Could you help me with an example function code take an array of integers and gives the output of the array for negative numbers
thanks in advance
the user will enter this
(sumNeg '(3 -5 -2 b -5 1 b))
and will get the solution -12
The idiomatic solution in Racket would be to use built-in higher-order procedures - notice that first you have to filter the negative numbers from the list (it's not an array!) and then add them, and this is precisely expressed by the following procedure:
(define (sumNeg lst)
(apply +
(filter (λ (x) (and (number? x) (negative? x))) lst)))
To avoid a double iteration, we can use foldl:
(define (sumNeg lst)
(foldl (λ (x sum)
(if (and (number? x) (negative? x))
(+ x sum)
sum))
0
lst))
Or even more idiomatic, we can use Racket's Iterations and Comprehensions:
(define (sumNeg lst)
(for/sum ([x lst]
#:when (and (number? x)
(negative? x)))
x))
Anyway, it works as expected:
(sumNeg '(3 -5 -2 b -5 1 b))
=> -12
Related
I have to write a function in Racket using foldr that will take a list of numbers and remove list elements that are larger than any subsequent numbers.
Example: (eliminate-larger (list 1 2 3 5 4)) should produce (1 2 3 4)
I can do it without using foldr or any higher-order functions but I can't figure it out with foldr. Here's what I have:
(define (eliminate-larger lst)
(filter (lambda (z) (not(equal? z null)))
(foldr (lambda (x y)
(cons (determine-larger x (rest lst)) y)) null lst))
)
(define (determine-larger value lst)
(if (equal? (filter (lambda (x) (>= x value)) lst) lst)
value
null)
)
determine-larger will take in a value and a list and return that value if it is greater than or equal to all elements in the list. If not, it returns null. Now the eliminate-larger function is trying to go through the list and pass each value to determine-larger along with a list of every number after it. If it is a "good" value it will be returned and put in the list, if it's not a null is put in the list. Then at the end the nulls are being filtered out. My problem is getting the list of numbers that follow after the current number in the foldr function. Using "rest lst" doesn't work since it's not being done recursively like that. How do I get the rest of the numbers after x in foldr?
I really hope I'm not doing your homework for you, but here goes ...
How do I get the rest of the numbers after x in foldr?
Because you're consuming the list from the right, you can structure your accumulator such that "the rest of the numbers after x" are available as its memo argument.
(define (eliminate-larger lst)
(foldr
(lambda (member memo)
(if (andmap (lambda (n) (<= member n)) memo)
(cons member memo)
memo))
'()
lst))
(eliminate-larger (list 1 2 3 5 4)) ;; (1 2 3 4)
This is admittedly a naive solution, as you're forced to traverse the entire accumulator with each iteration, but you could easily maintain a max value, in addition to your memo, and compare against that each time through.
Following works:
(define (el lst)
(define (inner x lsti)
(if(empty? lsti) (list x)
(if(<= x (apply max lsti))
(cons x lsti)
lsti)))
(foldr inner '() lst))
(el (list 1 2 3 5 4))
Output:
'(1 2 3 4)
The cond version may be preferable:
(define (el lst)
(define (inner x lsti)
(cond
[(empty? lsti) (list x)]
[(<= x (apply max lsti)) (cons x lsti)]
[else lsti] ))
(foldr inner '() lst) )
I want to show the result of my function as a list not as a number.
My result is:
(define lst (list ))
(define (num->base n b)
(if (zero? n)
(append lst (list 0))
(append lst (list (+ (* 10 (num->base (quotient n b) b)) (modulo n b))))))
The next error appears:
expected: number?
given: '(0)
argument position: 2nd
other arguments...:
10
I think you have to rethink this problem. Appending results to a global variable is definitely not the way to go, let's try a different approach via tail recursion:
(define (num->base n b)
(let loop ((n n) (acc '()))
(if (< n b)
(cons n acc)
(loop (quotient n b)
(cons (modulo n b) acc)))))
It works as expected:
(num->base 12345 10)
=> '(1 2 3 4 5)
i am trying to write a function in lisp which have 2 parameters one function F and one list L
if i place '> in place of F and list L is '(1 2 3 4 5) it will return 5 as 5 is biggest.
and if we put '< then it compares all list elements and gives the smallest one as output.
and so on.
we can even put custom written function in place of F for comparison.
i wish i could provide more sample code but i am really stuck at the start.
(DEFUN givex (F L)
(cond
(F (car L) (car (cdr L))
;after this i got stuck
)
)
another attemp to write this function
(defun best(F list)
(if (null (rest list)) (first list)
(funcall F (first List) (best (F list)))))
You are almost there, just the else clause returns the f's return value instead of the the best element:
(defun best (F list)
(let ((first (first list))
(rest (rest list)))
(if (null rest)
first
(let ((best (best f rest)))
(if (funcall F first best)
best
first)))))
Examples:
(best #'< '(1 2 3))
==> 3
(best #'> '(1 2 3))
==> 1
Note that this recursive implementation is not tail-recursive, so it is not the most efficient one. You might prefer this instead:
(defun best (f list)
(reduce (lambda (a b) (if (funcall f a b) b a)) list))
Or, better yet,
(defmacro fmax (f)
`(lambda (a b) (if (,f a b) b a)))
(reduce (fmax <) '(1 2 3))
==> 1
(reduce (fmax >) '(1 -2 3 -4) :key #'abs)
==> 1
(reduce (fmax <) '(1 -2 3 -4) :key #'abs)
==> 4
This is trivial implement of course, but I feel there is certainly something built in to Racket that does this. Am I correct in that intuition, and if so, what is the function?
Strangely, there isn't a built-in procedure in Racket for finding the 0-based index of an element in a list (the opposite procedure does exist, it's called list-ref). However, it's not hard to implement efficiently:
(define (index-of lst ele)
(let loop ((lst lst)
(idx 0))
(cond ((empty? lst) #f)
((equal? (first lst) ele) idx)
(else (loop (rest lst) (add1 idx))))))
But there is a similar procedure in srfi/1, it's called list-index and you can get the desired effect by passing the right parameters:
(require srfi/1)
(list-index (curry equal? 3) '(1 2 3 4 5))
=> 2
(list-index (curry equal? 6) '(1 2 3 4 5))
=> #f
UPDATE
As of Racket 6.7, index-of is now part of the standard library. Enjoy!
Here's a very simple implementation:
(define (index-of l x)
(for/or ([y l] [i (in-naturals)] #:when (equal? x y)) i))
And yes, something like this should be added to the standard library, but it's just a little tricky to do so nobody got there yet.
Note, however, that it's a feature that is very rarely useful -- since lists are usually taken as a sequence that is deconstructed using only the first/rest idiom rather than directly accessing elements. More than that, if you have a use for it and you're a newbie, then my first guess will be that you're misusing lists. Given that, the addition of such a function is likely to trip such newbies by making it more accessible. (But it will still be added, eventually.)
One can also use a built-in function 'member' which gives a sublist starting with the required item or #f if item does not exist in the list. Following compares the lengths of original list and the sublist returned by member:
(define (indexof n l)
(define sl (member n l))
(if sl
(- (length l)
(length sl))
#f))
For many situations, one may want indexes of all occurrences of item in the list. One can get a list of all indexes as follows:
(define (indexes_of1 x l)
(let loop ((l l)
(ol '())
(idx 0))
(cond
[(empty? l) (reverse ol)]
[(equal? (first l) x)
(loop (rest l)
(cons idx ol)
(add1 idx))]
[else
(loop (rest l)
ol
(add1 idx))])))
For/list can also be used for this:
(define (indexes_of2 x l)
(for/list ((i l)
(n (in-naturals))
#:when (equal? i x))
n))
Testing:
(indexes_of1 'a '(a b c a d e a f g))
(indexes_of2 'a '(a b c a d e a f g))
Output:
'(0 3 6)
'(0 3 6)
I am a LISP newbie.
To get the running sum of a list, I am writing like --
(setf sum 0.0)
(mapcar #'(lambda(x)
(setf sum (+ sum x)) sum) values))
For example, if you give '(1 2 3 4) as input, the above code returns '(1 3 6 10) as output and so forth.
Is it possible to do the same thing (in a more elegant way) without using the global variable sum ?
(loop for x in '(1 2 3 4) sum x into y collect y)
scanl is a oneliner:
(defun scanl (f init xs)
(loop for x in xs collect (setf init (funcall f init x))))
You could use loop, like this:
(defun running-sum (xs)
(loop with sum = 0
for x in xs
collect (setf sum (+ sum x))))
(running-sum '(1 2 3 4))
It's fundamentally the same thing, but it uses a local variable instead of a global one, and might be more clear.
Alternatively, you could define a recursive function, and a wrapper function:
(defun running-sum-recursive (xs)
(running-sum-recursive2 0 xs))
(defun running-sum-recursive2 (sum xs)
(if (eq xs nil)
nil
(let ((new-sum (+ sum (car xs))))
(cons new-sum (running-sum-recursive2 new-sum (cdr xs))))))
(running-sum-recursive '(1 2 3 4))
However this seems needlessly complicated to me when loop is available.
Note that in Haskell, you could do a running sum like this:
runningSum xs = scanl1 (+) xs
runningSum [1, 2, 3, 4]
The key here is the scanl1 function. It's possible that something similar exists in Lisp (and we've very nearly written it twice now), but I haven't used Lisp in a while.
Edit: After some searching, I don't think Common Lisp includes anything quite like scanl or scanl1, so here they are:
(defun scanl (f val xs)
(loop for x in xs
collect (setf val (funcall f val x))))
(defun scanl1 (f xs)
(cons (car xs)
(scanl f (car xs) (cdr xs))))
(scanl1 #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
Edit: Thanks to huaiyuan's answer for a suggestion about how the loops could be shortened.
Or you could use higher-order functions
(define (running-sum ls)
(cdr (reverse (foldl (lambda (y xs) (cons (+ (car xs) y) xs)) '(0) ls))))
Haskell does have a rich inventory of functions for list recursion, but we've got reduce at least. Here is an elementary (i. e. without the loop magic) functional solution:
(defun running-sum (lst)
(reverse (reduce (lambda (acc x)
(cons (+ (first acc) x) acc))
(rest lst)
:initial-value (list (first lst)))))
I'm using the head of the original list as the initial value and walk through the rest of the list adding sums at the head (because it's natural to add at the head), finally reversing the list thus obtained.
One can use reduce in most cases when there's a need to traverse a sequence accumulating a value.
Here is an elementary iterative solution using the push-nreverse idiom:
(defun running-sum (lst)
(let ((sums (list (first lst))))
(dolist (x (rest lst))
(push (+ x (first sums)) sums))
(nreverse sums)))
In Scheme I would calculate the sum of the list recursively using an accumulator. Like so:
; Computes a list of intermediary results of list summation
(define list-sum
(lambda (l)
(letrec ((recsum (lambda (lst acc acclst)
(if (pair? lst)
(recsum (cdr lst) (+ acc (car lst)) (cons acc acclst))
(cons acc acclst)))))
(recsum (cdr l) (car l) '()))))
Output:
> (list-sum '(1 2 3 4))
(10 6 3 1)
> (list-sum '(2 4 6 8 10))
(30 20 12 6 2)
>
The trick to recurse over a list is to take the first element/car off each time and pass the rest/cdr. You can keep intermediary results by using an extra parameter (called an accumulator) and pass the sum in that. I've used two accumulators above: one for the last sum and one for a list of all previous sums.
I've never done anything in LISP, so I can't tell if this translates directly to your dialect(?), but it's conceptually simple and I'm sure it's doable in LISP as well.
Do ask if something is not immediately clear. It's been a while since I've used this family of languages :)