I'm a noob in scheme ... I am trying to make an exercise so that it will check if a number is a palindrome or not ( I know how to do it in c, c++ and java). But I keep getting this error "c: unbound identifier in module in: c". I searched wide and far for the error, and yes there are tens of topics on it, but all on complicated stuff that have nothing to do with my punny code. My question is, can somebody please explain to me what does the error actually mean and how can I avoid it ? My code so far :
#lang racket
(define (palindrome n)
(if (> 10 n) #t
(check n)
)
)
(define (check n)
(if (> n 0)
((= c (modulo n 10))
(= x (+ (* x 10) c))
(= n (/ n 10)))
(checkp )
)
)
(define (checkp k)
(if (= k n) #t
#f)
)
The error reported occurs in the check procedure. All those references to the variables called c and x will fail, what are those variables supposed to be? where do they come from? Remember: in Scheme = is used for comparing two numbers, not for assignment.
There are other problems. The last line of check is calling checkp, but you forgot to pass the parameter. Also the syntax in the if expression is wrong, you can't write more than two conditions in it (the "consequent" and the "alternative"), if you need more than two conditions you should use cond.
Please be careful with those parentheses, you must not use them to group expressions (they're not like curly braces!). In Scheme, if you surround an expression with () it means function application, and that's not what you want to do in check.
And in the checkp procedure we have the same problem: the variable n is unbound. It's just like in any other programming language: you have to make sure that the variables come from somewhere (a parameter, a local variable, a global definition, etc.), they can't simply appear out of thin air.
UPDATE
After the update, now it's clear what you wanted to do. I'm sorry to say this, but you don't have a good grasp of even the most basic concepts of the language. All along you needed to do an iteration (typically implemented via recursion), but this is reflected nowhere in your code - you'll have to grab a good book or tutorial on Sceheme, to get the basics right. This is how the code in Java or C would look like in Scheme:
(define (check k)
(let loop ((x 0) (n k))
(if (zero? n)
(= k x)
(loop (+ (* 10 x) (remainder n 10)) (quotient n 10)))))
(define (palindrome)
(display "Enter the number: ")
(if (check (read))
(display "The number is a palindrome")
(display "The number is not a palindrome")))
Use it like this:
(palindrome)
Enter the number: 12321
The number is a palindrome
Related
I am stuck, I did it this way but I feel it is wrong.
(defun (find-min a b))
(cond
(> a b) (find-min b (read))
(< a b) (find-min a (read))
)
(display (find-min (read) (read)))
Code review
The code as given is badly formatted. It is really important to test your code often, to check that at least the syntax is correct. Instead of writing the code in isolation, you should ask the environment, the interpreter, to parse your code and execute it. You'll have a shorter feedback loop, which will help getting the code right.
For example, if you start your interpreter (you mentionned clisp), you are in a Read Eval Print Loop (REPL), where you write Lisp forms, which are evaluated to produce a result, which is printed. So just by writing code, it will get parsed and evaluated, which can quickly inform you about possible errors.
So if you write the code as you wrote it, you will notice that the interpreter first reads this:
(defun (find-min a b))
This is because all parentheses are balanced: the Lisp reader (the R in REPL) will build a list of two elements, namely defun and the list (find-min a b).
When evaluation is performed (the E in REPL), the list will be interpreted as a Lisp form, but this is a malformed defun.
DEFUN expects a function name, followed by a list of variable bindings, followed by the function body. So you can try writing for example:
(defun find-min (a b)
0)
This above defines a function named find-min, which accepts two parameters a and b, and always evaluate as 0 (the body of the function).
In your case you want to write:
(defun find-min (a b)
(cond ...))
You COND form is malformed too:
(cond
(> a b) (find-min b (read))
(< a b) (find-min a (read))
)
Each clause in a cond should be a list containing first a test, then zero or more expressions. So it would be:
(cond
((> a b) ...)
((< a b) ...))
Note that there is a remaining case, namely (= a b), which is not addressed.
Approach
But overall, I do not understand what your code is trying to achieve. Since all inputs are supposed to be obtained with (read), there is no need to accept arguments a and b. The whole thing could be a loop:
(defun read-min ()
(loop
for val = (read)
for zerop = (= val zero)
for min = val then (if zerop min (min min val))
until (= val 0)
finally (return min)))
As suggested by #leetwinski, there is also a shorter alternative:
(loop for val = (read) until (= val 0) minimizing val)
But I suppose you are not expected to use the loop form, so you should try to write a recursive function that does the same.
What you need to do is to pass the current minimum value ever read to your function, recursively, like so:
(defun read-min-rec (min-so-far)
...)
I’m trying to get get my macro to do an extra evaluation of its result before returning it. Can this be done without eval?
I'm trying to solve the problem in exercise 4 below:
Define a macro nth-expr that takes an integer n and an arbitrary number of expressions, evaluates the nth expression and returns its value. This exercise is easy to solve, if you assume that the first argument is a literal integer.
4. As exercise 3, but assume that the first argument is an expression to be evaluated.
It's easy to get the macro to pick the right expression:
(defmacro nth-expr% (n &rest es)
`(nth ,n ',es))
CL-USER> (defvar i 1)
I
CL-USER> (nth-expr% (1+ i) (+ 2 3) (- 4 3) (+ 3 1))
(+ 3 1)
The expression (+ 3 1) is the one we want, but we want the macro to evaluate it to 4 before returning it.
It can of course be done with eval:
(defmacro nth-expr%% (n &rest es)
`(eval (nth ,n ',es)))
CL-USER> (nth-expr%% (1+ i) (+ 2 3) (- 4 3) (+ 3 1))
4
But is there another way?
It feels like the solution should be to put the body of nth-expr% in a helper macro and have the top level macro only contain an unquoted call to this helper:
(defmacro helper (n es)
`(nth ,n ',es))
(defmacro nth-expr (n &rest es) ; doesn't work!
(helper n es))
The idea is that the call to helper would return (+ 3 1), and this would then be the expansion of the call to nth-expr, which at run-time would evaluate to 4. It blows up, of course, because N and ES get treated like literals.
That's not that easy.
Using eval is not good, since eval does not evaluate the code in the local lexical environment.
Remember, if we allow an expression to be evaluated to determine the number of another expression to execute, then we don't know this number at macro expansion time - since the expression could be based on a value that needs to be computed - for example based on some variable:
(nth-expression
foo
(bar)
(baz))
So we might want to think about code which does that:
(case foo
(0 (bar))
(1 (baz)))
CASE is evaluating foo and then uses the result to find a clause which has the same value in its head. The consequent forms of that clause then will be evaluated.
Now we need to write code which expands the former into the latter.
This would be a very simple version:
(defmacro nth-expression (n-form &body expressions)
`(case ,n-form
,#(loop for e in expressions
and i from 0
collect `(,i ,e))))
Question: what might be drawbacks of using CASE like that?
Knuto: Rainer Joswig may be asking you to think about how the case statement works. Namely, that after evaluating the keyform (ie, the first argument), it will be compared sequentially to the key in each clause until a match is found. The comparisons could be time consuming if there are many clauses. You can discover this by carefully reading the entry for case in the Hyperspec (as he more than once has insisted I do):
The keyform or keyplace is evaluated to produce the test-key. Each of
the normal-clauses is then considered in turn.
Also note that constructing many case clauses will add to the time to expand and compile the macro at compile time.
Regarding your use of eval in nth-expr%%, you can still achieve the effect of an eval by switching to apply:
(defmacro nth-expr%% (n &rest es)
`(let ((ne (nth ,n ',es)))
(apply (car ne) (cdr ne))))
But see Plugging the Leaks at http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/macros-defining-your-own.html about a more robust treatment.
In general, a more efficient way to process the expressions is as a simple vector, rather than a list. (The problem statement does not rule out a vector representation.) While nth and case involve searching through the expressions one-by-one, a function like aref or svref can directly index into it. Assuming a vector of expressions is passed to the macro along with an index, perhaps first requiring (coerce expressions 'simple-vector) if a list, then the result can be computed in constant time no matter how many expressions there are:
(defmacro nth-expr%%% (n es)
`(let ((ne (svref ',es ,n)))
(apply (car ne) (cdr ne))))
so that now
(defvar i 1)
(nth-expr%%% (1+ i) #((+ 2 3) (- 4 3) (+ 3 1))) -> 4
I would like to generate code: (nth 0 x) (nth 1 x) ... (nth n x)
where x is just some variable name, and n is some number.
I'm trying do this in a following way:
(defmacro gen(n)
(loop for i from 1 to n do
`(nth i x))
)
Checking how it expands by:
(print (macroexpand-1 '(gen 5)))
Console output is: NIL. How to do it properly?
You need to replace do with collect in your loop.
Note however that your macro captures the variable x from the calling environment.
Generally speaking, "macros are advanced material", if you are not comfortable with loop, you probably should not be writing them.
Consider what the value of the following code is:
(loop for i from 1 to 5
do `(nth ,i x))
Since there's no collection happening, the return value of the loop is nil. If we change do to collect:
(loop for i from 1 to 5
collect `(nth ,i x))
We see that we are getting somewhere. However, the resulting list is not actually valid Common Lisp code (and relies on there being a variable x in the environment where the macro is used).
It is not clear what you want to do with these (just run them? they're side-effect free, so just wrapping this in a progn feels somewhat useless), but you need to either cons a progn, list or similar to the front of the list of lists to make it into valid code.
(defmacro gen (n &key (var 'x) (accumulator 'list))
(cons accumulator
(loop for i from 1 to n
collect `(nth ,i ,var))))
This eventually gives us this macro that seems to actually do something approaching "valid".
I am writing my first program in scheme. I get pretty deep into recursion because I basically interpret a program for a simple robot which can have nested procedure calls.
If I find a violation I need to stop interpreting the program and return the last valid state.
I've solved it by declaring a global variable (define illegalMoveFlag 0) and then setting it via set!.
It works fine, but I guess my tutor won't like it (because it's not functional approach I guess)
Other approach I've thought about is to add an error parameter to every function I call recursively in the program. I don't quite like it because it would make my code far less readable, but I guess it's more 'functional'.
Is there maybe a third way I didn't think about? And can my approach be justified in this paradigm, or is it basically a code smell?
Since this was your first Scheme program, you probably just need to introduce a conditional expression, cond, in order to avoid further recursion when you reach the end. For example:
; sum : natural -> natural
; compute the sum 0+1+...+max
(define (sum max)
(define (sum-helper i sum-so-far)
(if (> i max)
sum-so-far
(sum-helper (+ i 1) (+ sum-so-far i))))
(sum-helper 0 0))
(display (sum 10))
(newline)
However, if you need a traditional return to return like longjmp in C, you will need to store and use an escape continuation. This can be done like this:
(define (example)
(let/ec return
(define (loop n)
(if (= n 100000)
(return (list "final count: " n))
(loop (+ n 1))))
(loop 0)))
(display (example))
If let/ec is not defined in your Scheme implementation, then prefix your program with:
(define-syntax let/ec
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ return body ...)
(call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (return)
body ...))]))
UPDATE:
Note that cond has an => variant:
(cond
[(call-that-can-fail)
=> (lambda (a) <use-a-here>))]
[else <do-something-else>])
If the call succeeds then the first, clause is
taken and the result is bound to a. If the call fails,
then the else clause is used.
The usual way to stop recursing is, well, to stop recursing. i.e., don't call the recursive function any longer. :-)
If that is too hard to do, the other way to break out of something is to capture a continuation at the top level (before you start recursing), then invoke the continuation when you need to "escape". Your instructor may not like this approach, though. ;-)
You might want to use the built-in procedure error, like so:
(error "Illegal move") ; gives ** Error: Illegal move
This will raise an exception and stop interpreting the program (though I suspect this may not be what you are looking for).
You can also provide additional arguments, like this:
(error "Illegal move: " move) ; gives ** Error: Illegal move: <move>
You can exit of a recursion (or from any other process) using a continuation. Without knowing more specifics, I'd recommend you take a look at the documentation of your interpreter.
Make illegalMoveFlag a paramter in the function instead of a global variable
I'll give you a simple example with factorials
ie:
0! = 1
n! = n * (n - 1)! when n (1 ... infinity)
lets call this a recursive factorial
(define (fact-r n)
(if
[eq? n 0]
1
(* n (fact-r (- n 1)))
)
)
An alternative would be to use a parameter to the function to end the recursion
Lets call it iterative factorial
(define (fact-i n total)
(if
(eq? n 0)
total
(fact-i (- n 1) (* n total))
)
)
total needs to start at 1 so we should make another function to make using it nicer
(define (nice-fact n)
(fact-i n 1))
You could do something similar with illegalMoveFlag to avoid having a global variable
As far as avoiding using set! goes, we'll probably need more information.
In some cases its still rather hard to avoid using it. Scheme is fully turing complete without the use of set! however when it comes to accessing an external source of information such as a database or a robot set! can become the only practical solution...
I'm writing a Lisp (code at GitHub) and I want to implement local bindings. Currently I have two syntaxes:
(let <var> <val> <expr>)
for binding a single variable or function, and
(with (<var1> <val1> ... <varN> <valN>) <expr>)
to bind multiple values at once.
At present, the bindings are evaluated sequentially, and each new function binding retains a copy of the environment it was defined in, so <var2> can refer to <var1> but not vice-versa.
I would like to modify the code so that when binding multiple values at once you effectively have simultaneous binding. For example, I would like to be able to write (this is a trivial example, but it should illustrate the idea):
(define (h y)
(with ((f x) (if (eq? x 0) #t (g (- x 1)))
(g x) (if (eq? x 0) #f (f (- x 1))))
(f y))
At the moment this code doesn't run - g closes over f, but not the other way around.
Is there a canonical way to implement simultaneous binding in Lisp?
In SICP there's a section on internal definitions which covers this subject. In particular, the exercises 4.16, 4.18, 4.19 tell you how to implement different strategies for achieving simultaneous definitions.
The syntax is a bit different, but the idea in the book boils down to transforming this code:
(lambda <vars>
(define u <e1>)
(define v <e2>)
<e3>)
Into this code:
(lambda <vars>
(let ((u '*unassigned*)
(v '*unassigned*))
(set! u <e1>)
(set! v <e2>)
<e3>))
The same idea applies to your with special form. Take a look at the linked book for more implementation details.
In (with (a (+ 2 2))) we are binding a to the value of the expression (+ 2 2), so a becomes 4. But in (with ((f x) (+ x x))) we are doing something else: we are binding f to a function. This is a syntactic sugar for (with (f (lambda (x) (+ x x)))).
To handle this situation, you have to process the bindings in two passes. First collect all the variables and create the environment which contains all of them. Then evaluate the initializing experssions and store their values in the corresponding variables. The evaluation of these expressions takes place in that environment, so every expression has visibility over all the variables. The initialization is done by assignment. The variables can be initially nil or have some trap value which blows up if they are accessed.