can any body help me to write the common lisp code? as following:
create a find first predicate list function to return the first element which is satisfying the condition has been given in the list or nil if no element can be satisfied.
(find-first #'oddp '(1 2 3)) returns 1.
(find-first #'characterp '(1 2 3 4 5 6 #\a))
Recursively:
(defun find-first (fn ls)
(cond ((null ls) nil)
((funcall fn (car ls)) (car ls))
(t (find-first fn (cdr ls)))))
Iteratively using the loop macro:
(defun find-first (fn ls)
(loop for item in ls
if (funcall fn item)
return item))
By mapping:
mapc is explicitly used for its side effects.
(defun find-first (fn ls)
(mapc (lambda (item)
(if (funcall fn item)
(return-from find-first item)))
ls))
Functionally:
(defun find-first (fn ls)
(car (remove-if-not fn ls)))
And finally; quite directly. Using the CL standard function find-if:
find-first is effectively just an alias of find-if.
(defun find-first (fn ls)
(find-if fn ls))
(defun find-first (f l)
(if l
(if (funcall f (car l))
(car l)
(find-first f (cdr l)))))
Related
I have problem with macros in my lisp interpreter writtein in JavaScript. the problem is in this code:
(define log (. console "log"))
(define (alist->object alist)
"(alist->object alist)
Function convert alist pairs to JavaScript object."
(if (pair? alist)
((. alist "toObject"))))
(define (klist->alist klist)
"(klist->alist klist)
Function convert klist in form (:foo 10 :bar 20) into alist
in form ((foo . 10) (bar . 20))."
(let iter ((klist klist) (result '()))
(if (null? klist)
result
(if (and (pair? klist) (pair? (cdr klist)) (key? (car klist)))
(begin
(log ":::" (cadr klist))
(log "data" (. (cadr klist) "data"))
(iter (cddr klist) (cons (cons (key->string (car klist)) (cadr klist)) result)))))))
(define (make-empty-object)
(alist->object '()))
(define empty-object (make-empty-object))
(define klist->object (pipe klist->alist alist->object))
;; main function that give problems
(define (make-tags expr)
(log "make-tags" expr)
`(h ,(key->string (car expr))
,(klist->object (cadr expr))
,(if (not (null? (cddr expr)))
(if (and (pair? (caddr expr)) (let ((s (caaddr expr))) (and (symbol? s) (eq? s 'list))))
`(list->array (list ,#(map make-tags (cdaddr expr))))
(caddr expr)))))
(define-macro (with-tags expr)
(make-tags expr))
I call this macro using this code:
(define (view state actions)
(with-tags (:div ()
(list (:h1 () (value (cdr (assoc 'count (. state "counter")))))
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (--> actions (down 1)))) "-")
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (--> actions (up 1)))) "+")))))
which should expand to almost the same code:
(define (view state actions)
(h "div" (make-empty-object)
(list->array (list
(h "h1" (make-empty-object) (value (cdr (assoc 'count (. state "counter")))))
(h "button" (klist->object `(:onclick ,(lambda () (--> actions (down 1))))) "-")
(h "button" (klist->object `(:onclick ,(lambda () (--> actions (up 1))))) "+")))))
This function works. I have problem with expanded code using my macro that call the main function, don't know how LIPS should behave when it find:
(:onclick (lambda () (--> actions (down 1))))
inside code and you try to process it like this:
,(klist->object (cadr expr))
Right now my lisp works that lambda is marked as data (have data flag set to true this is a hack to prevent of recursive evaluation of some code from macros) and klist->object function get lambda code as list, instead of function.
How this should work in Scheme or Common Lisp? Should klist->object get function object (lambda get evaluated) or list structure with lambda as first symbol? If second then how I sould write my function and macro to evaluate lambda should I use eval (kind of hack to me).
Sorry don't know how to test this, with more bug free LISP.
EDIT:
I've tried to apply the hint from #jkiiski in guile (because in my lisp it was not working)
;; -*- sheme -*-
(define nil '())
(define (key? symbol)
"(key? symbol)
Function check if symbol is key symbol, have colon as first character."
(and (symbol? symbol) (eq? ":" (substring (symbol->string symbol) 0 1))))
(define (key->string symbol)
"(key->string symbol)
If symbol is key it convert that to string - remove colon."
(if (key? symbol)
(substring (symbol->string symbol) 1)))
(define (pair-map fn seq-list)
"(seq-map fn list)
Function call fn argument for pairs in a list and return combined list with
values returned from function fn. It work like the map but take two items from list"
(let iter ((seq-list seq-list) (result '()))
(if (null? seq-list)
result
(if (and (pair? seq-list) (pair? (cdr seq-list)))
(let* ((first (car seq-list))
(second (cadr seq-list))
(value (fn first second)))
(if (null? value)
(iter (cddr seq-list) result)
(iter (cddr seq-list) (cons value result))))))))
(define (klist->alist klist)
"(klist->alist klist)
Function convert klist in form (:foo 10 :bar 20) into alist
in form ((foo . 10) (bar . 20))."
(pair-map (lambda (first second)
(if (key? first)
(cons (key->string first) second))) klist))
(define (h props . rest)
(display props)
(display rest)
(cons (cons 'props props) (cons (cons 'rest rest) nil)))
(define (make-tags expr)
`(h ,(key->string (car expr))
(klist->alist (list ,#(cadr expr)))
,(if (not (null? (cddr expr)))
(if (and (pair? (caddr expr)) (let ((s (caaddr expr))) (and (symbol? s) (eq? s 'list))))
`(list->array (list ,#(map make-tags (cdaddr expr))))
(caddr expr)))))
(define-macro (with-tags expr)
(make-tags expr))
(define state '((count . 10)))
(define xxx (with-tags (:div ()
(list (:h1 () (cdr (assoc 'count state)))
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (display "down"))) "-")
(:button (:onclick (lambda () (display "up"))) "+")))))
but got error:
ERROR: Unbound variable: :onclick
I've found solution for my lisp, Here is code:
(define (pair-map fn seq-list)
"(seq-map fn list)
Function call fn argument for pairs in a list and return combined list with
values returned from function fn. It work like the map but take two items from list"
(let iter ((seq-list seq-list) (result '()))
(if (null? seq-list)
result
(if (and (pair? seq-list) (pair? (cdr seq-list)))
(let* ((first (car seq-list))
(second (cadr seq-list))
(value (fn first second)))
(if (null? value)
(iter (cddr seq-list) result)
(iter (cddr seq-list) (cons value result))))))))
(define (make-tags expr)
(log "make-tags" expr)
`(h ,(key->string (car expr))
(alist->object (quasiquote
;; create alist with unquote for values and keys as strings
,#(pair-map (lambda (car cdr)
(cons (cons (key->string car) (list 'unquote cdr))))
(cadr expr))))
,(if (not (null? (cddr expr)))
(if (and (pair? (caddr expr)) (let ((s (caaddr expr))) (and (symbol? s) (eq? s 'list))))
`(list->array (list ,#(map make-tags (cdaddr expr))))
(caddr expr)))))
So in my code I'm writing some kind of meta macro I'm writing quasiquote as list that will get evaluated the same as if I use in my original code:
(klist->object `(:onclick ,(lambda () (--> actions (down 1)))))
I'm using alist->object and new function pair-map, so I can unquote the value and convert key symbol to string.
is this how it should be implemented in scheme? not sure If I need to fix my lisp or macros are working correctly there.
So for a college assignment we've been asked to work with macros and I'm finding it hard to understand how to implement code in scheme (we went from reversing a string to building an interpreter in one lecture).
(define macro-alist
`((and ,(λ (e)
(let ((forms (cdr e)))
(cond ((null? forms) '#t)
((null? (cdr forms)) (car forms))
(else `(if ,(car forms) (and ,#(cdr forms)) #f))))))
;(or ,error)
;(let ,error)
;(cond ,error)
(if ,(λ (e) (let ((guard (cadr e))
(then-part (caddr e))
(else-part (cadddr e)))
`((%if ,guard (λ () ,then-part) (λ () ,else-part))))))
))
We were asked to 'fill in the error holds in macro-alist' for the weekend and I'm finding it difficult.
I found some resources and combining them with my own brief knowledge I have :
`((or ,(lambda (e)
(and (list-strictly-longer-than? e 0)
(equal? (list-ref e 0) 'or)
(letrec ([visit (lambda (i)
(if(null? i)
#t
(and (is-exression? (car i))
(visit (cdr i)))))])
(visit (cdr e)))))))
`((let ,(lambda (e)
(and (proper-list-of-given-length? e 3)
(equal? (car e) 'let)
(list? (cadr e))
(is-expression? (list-ref e 2))
(lectrec ([visit (trace-lambda visit (i a)
(if(null? i)
#t
(and (proper-list-of-given-length? (car i) 2)
(is-identifier? (caar i))
(is-expression? (cadar i))
(not (member (caar i) a))
(visit (cdr i) (cons (caar i) a)))))])
(visit (cadr e) '()))))))
`((cond ,(lambda (e)
(and (list-strictly-longer-than? e 1)
(equal? (car v) 'cond)
(lectrec ([visit (lambda (i)
(if (null? (cdr i))
(is-else-clause? (car i))
(if (pair? (cdr i))
(and (cond? (car i))
(visit (cdr i))))))])
(visit (cdr e)))))))
For or, let and cond. I'm wondering if these are correct or if I'm close. I don't understand much about macros or scheme in general so some information/help on what to do would be appreciated.
If you look at the implementation of and:
(define expand-and
(λ (e)
(let ((forms (cdr e)))
(cond ((null? forms) '#t)
((null? (cdr forms)) (car forms))
(else `(if ,(car forms) (and ,#(cdr forms)) #f))))))
(expand-and '(and)) ; ==> #t
(expand-and '(and a)) ; ==> a
(expand-and '(and a b)) ; ==> (if a (and b) #f)
I notice two things. It doesn't really double check that the first element is and or if it's a list. Perhaps the interpreter doesn't use this unless it has checked this already?
Secondly it doesn't seem like you need to expand everything. As you see you might end up with some code + and with fewer arguments. No need for recursion since the evaluator will do that for you.
I think you are overthinking it. For or it should be very similar:
(expand-or '(or)) ; ==> #f
(expand-and '(or a b c)) ; ==> (let ((unique-var a)) (if unique-var unique-var (or b c)))
The let binding prevents double evaluation of a but if you have no side effects you might just rewrite it to (if a a (or b)). As with and or might expand to use or with fewer arguments than the original. This trick you can do with cond as well:
(cond (a b c)
...) ; ==>
(if a
(begin b c)
(cond ...))
let does not need this since it's perhaps the simplest one if you grasp map:
(let ((a x) (c y))
body ...) ; ==>
((lambda (a c) body ...) x y)
The report has examples of how the macros for these are made, but they might not be the simplest to rewrite to functions that takes code as structure like your interpeter. However using the report to understand the forms would perhaps worked just as well as posting a question here on SO.
I am learning Lisp and I had to write a function whose return value was a list containing the odd integers (if any) from the given input. In code I have this:
(defun f3 (a)
(cond
((null a) nil )
((and (numberp (car a)) (oddp (car a))) (cons (car a) (f3 (cdr a))))
(T (f3 (cdr a)))
) ; end cond
)
I originally wanted to use the append function, but I kept getting errors.
It was recommended to me to use cons function. When I did this my function started working (code is above). I originally had this:
(defun f3 (a)
(cond
((null a) ())
((and (numberp (car a)) (oddp (car a))) (append (f3 (cdr a)) (car a))))
(T (append () (f3 (cdr a))))
)
)
but kept getting errors. For example, if I called (f3 '(1 2 3)) it would say "error 3 is not type LIST". So, my questions are why does cons work here and why did append not work? How does cons work? Thanks in advance.
append wants list arguments, and (car a) is not a list. Instead of (car a) you'd need (list (car a)). In other words, (append (f3 (cdr a)) (list (car a))).
That will basically work, but you'll get the result in reverse order. So that should be (append (list (car a)) (f3 (cdr a))).
Also note that your (append () (f3 (cdr a))) is equivalent to just (f3 (cdr a)).
The resulting changes in your original would be:
(defun f3 (a)
(cond
((null a) ())
((and (numberp (car a)) (oddp (car a)))
(append (list (car a)) (f3 (cdr a)))))
(T (f3 (cdr a)))))
But, you wouldn't normally use append to prepend a single element to a list. It would more naturally be done using cons. So
(append (list (car a)) (f3 (cdr a)))
Is more appropriately done by:
(cons (car a) (f3 (cdr a)))
Which finally takes you right to the working version you showed.
While something like mbratch's answer will help you in learning about list manipulation (and so is probably a more useful answer for you at this point in your study), it's also important to learn about the standard library of the language that you're using. In this case, you're trying to filter out everything except odd numbers. Using remove-if-not, that's just:
(defun keep-odd-numbers (list)
(remove-if-not (lambda (x)
(and (numberp x) (oddp x)))
list))
CL-USER> (keep-odd-numbers '(1 a 2 b 3 c 4 d 5 e))
;=> (1 3 5)
While this isn't a fix to your actual problem, which #mbratch provided, here's the way I would implement something like this using the LOOP macro (another part of the standard library):
(defun keep-odd-numbers (list)
(loop for x in list collecting x when (and (numberp x) (oddp x))))
i worte this function to remove numbers from a list x
(defun rm-nums (x)
(cond
((null x) nil)
(t (mapcar 'numberp x))))
however when i enter (rm-nums '(32 A T 4 3 E))
returns (T NIL NIL T T NIL)
i want it instead of returning T or Nil, i want it to return the values that caused NIL only [which are not numbers]
so this example should return (A T E)
i am supposed to use mapcar WITHOUT recursion or iteration or the bultin function "remove-if"
i think it is related to something called apply-append but i know nothing about it. any help?
I think your course had this in mind:
(defun my-remove-if (pred lst)
(apply #'append (mapcar (lambda (x)
(and (not (funcall pred x))
(list x)))
lst)))
It does use apply and append and mapcar, like you said. Example usage:
(my-remove-if #'numberp '(32 a t 4 3 e))
=> (a t e)
More idiomatic solution suggested by Rörd:
(defun my-remove-if (pred lst)
(mapcan (lambda (x)
(and (not (funcall pred x))
(list x)))
lst))
since yesterday I've been trying to program a special case statement for scheme that would do the following:
(define (sort x)
(cond ((and (list? x) x) => (lambda (l)
(sort-list l)))
((and (pair? x) x) => (lambda (p)
(if (> (car p) (cdr p))
(cons (cdr p) (car p))
p)))
(else "here")))
instead of using all the and's and cond's statement, I would have:
(define (sort x)
(scase ((list? x) => (lambda (l)
(sort-list l)))
((pair? x) => (lambda (p)
(if (> (car p) (cdr p))
(cons (cdr p) (car p))
p)))
(else "here")))
What I could do so far, was this:
(define (sort x)
(scase (list? x) (lambda (l)
(sort-list l)))
(scase (pair? x) (lambda (p)
(if (> (car p) (cdr p))
(cons (cdr p) (car p))
p))))
with this code:
(define-syntax scase
(syntax-rules ()
((if condition body ...)
(if condition
(begin
body ...)))))
What I wanted to do now, is just allow the scase statement to have multiple arguments like this:
(scase ((list? (cons 2 1)) 'here)
((list? '(2 1)) 'working))
but I can't seem to figure out how I can do that. Maybe you guys could give me a little help?
Thanks in advance ;)
If this is an exercise in learning how to use syntax-rules, then disregard this answer.
I see a way to simplify your code that you are starting with.
(define (sort x)
(cond ((list? x)
(sort-list x))
((pair? x)
(if (> (car x) (cdr x))
(cons (cdr x) (car x))
x)))
(else "here")))
Since all the (and (list? x) x) => (lambda l ... does is see if x is a list, and then bind l to x, (since #f is not a list, and '() is not false, at least in Racket), you can just skip all that and just use x. You do not need to use => in case, and in this case it doesn't help. => is useful if you want to do an test that returns something useful if successful, or #f otherwise.
Now, if you want to use a macro, then you're going to need to clarify what you want it to do a bit better. I think that case already does what you want. Your existing macro is just if, so I'm not sure how to extend it.
I found the solution for my question, here it goes:
(define-syntax cases
(syntax-rules ()
((_ (e0 e1 e2 ...)) (if e0 (begin e1 e2 ...)))
((_ (e0 e1 e2 ...) c1 c2 ...)
(if e0 (begin e1 e2 ...) (cases c1 c2 ...)))))
Thank you all anyway :)
Here's a solution :
#lang racket
(require mzlib/defmacro)
(define-syntax scase
(syntax-rules (else)
((_ (else body1)) body1)
((_ (condition1 body1) (condition2 body2) ...)
(if condition1
body1
(scase (condition2 body2) ...)))))
(define (sort1 x)
((scase ((list? x) (lambda (l)
(sort l <)))
((pair? x) (lambda (p)
(if (> (car p) (cdr p))
(cons (cdr p) (car p))
p)))
(else (lambda (e) "here")))
x))
It works in DrRacket. I made three changes to your solution. First, i renamed your sort procedure to sort1 since sort is inbuilt in scheme ( I have used it inside sort1). Second, I have changed the sort1 itself so that the input given will be passed to the procedure returned by scase and you will directly get the sorted result. Third, I have modified the scase syntax extension, so that it will accept the else condition.
>(sort1 (list 3 1 2))
'(1 2 3)
> (sort1 (cons 2 1))
'(1 . 2)
> (sort1 'here)
"here"
I suggest you read "The Scheme Programming Language" by Kent Dybvig. There is an entire chapter on syntactic extensions.