I can't figure out on how to write a vector function that returns the first odd number in the list.
Ex: (check-expect (first-oddnumb 2 3 4 5 6) 3)) ;;it returns 3 because 3 is the first odd number in the list.
I can't figure out on how to write a vector function that returns the first odd number in the list.
My confusion is the same as #Sylwester's: "vector function"? The rest of the question seems to make sense tho.
I can help you write a function that returns the first odd number in the list.
We want the function to work like this
(first-odd-number 2 3 4 5 6) ;; => 3
So the first thing we have to do is learn how to write a function that accepts a variable number of arguments
(define (variadic . xs) xs)
(variadic 1 2) ;; => '(1 2)
(variadic 1 2 3) ;; => '(1 2 3)
(variadic 1 2 3 4) ;; => '(1 2 3 4)
(variadic) ;; => '()
Note the . before the xs parameter. This gives us a way to collect all of the passed arguments into the bound identifier, xs. Notice how the arguments are collected into a list. Also pay attention to how xs will still be a list (empty list '()) even if no arguments are given in the function call.
Now we can begin writing your function
(define (first-odd-number . xs)
;; so we know xs will be a list here ...
)
Let's talk about the possible states of xs
xs could be empty, in which case what should we return? maybe a 0 or something? (more on this later)
Otherwise, xs has at least one number ...
is the first number an odd number? if so, return that number
is the first number an even number? if so, return first-odd-number of the remaining numbers in xs
OK, we can pretty much define this in Racket verbatim
(define (first-odd-number . xs)
;; begin case analysis of xs
(cond
;; is the list of numbers empty? return 0
[(empty? xs) 0]
;; the list is not empty, continue ...
;; is the first number odd?
[(odd? (car xs)) (car xs)]
;; otherwise...
;; the number even, check remaining numbers
[else (apply first-odd-number (cdr xs))]))
(first-odd-number 2 3 4 5 6) ;; => 3
(first-odd-number 3 4 5 6) ;; => 3
(first-odd-number 4 5 6) ;; => 5
(first-odd-number) ;; => 0
And that's pretty much it !
Improvements...
If you're like me tho, that 0 is making you feel uneasy. What if you were given a list of only even numbers? What should the return value be?
(first-odd-number 2 4 6) ;; => 0
This is kind of weird. We could use the 0 to mean that no odd number was found, but Maybe there's a better way ...
(struct Just (value) #:transparent)
(struct None () #:transparent)
(define (first-odd-number . xs)
(cond
;; no odd number was found; return None
[(empty? xs) (None)]
;; an odd number was found, return (Just n)
[(odd? (car xs)) (Just (car xs))]
;; otherwise check the remaining numbers
[else (apply first-odd-number (cdr xs))]))
(first-odd-number 2 3 4 5 6) ;; => (Just 3)
(first-odd-number 3 4 5 6) ;; => (Just 3)
(first-odd-number 4 5 6) ;; => (Just 5)
(first-odd-number) ;; => (None)
Now when the caller of our first-odd-number is working with the function, we don't have to don't have to remember that 0 is a special case we need to consider
(define (print-the-first-odd-number . xs)
(match (apply first-odd-number xs)
[(Just x) (printf "the number is ~a\n" x)]
[(None) (printf "no odd number was found\n")]))
(print-the-first-odd-number 2 3 4 5 6) ;; the number is 3
(print-the-first-odd-number 2 4 6) ;; no odd number was found
Another way is to use a comprehension to iterate over the vector (or whatever), specifically, for/first, which returns the value returned by the first body that gets evaluated, combined with a #:when clause to limit said evaluation to the first odd element of a vector:
#lang racket/base
(define (first-odd-number container)
(for/first ([num container]
#:when (odd? num))
num))
(displayln (first-odd-number #(2 3 4 5 6))) ; 3, passing a vector
(displayln (first-odd-number '(2 3 4 5 6))) ; 3, passing a list
If no odd number is present, it returns #f.
While you get better performance by using type specific sequence builders like in-vector with a for loop, using a container directly like this gives more flexibility (It would also work with sets of numbers and a few other standard types)
If instead wanting a function that takes a variable number of arguments, use a hardcoded in-list and the appropriate formals:
(define (first-odd-number . numbers)
(for/first ([num (in-list numbers)]
#:when (odd? num))
num))
Related
i would like to visit all the cons cells in a list and perform some action on them (including such things as setcar). is there an idiomatic way of doing this?
i can, i think, do something like this
(progn
(setq a (list 1 2 3 4 5 6))
(setq okay a)
(while okay
(if (eq (car okay) 3)
(setcar okay 22))
(setq okay (cdr okay))))
(where the if expression is my "application logic", say.)
but, if there's a terser way of doing this, i'd be interested in hearing about it.
If you want to mutate the cars of the list, then in recent emacsen the likely think you want is cl-mapl, which maps a function over successive tails of the list. This is essentially Common Lisp's mapl function: CL has
maplist which maps a function over tails and returns a new list of the values of the function, so (maplist (lambda (e) e) '(1 2 3)) is ((1 2 3) (2 3) (3));
mapl which is like maplist but returns the original list.
elisp (courtesy of some now-standard library) now has both cl-mapl and cl-maplist.
So:
> (let ((y (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)))
(cl-mapl (lambda (tail)
(rplaca tail 0))
y)
y)
(0 0 0 0 0 0 0)
or
> (let ((y (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)))
(cl-mapl (lambda (tail)
(rplaca tail (if (cdr tail) (cadr tail) 'fish)))
y)
y)
(2 3 4 5 6 7 fish)
(In neither of these cases do you need to make sure that y is returned: I just did it to make it clear that y is being destructively modified by this.)
(setq a (mapcar (lambda (x) (if (equal x 3) 22 x)) a))
That sets the value of variable a to the result of changing any members of a that are 3 to 22.
Choose the equality operator you want, equal, eql, or =, depending on whether you know that either all list members are numbers (use =) or you know that they are either numbers or you want to test object equality otherwise, (use eql), or you don't know what they might be (use equal).
You haven't indicated any need to do list-structure modification (setcar). It appears that all you care about is for a to be a list as I described.
I'm taking an intro to computer science course and one question needs me to write a function that takes a list of numbers and a number and returns the numbers in the list whose sum is less than the given number. I've written the function signature, definition, and check-expects, but I'm stuck. The function needs to assume intermediate student with lambda. I don't want any direct answers here; just help so that I can reach the answer myself.
I know it needs to use recursion. Perhaps a helper function would be needed.
;; sum-up-to: lon, number -> lon
;; consumes a list of numbers and a number and
;; returns the numbers in the list whose sum is
;; less than or equal to the given number
(define the-numbers (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9))
(check-expect (sum-up-to the-numbers 7) (list 1 2 3))
(check-expect (sum-up-to the-numbers 18) (list 1 2 3 4 5))
(check-expect (sum-up-to the-numbers 45) the-numbers)
This problem can be simplified if we sort the list first and if we define a helper function that keeps track of the accumulated sum. Here's a skeleton, fill-in the blanks with the missing expressions and you'll have the solution:
(define (sum-up-to lst n)
(helper <???> n 0)) ; sort the input list, pass it to the helper
(define (helper lst n sum)
(cond (<???> '()) ; if the list is empty, end the recursion
((> <???> n) '()) ; also end recursion if sum + current element > n
(else
(cons <???> ; otherwise cons current element
(helper <???> ; advance recursion over list
n
(+ <???> <???>)))))) ; update sum
Following recursive method keeps adding numbers from the list sequentially to an initially empty outlist, till the sum is reached:
(define the-numbers (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9))
(define (f lst sum)
(let loop ((lst lst)
(ol '()))
(if (or (..ENTER CONDITION FOR EMPTY LIST..)
(..ENTER CONDITION WHEN SUM IS REACHED..)
(..ENTER HOW TO PUT THE NEW LIST OUT..)
(loop (..ENTER ARGUMENTS TO BE SENT TO NEXT LOOP..)
))))
(f the-numbers 7)
(f the-numbers 18)
(f the-numbers 45)
Output:
'(1 2 3)
'(1 2 3 4 5)
'(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
I am struggling to find the right approach to solve the following function
(FOO #'– '(1 2 3 4 5))
=> ((–1 2 3 4 5) (1 –2 3 4 5) (1 2 –3 4 5) (1 2 3 –4 5) (1 2 3 4 –5))
The first Parameter to the foo function is supposed to be a function "-" that has to be applied to each element returning a list of list as shown above. I am not sure as to what approach I can take to create this function. I thought of recursion but not sure how I will preserve the list in each call and what kind of base criteria would I have. Any help would be appreciated. I cannot use loops as this is functional programming.
It's a pity you cannot use loop because this could be elegantly solved like so:
(defun foo (fctn lst)
(loop
for n from 0 below (length lst) ; outer
collect (loop
for elt in lst ; inner
for i from 0
collect (if (= i n) (funcall fctn elt) elt))))
So we've got an outer loop that increments n from 0 to (length lst) excluded, and an inner loop that will copy verbatim the list except for element n where fctn is applied:
CL-USER> (foo #'- '(1 2 3 4 5))
((-1 2 3 4 5) (1 -2 3 4 5) (1 2 -3 4 5) (1 2 3 -4 5) (1 2 3 4 -5))
Replacing loop by recursion means creating local functions by using labels that replace the inner and the outer loop, for example:
(defun foo (fctn lst)
(let ((len (length lst)))
(labels
((inner (lst n &optional (i 0))
(unless (= i len)
(cons (if (= i n) (funcall fctn (car lst)) (car lst))
(inner (cdr lst) n (1+ i)))))
(outer (&optional (i 0))
(unless (= i len)
(cons (inner lst i) (outer (1+ i))))))
(outer))))
Part of the implementation strategy that you choose here will depend on whether you want to support structure sharing or not. Some of the answers have provided solutions where you get completely new lists, which may be what you want. If you want to actually share some of the common structure, you can do that too, with a solution like this. (Note: I'm using first/rest/list* in preference to car/car/cons, since we're working with lists, not arbitrary trees.)
(defun foo (operation list)
(labels ((foo% (left right result)
(if (endp right)
(nreverse result)
(let* ((x (first right))
(ox (funcall operation x)))
(foo% (list* x left)
(rest right)
(list* (revappend left
(list* ox (rest right)))
result))))))
(foo% '() list '())))
The idea is to walk down list once, keeping track of the left side (in reverse) and the right side as we've gone through them, so we get as left and right:
() (1 2 3 4)
(1) (2 3 4)
(2 1) (3 4)
(3 2 1) (4)
(4 3 2 1) ()
At each step but the last, we take the the first element from the right side, apply the operation, and create a new list use revappend with the left, the result of the operation, and the rest of right. The results from all those operations are accumulated in result (in reverse order). At the end, we simply return result, reversed. We can check that this has the right result, along with observing the structure sharing:
CL-USER> (foo '- '(1 2 3 4 5))
((-1 2 3 4 5) (1 -2 3 4 5) (1 2 -3 4 5) (1 2 3 -4 5) (1 2 3 4 -5))
By setting *print-circle* to true, we can see the structure sharing:
CL-USER> (setf *print-circle* t)
T
CL-USER> (let ((l '(1 2 3 4 5)))
(list l (foo '- l)))
((1 . #1=(2 . #2=(3 . #3=(4 . #4=(5))))) ; input L
((-1 . #1#)
(1 -2 . #2#)
(1 2 -3 . #3#)
(1 2 3 -4 . #4#)
(1 2 3 4 -5)))
Each list in the output shares as much structure with the original input list as possible.
I find it easier, conceptually, to write some of these kind of functions recursively, using labels, but Common Lisp doesn't guarantee tail call optimization, so it's worth writing this iteratively, too. Here's one way that could be done:
(defun phoo (operation list)
(do ((left '())
(right list)
(result '()))
((endp right)
(nreverse result))
(let* ((x (pop right))
(ox (funcall operation x)))
(push (revappend left (list* ox right)) result)
(push x left))))
The base case of a recursion can be determined by asking yourself "When do I want to stop?".
As an example, when I want to compute the sum of an integer and all positive integers below it, I can do this recusively with a base case determined by answering "When do I want to stop?" with "When the value I might add in is zero.":
(defun sumdown (val)
(if (zerop val)
0
(+ (sumdown (1- val)) val)))
With regard to 'preserve the list in each call', rather than trying to preserve anything I would just build up a result as you go along. Using the 'sumdown' example, this can be done in various ways that are all fundamentally the same approach.
The approach is to have an auxiliary function with a result argument that lets you build up a result as you recurse, and a function that is intended for the user to call, which calls the auxiliary function:
(defun sumdown1-aux (val result)
(if (zerop val)
result
(sumdown1-aux (1- val) (+ val result))))
(defun sumdown1 (val)
(sumdown1-aux val 0))
You can combine the auxiliary function and the function intended to be called by the user by using optional arguments:
(defun sumdown2 (val &optional (result 0))
(if (zerop val)
result
(sumdown2 (1- val) (+ val result))))
You can hide the fact that an auxiliary function is being used by locally binding it within the function the user would call:
(defun sumdown3 (val)
(labels ((sumdown3-aux (val result)
(if (zerop val)
result
(sumdown3-aux (1- val) (+ val result)))))
(sumdown3-aux val 0)))
A recursive solution to your problem can be implemented by answering the question "When do I want to stop when I want to operate on every element of a list?" to determine the base case, and building up a result list-of-lists (instead of adding as in the example) as you recurse. Breaking the problem into smaller pieces will help - "Make a copy of the original list with the nth element replaced by the result of calling the function on that element" can be considered a subproblem, so you might want to write a function that does that first, then use that function to write a function that solves the whole problem. It will be easier if you are allowed to use functions like mapcar and substitute or substitute-if, but if you are not, then you can write equivalents yourself out of what you are allowed to use.
I'm trying to write a function that will destructively remove N elements from a list and return them. The code I came up with (see below) looks fine, except the SETF is not working the way I intended.
(defun pick (n from)
"Deletes (destructively) n random items from FROM list and returns them"
(loop with removed = nil
for i below (min n (length from)) do
(let ((to-delete (alexandria:random-elt from)))
(setf from (delete to-delete from :count 1 :test #'equal)
removed (nconc removed (list to-delete))))
finally (return removed)))
For most cases, this works just fine:
CL-USER> (defparameter foo (loop for i below 10 collect i))
CL-USER> (pick 3 foo)
(1 3 6)
CL-USER> foo
(0 2 4 5 7 8 9)
CL-USER> (pick 3 foo)
(8 7 0)
CL-USER> foo
(0 2 4 5 9)
As you can see, PICK works just fine (on SBCL) unless the element being picked happens to be the first on the list. In that case, it doesn't get deleted. That's because the only reassignment happening is the one that goes on inside DELETE. The SETF doesn't work properly (i.e. if I use REMOVE instead, FOO does not change at all).
Is there any scoping rule going on that I'm not aware of?
A (proper) list consists of cons cells that each hold a reference to the next
cell. So, it is actually a chain of references, and your variable has a
reference to the first cell. To make this clear, I rename the binding outside
of your function to var:
var ---> [a|]--->[b|]--->[c|nil]
When you pass the value of the variable to your function, the parameter gets
bound to the same reference.
var ---> [a|]--->[b|]--->[c|nil]
/
from --'
You can update the references in the chain, for example eliminate b:
var ---> [a|]--->[c|nil]
/
from --'
This has an effect on the list that var sees outside.
If you change the first reference, for example eliminating a, this is just the
one originating from from:
var ---> [a|]--->[b|]--->[c|nil]
/
from --'
This has obviously no effect on what var sees.
You need to actually update the variable binding in question. You can do that
by setting it to a value returned by function. Since you already return a
different value, this would then be an additional return value.
(defun pick (n list)
(;; … separate picked and rest, then
(values picked rest)))
Which you then use like this, for example:
(let ((var (list 1 2 3)))
(multiple-value-bind (picked rest) (pick 2 var)
(setf var rest)
(do-something-with picked var)))
Now to the separation: unless the list is prohibitively long, I'd stick to
non-destructive operations. I also would not use random-elt, because it needs
to traverse O(m) elements each time (m being the size of the list),
resulting in a runtime of O(n·m).
You can get O(m) overall runtime by determining the current chance of picking
the current item while linearly running over the list. You then collect the
item into either the picked or rest list.
(defun pick (n list)
(loop :for e :in list
:and l :downfrom (length list)
:when (or (zerop n)
(>= (random 1.0) (/ n l)))
:collect e :into rest
:else
:collect e :into picked
:and :do (decf n)
:finally (return (values picked rest))))
Delete isn't required to modify any structure, it's just permitted to. In fact, you can't always do a destructive delete. If you wanted to delete 42 from (42), you'd need to return the empty list (), which is the symbol NIL, but there's no way that you can turn the list (42), which is a cons cell (42 . NIL) into a different type of object (the symbol NIL). As such, you'll probably need to return both the updated list, as well as the elements that were removed. You can do that with something like this, which returns multiple values:
(defun pick (n from)
(do ((elements '()))
((or (endp from) (zerop n))
(values elements from))
(let ((element (alexandria:random-elt from)))
(setf from (delete element from)
elements (list* element elements))
(decf n))))
CL-USER> (pick 3 (list 1 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 6))
(2 6 4)
(1 3 3 5)
CL-USER> (pick 3 (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
(2 7 5)
(1 3 4 6)
CL-USER> (pick 2 (list 1 2 3))
(2 3)
(1)
CL-USER> (pick 2 (list 1))
(1)
NIL
On the receiving end, you'll want to use something like multiple-value-bind or multiple-value-setq:
(let ((from (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)))
(multiple-value-bind (removed from)
(pick 2 from)
(format t "removed: ~a, from: ~a" removed from)))
; removed: (7 4), from: (1 2 3 5 6)
(let ((from (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
(removed '()))
(multiple-value-setq (removed from) (pick 2 from))
(format t "removed: ~a, from: ~a" removed from))
; removed: (3 5), from: (1 2 4 6 7)
delete does not necessarily modify its sequence argument. As the hyperspec says:
delete, delete-if, and delete-if-not return a sequence of the same type as sequence that has the same elements except that those in the subsequence bounded by start and end and satisfying the test have been deleted. Sequence may be destroyed and used to construct the result; however, the result might or might not be identical to sequence.
For instance, in SBCL:
* (defvar f (loop for i below 10 collect i))
F
* (defvar g (delete 0 f :count 1 :test #'equal))
G
* g
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
* f
(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
*
Note that in your function setf modifies the local variable from, and since delete in the case of first element does not modify the original list, at the end of the function the variable foo maintains the old values.
(defun sum-n-numbers(n)(if(=n 1)
1
(+N(sum-n-numbers(-n 1)))))
Edit 2:(defun sum-n-numbers(n)
(if(=n 1)
1
(+N(sum-n-numbers(-n 1))
)
)
)
The above code runs but when I type (SUM-N-NUMBERS 1 3 2) for the output,it does not work and I get errors.
I know this simple code can also be executed by the inbuild lisp function (+ 1 3 2) that automatically calculates the sum of the numbers,but I have an exam question where it is asked to calculate the sum of n numbers using the defun function.
Edit 1: This is the error that I am getting:
Error: Call ((LAMBDA (#:N) (DECLARE (SPECIAL:SOURCE #) (LAMBDA-NAME SUM-N-NUMBERS)) (BLOCK #:SUM-N-NUMBERS (IF # 1 #))) 1 3 2) has the wrong number of arguments.
1 (abort) Return to level 1.
2 Return to debug level 1.
3 Return to level 0.
4 Return to top loop level 0.
What's wrong with:
(apply '+ '(1 3 2))
??
(defun sum (numbers)
(if (null numbers)
0
(+ (first numbers) (sum (rest numbers)))))
(sum '(1 3 2))
Didn't test. I don't have a lisp interpreter at hand.
To get exactly what you want:
(defun sum-n-numbers (&rest nums)
(if (null nums) 0
(+ (car nums) (apply #'my-sum (cdr nums)))))
This will take an arbitrary number of arguments and recursively compute their sum. For instance:
(sum-n-numbers 1 2 3) => 6
Using iteration, not recursion:
(defun sum-n-numbers (&rest nums)
(loop for num in nums summing num))
From the user's point of view, these are the same, just a little bit different in how they work inside. And I've tested both of these to ensure they work.
The function you wrote accepts one argument and returns the sum of of numbers from 1 to the argument (note that it will never return - theoretically - and fail with a stack overflow - in practice - for negative arguments).
That function cannot accept 3 arguments you passed to it, so you got an error.