 + (- x 3 * 3)) ;err... this can give you unexpected behavior
Is it possible to use/implement tacit programming (also known as point-free programming) in Lisp? And in case the answer is yes, has it been done?
This style of programming is possible in CL in principle, but, being a Lisp-2, one has to add several #'s and funcalls. Also, in contrast to Haskell for example, functions are not curried in CL, and there is no implicit partial application. In general, I think that such a style would not be very idiomatic CL.
For example, you could define partial application and composition like this:
(defun partial (function &rest args)
(lambda (&rest args2) (apply function (append args args2))))
(defun comp (&rest functions)
(flet ((step (f g) (lambda (x) (funcall f (funcall g x)))))
(reduce #'step functions :initial-value #'identity)))
(Those are just quick examples I whipped up – they are not really tested or well thought-through for different use-cases.)
With those, something like map ((*2) . (+1)) xs in Haskell becomes:
CL-USER> (mapcar (comp (partial #'* 2) #'1+) '(1 2 3))
(4 6 8)
The sum example:
CL-USER> (defparameter *sum* (partial #'reduce #'+))
*SUM*
CL-USER> (funcall *sum* '(1 2 3))
6
(In this example, you could also set the function cell of a symbol instead of storing the function in the value cell, in order to get around the funcall.)
In Emacs Lisp, by the way, partial application is built-in as apply-partially.
In Qi/Shen, functions are curried, and implicit partial application (when functions are called with one argument) is supported:
(41-) (define comp F G -> (/. X (F (G X))))
comp
(42-) ((comp (* 2) (+ 1)) 1)
4
(43-) (map (comp (* 2) (+ 1)) [1 2 3])
[4 6 8]
There is also syntactic threading sugar in Clojure that gives a similar feeling of "pipelining":
user=> (-> 0 inc (* 2))
2
You could use something like (this is does a little more than -> in
Clojure):
(defmacro -> (obj &rest forms)
"Similar to the -> macro from clojure, but with a tweak: if there is
a $ symbol somewhere in the form, the object is not added as the
first argument to the form, but instead replaces the $ symbol."
(if forms
(if (consp (car forms))
(let* ((first-form (first forms))
(other-forms (rest forms))
(pos (position '$ first-form)))
(if pos
`(-> ,(append (subseq first-form 0 pos)
(list obj)
(subseq first-form (1+ pos)))
,#other-forms)
`(-> ,(list* (first first-form) obj (rest first-form))
,#other-forms)))
`(-> ,(list (car forms) obj)
,#(cdr forms)))
obj))
(you must be careful to also export the symbol $ from the package in
which you place -> - let's call that package tacit - and put
tacit in the use clause of any package where you plan to use ->, so -> and $ are inherited)
Examples of usage:
(-> "TEST"
string-downcase
reverse)
(-> "TEST"
reverse
(elt $ 1))
This is more like F#'s |> (and the shell pipe) than Haskell's ., but they
are pretty much the same thing (I prefer |>, but this is a matter of personal taste).
To see what -> is doing, just macroexpand the last example three times (in SLIME, this is accomplished by putting the cursor on the first ( in the example and typing C-c RET three times).
YES, it's possible and #danlei already explained very well. I am going to add up some examples from the book ANSI Common Lisp by Paul Graham, chapter 6.6 on function builders:
you can define a function builder like this:
(defun compose (&rest fns)
(destructuring-bind (fn1 . rest) (reverse fns)
#'(lambda (&rest args)
(reduce #'(lambda (v f) (funcall f v))
rest
:initial-value (apply fn1 args)))))
(defun curry (fn &rest args)
#'(lambda (&rest args2)
(apply fn (append args args2))))
and use it like this
(mapcar (compose #'list #'round #'sqrt)
'(4 9 16 25))
returns
((2) (3) (4) (5))
The compose function call:
(compose #'a #'b #'c)
is equlvalent to
#'(lambda (&rest args) (a (b (apply #'c args))))
This means compose can take any number of arguments, yeah.
Make a function which add 3 to argument:
(curry #'+ 3)
See more in the book.
Yes, this is possible in general with the right functions. For example, here is an example in Racket implementing sum from the Wikipedia page:
#lang racket
(define sum (curry foldr + 0))
Since procedures are not curried by default, it helps to use curry or write your functions in an explicitly curried style. You could abstract over this with a new define macro that uses currying.
I'm currently working on a LISP exercise for a small project and need severe help. This may be more or less of a beginner's question but I'm absolutely lost on writing a certain function that takes in two unevaluated functions and spits out the result dependent on if the variables were given an assignment or not.
An example would be
(setq p1 '(+ x (* x (- y (/ z 2)))))
Where
(evalexp p1 '( (x 2) (z 8) ))
returns (+ 2 (* 2 (- y 4)))
My goal is to write the evalexp function but I can't even think of where to start.
So far I have
(defun evalexp (e b) )
.. not very much. If anyone could please help or lead me in a good direction I'd be more than appreciative.
Here's a full solution. It's pretty straightforward, so I'll leave out a full explanation. Ask me in the comments if there's anything you can't figure out yourself.
(Using eval to do the actual evaluation might not be what you want in your exercise/project. Look up "meta-circular interpreter" for another way.)
(defun apply-env (exp env)
(reduce (lambda (exp bdg) (subst (cadr bdg) (car bdg) exp))
env :initial-value exp))
(defun try-eval (exp)
(if (atom exp)
exp
(let ((exp (mapcar #'try-eval exp)))
(if (every #'numberp (cdr exp))
(eval exp)
exp))))
(defun evalexp (exp env)
(try-eval (apply-env exp env)))
Here's a hint, this is how you might do it (in pseudocode):
function replace(vars, list):
for each element of list:
if it's an atom:
if there's an association in vars:
replace atom with value in vars
else:
leave atom alone
else:
recursively apply replace to the sublist
There will certainly be some details to work out as you convert this to Lisp code.