I have a list of lists: (setq xs (list (list 1 2 3) (list 4 5 6) (list 7 8 9))). I want to remove a first element from each list to get ((2 3) (5 6) (8 9)). It's easy to do it non-destructively: (mapcar 'cdr xs). But I want mutate the original list. I tried:
(mapcar (lambda (x) (setf x (cdr x))) xs)
(mapcar (lambda (x) (pop x)) xs)
But it doesn't work. How to change each list of xs variable in-place, without creating any temporary lists, as efficiently as possible?
Use MAP-INTO:
CL-USER 16 > (let ((s (list (list 1 2 3)
(list 4 5 6)
(list 7 8 9))))
(map-into s #'rest s))
((2 3) (5 6) (8 9))
#Rainer Joswig's answer is correct, use map-into. The link gives example implementation using loop macro. If you want to implement map-into from scratch, or you use Emacs Lisp, you can also do it using dotimes. In Emacs Lisp dotimes is implemented in subr.el and doesn't require CL package. This is map-into with 1 sequence to map into the result sequence:
(defun map-into (r f xs)
(dotimes (i (min (length r) (length xs)) r)
(setf (elt r i)
(funcall f (elt xs i)))))
For version with variable amount of sequences we must sprinkle our code with apply and mapcar:
(defun map-into (r f &rest xss)
(dotimes (i (apply 'min (length r) (mapcar 'length xss)) r)
(setf (elt r i)
(apply f (mapcar (lambda (s) (elt s i))
xss)))))
We see, however, that elt inside dotimes makes our algorithm work in O(n2). We can optimize it to work in O(n) by using mapl (thanks #Joshua Taylor).
(defun map-into (rs f xs)
(mapl (lambda (r x) (setf (car r) (funcall f (car x)))) rs xs))
(defun map-into (rs f &rest xss)
(mapl (lambda (r xs)
(setf (car r)
(apply f (car xs))))
rs
(apply 'mapcar 'list xss))) ;; transpose a list of lists
The reason setf doesn't work inside mapcar is that setf is a complex macro that expands into expression that can manipulate the data it mutates. In a lambda scope inside mapcar it has access only to a variable, local to this lambda, not to the sequence passed to mapcar itself, so how should it know, where to put a modified value back? That's why mapcar code in the question returns modified list of lists but doesn't mutate it in-place. Just try (macroexpand '(setf (elt xs 0) (funcall 'cdr (elt xs 0)))) and see for yourself.
Related
I have this curry function:
(define curry
(lambda (f) (lambda (a) (lambda (b) (f a b)))))
I think it's like (define curry (f a b)).
my assignment is to write a function consElem2All using curry，which should work like
(((consElem2All cons) 'b) '((1) (2 3) (4)))
>((b 1) (b 2 3) (b 4))
I have wrote this function in a regular way:
(define (consElem2All0 x lst)
(map (lambda (elem) (cons x elem)) lst))
but still don't know how to transform it with curry. Can anyone help me?
thanks in advance
bearzk
You should begin by reading about currying. If you don't understand what curry is about, it may be really hard to use it... In your case, http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~jeffm/Papers/curry.html may be a good start.
One very common and interesting use of currying is with functions like reduce or map (for themselves or their arguments).
Let's define two currying operators!
(define curry2 (lambda (f) (lambda (arg1) (lambda (arg2) (f arg1 arg2)))))
(define curry3 (lambda (f) (lambda (arg1) (lambda (arg2) (lambda (arg3) (f arg1 arg2 arg3))))))
Then a few curried mathematical functions:
(define mult (curry2 *))
(define double (mult 2))
(define add (curry2 +))
(define increment (add 1))
(define decrement (add -1))
And then come the curried reduce/map:
(define creduce (curry3 reduce))
(define cmap (curry2 map))
Using them
First reduce use cases:
(define sum ((creduce +) 0))
(sum '(1 2 3 4)) ; => 10
(define product (creduce * 1))
(product '(1 2 3 4)) ; => 24
And then map use cases:
(define doubles (cmap double))
(doubles '(1 2 3 4)) ; => (2 4 6 8)
(define bump (cmap increment))
(bump '(1 2 3 4)) ; => (2 3 4 5)
I hope that helps you grasp the usefulness of currying...
So your version of curry takes a function with two args, let's say:
(define (cons a b) ...)
and turns that into something you can call like this:
(define my-cons (curry cons))
((my-cons 'a) '(b c)) ; => (cons 'a '(b c)) => '(a b c)
You actually have a function that takes three args. If you had a curry3 that managed 3-ary functions, you could do something like:
(define (consElem2All0 the-conser x lst) ...)
(like you did, but allowing cons-like functions other than cons to be used!)
and then do this:
(define consElem2All (curry3 consElem2All0))
You don't have such a curry3 at hand. So you can either build one, or work around it by "manually" currying the extra variable yourself. Working around it looks something like:
(define (consElem2All0 the-conser)
(lambda (x lst) ...something using the-conser...))
(define (consElem2All the-conser)
(curry (consElem2All0 the-conser)))
Note that there's one other possible use of curry in the map expression itself, implied by you wrapping a lambda around cons to take the element to pass to cons. How could you curry x into cons so that you get a one-argument function that can be used directly to map?...
Perhaps better use a generalized version:
(define (my-curry f)
(lambda args
(cond ((= (length args) 1)
(lambda lst (apply f (cons (car args) lst))))
((>= (length args) 2)
(apply f (cons (car args) (cdr args)))))))
(define (consElem2All0 x lst)
(map ((curry cons) x) lst))
I have a list of two element sublists which will change and grow in the course of the program. I want to write a macro which takes a key and generates a case dynamically like:
;; This is the List for saving CASE clauses
(setf l '((number 2) (symbol 3)))
;; and i want to have the following expansion
(typecase 'y
(number 2)
(symbol 3))
I could have a macro which only refers to the global l:
(defmacro m (x)
`(typecase ,x ,#l))
which would expand correctly
(m 'y) ;expands to (TYPECASE 'Y (number 2) (symbol 3))
But how can i write the macro with a parameter for the list l so that it would work with other lists as well?
;; A macro which should generate the case based on the above list
(defmacro m (x l)
`(typecase ,x ,#l))
This doesn't work since l in the arguments list i a symbol and a call to (m 'y l) will expand to (TYPECASE 'Y . L).
Wanting to adhere to typecase mechanism, my workaround was as follows:
(setf types-x '(((integer 0 *) 38)
((eql neli) "Neli in X")
(symbol 39))
)
(setf types-y '(((eql neli) "Neli in Y")
((array bit *) "A Bit Vector")))
(defmacro m (x types-id)
(case types-id
(:x `(typecase ,x ,#types-x))
(:y `(etypecase ,x ,#types-y))))
(m 'neli :x) ;"Neli in X"
(m 'neli :y) ;"Neli in Y"
(m 'foo :x) ;39
Any hints and comments is appreciated.
You don't need a macro for what you're trying to do: use a function.
For instance, given
(defvar *type-matches*
'((float 0)
(number 1)
(t 3)))
Then
(defun type-match (thing &optional (against *type-matches*))
(loop for (type val) in against
when (typep thing type)
return (values val type)
finally (return (values nil nil))))
Will match a thing against a type:
> (type-match 1.0)
0
float
> (type-match 1)
1
number
You want to keep the variables sorted by type, which you can do by, for instance:
(setf *type-matches* (sort *type-matches* #'subtypep :key #'car))
You want to keep the matches sorted of course.
If you want to delay the execution of the forms then you can do something like this (this also deals with sorting the types):
(defvar *type-matches*
'())
(defmacro define-type-match (type/spec &body forms)
;; define a type match, optionally in a specified list
(multiple-value-bind (type var)
(etypecase type/spec
(symbol (values type/spec '*type-matches*))
(cons (values (first type/spec) (second type/spec))))
(let ((foundn (gensym "FOUND")))
`(let ((,foundn (assoc ',type ,var :test #'equal)))
(if ,foundn
(setf (cdr ,foundn) (lambda () ,#forms))
(setf ,var (sort (acons ',type (lambda () ,#forms) ,var)
#'subtypep :key #'car)))
',type/spec))))
(defun type-match (thing &optional (against *type-matches*))
(loop for (type . f) in against
when (typep thing type)
return (values (funcall f) type)
finally (return (values nil nil))))
The actual problem that you face is that if you do
(setf l '((number 2) (symbol 3)))
already on toplevel, if you evaluate l, you don't come further than
((number 2) (symbol 3))
So if you use l in a macro as an argument, you can't come further
than this. But what you need is to evaluate this form (modified after adding a typecase and an evaluated x upfront) once more within the macro.
This is, why #tfb suggested to write a function which actually evaluates the matching of the types specified in l.
So, we could regard his type-match function as a mini-interpreter for the type specifications given in l.
If you do a simple (defmacro m (x l) `(typecase ,x ,#l))
you face exactly that problem:
(macroexpand-1 '(m 1 l))
;; (typecase 1 . l)
but what we need is that l once more evaluated.
(defmacro m (x l)
`(typecase ,x ,#(eval l)))
Which would give the actually desired result:
(macroexpand-1 '(m 1 l))
;; (TYPECASE 1 (NUMBER 2) (SYMBOL 3)) ;
;; T
;; and thus:
(m 1 l) ;; 2
So far, it seems to work. But somewhere in the backhead it becomes itchy, because we know from books and community: "Don't use eval!! Eval in the code is evil!"
Trying around, you will find out when it will bite you very soon:
# try this in a new session:
(defmacro m (x l) `(typecase ,x ,#(eval l)))
;; m
;; define `l` after definition of the macro works:
(setf l '((number 2) (symbol 3)))
;; ((NUMBER 2) (SYMBOL 3))
(m 1 l)
;; 2 ;; so our `eval` can handle definitions of `l` after macro was stated
(m '(1 2) l)
;; NIL
;; even redefining `l` works!
(setf l '((number 2) (symbol 3) (list 4)))
;; ((NUMBER 2) (SYMBOL 3) (LIST 4))
(m 1 l)
;; 2
(m '(1 2) l)
;; 4 ;; and it can handle re-definitions of `l` correctly.
;; however:
(let ((l '((number 2) (symbol 3)))) (m '(1 2) l))
;; 4 !!! this is clearly wrong! Expected is NIL!
;; so our `eval` in the macro cannot handle scoping correctly
;; which is a no-go for usage!
;; but after re-defining `l` globally to:
(setf l '((number 2) (symbol 3)))
;; ((NUMBER 2) (SYMBOL 3))
(m '(1 2) l)
;; NIL ;; it behaves correctly
(let ((lst '((number 2) (symbol 3) (list 4)))) (m '(1 2) lst))
;; *** - EVAL: variable LST has no value
;; so it becomes clear: `m` is looking in the scoping
;; where it was defined - the global scope (the parent scope of `m` when `m` was defined or within the scope of `m`).
So the conclusion is:
The given macro with eval is NOT working correctly!!
Since it cannot handle local scoping.
So #tfb's answer - writing a mini-evaluator-function for l is the probably only way to handle this in a proper, safe, correct way.
Update
It seems to me that doing:
(defmacro m (x l)
`(typecase ,x ,#l))
(defun m-fun (x l)
(eval `(m ,x ,l)))
(m-fun ''y l) ;; 3
(m-fun 'y l) ;; error since y unknown
(let ((l '((number 2) (symbol 3) (list 4))))
(m-fun ''(1 2) l)) ;; => 4 since it is a list
(let ((l '((number 2) (symbol 3))))
(m-fun ''(1 2) l)) ;; => NIL since it is a list
(let ((l '((number 2) (symbol 3))))
(m-fun ''y l)) ;; => 3 since it is a symbol
(let ((n 12))
(m-fun n l)) ;; => 2 since it is a number
;; to improve `m-fun`, one could define
(defun m-fun (x l)
(eval `(m ',x ,l)))
;; then, one has not to do the strangely looking double quote
;; ''y but just one quote 'y.
(let ((l '((number 2) (symbol 3) (list 4))))
(m-fun '(1 2) l)) ;; => 4 since it is a list
;; etc.
at least hides the eval within a function.
And one does not have to use backquote in the main code.
Macro expansion happens at compile time, not run time, thus if the case clause list changes over the course of the program, the macro expansion will not change to reflect it.
If you want to dynamically select an unevaluated but changeable value, you can use assoc in the expansion instead of case:
(defmacro m (x l)
`(second (assoc ,x ,l)))
Sample expansion:
(m x l)
->
(SECOND (ASSOC X L))
Output of (assoc x l) with the value of l in your question and x = 'x:
(let ((x 'x))
(m x l))
->
2
However if you did decide to do it this way, you could simplify things and replace the macro with a function:
(defun m (x l)
(second (assoc x l)))
UPDATE FOR QUESTION EDIT:
Replace assoc as follows:
(defun m (x l)
(second (assoc-if (lambda (type)
(typep x type))
l)))
I am new in Lisp and i need some help.
I need to simplify next expressions:
from (+ (+ A B) C) to (+ A B C)
and from (- (- A B) C) to (- A B C).
If you could help me with one of them I'll understand how i need to do this to the next one.
Thanks a lot.
Assuming you have an input that matches this pattern, (+ e1 ... en), you want to recursively simplify all e1 to en, which gives you s1, ..., sn, and then extract all the si that start with a + to move their arguments one level up, to the simplified expression you are building.
An expression e matches the above pattern if (and (consp e) (eq '+ (car e))).
Then, all the ei are just given by the list that is (cdr e).
Consider the (+) case, how could you simplify it?
To apply a function f to a list of values, call (mapcar #'f list).
To split a list into two lists, based on a predicate p, you might use a loop:
(let ((sat nil) (unsat nil))
(dolist (x list (values sat unsat))
(if (funcall predicate x)
(push x sat)
(push x unsat))))
There is a purely functional way to write this, can you figure it out?
Here is a trivial simplifier written in Racket, with an implementation of a rather mindless simplifier for +. Note that this is not intended as anything serious: it's just what I typed in when I was thinking about this question.
This uses Racket's pattern matching, probably in a naïve way, to do some of the work.
(define/match (simplify expression)
;; simplifier driver
(((cons op args))
;; An operator with some arguments
;; Note that this assumes that the arguments to operators are always
;; expressions to simplify, so the recursive level can be here
(simplify-op op (map simplify args)))
((expr)
;; anything else
expr))
(define op-table (make-hash))
(define-syntax-rule (define-op-simplifier (op args) form ...)
;; Define a simplifier for op with arguments args
(hash-set! op-table 'op (λ (args) form ...)))
(define (simplify-op op args)
;; Note the slightly arcane fallback: you need to wrap it in a thunk
;; so hash-ref does not try to call it.
((hash-ref op-table op (thunk (λ (args) (cons op args)))) args))
(define-op-simplifier (+ exprs)
;; Simplify (+ ...) by flattening + in its arguments
(let loop ([ftail exprs]
[results '()])
(if (null? ftail)
`(+ ,#(reverse results))
(loop (rest ftail)
(match (first ftail)
[(cons '+ addends)
(append (reverse addends) results)]
[expr (cons expr results)])))))
It is possible to be more aggressive than this. For instance we can coalesce runs of literal numbers, so we can simplify (+ 1 2 3 a 4) to
(+ 6 a 4) (note it is not safe in general to further simplify this to (+ 10 a) unless all arithmetic is exact). Here is a function which does this coalescing for for + and *:
(define (coalesce-literal-numbers f elts)
;; coalesce runs of literal numbers for an operator f.
;; This relies on the fact that (f) returns a good identity for f
;; (so in particular it returns an exact number). Thisis true for Racket
;; and CL and I think any Lisp worth its salt.
;;
;; Note that it's important here that (eqv? 1 1.0) is false.
;;;
(define id (f))
(let loop ([tail elts]
[accum id]
[results '()])
(cond [(null? tail)
(if (not (eqv? accum id))
(reverse (cons accum results))
(reverse results))]
[(number? (first tail))
(loop (rest tail)
(f accum (first tail))
results)]
[(eqv? accum id)
(loop (rest tail)
accum
(cons (first tail) results))]
[else
(loop (rest tail)
id
(list* (first tail) accum results))])))
And here is a modified simplifier for + which uses this. As well as coalescing it notices that (+ x) can be simplified to x.
(define-op-simplifier (+ exprs)
;; Simplify (+ ...) by flattening + in its arguments
(let loop ([ftail exprs]
[results '()])
(if (null? ftail)
(let ([coalesced (coalesce-literal-numbers + (reverse results))])
(match coalesced
[(list something)
something]
[exprs
`(+ ,#exprs)]))
(loop (rest ftail)
(match (first ftail)
[(cons '+ addends)
(append (reverse addends) results)]
[expr (cons expr results)])))))
Here is an example of using this enhanced simplifier:
> (simplify 'a)
'a
> (simplify 1)
1
> (simplify '(+ 1 a))
'(+ 1 a)
> (simplify '(+ a (+ b c)))
'(+ a b c)
> (simplify '(+ 1 (+ 3 c) 4))
'(+ 4 c 4)
> (simplify '(+ 1 2 3))
6
For yet more value you can notice that the simplifier for * is really the same, and change things to this:
(define (simplify-arith-op op fn exprs)
(let loop ([ftail exprs]
[results '()])
(if (null? ftail)
(let ([coalesced (coalesce-literal-numbers fn (reverse results))])
(match coalesced
[(list something)
something]
['()
(fn)]
[exprs
`(,op ,#exprs)]))
(loop (rest ftail)
(match (first ftail)
[(cons the-op addends)
#:when (eqv? the-op op)
(append (reverse addends) results)]
[expr (cons expr results)])))))
(define-op-simplifier (+ exprs)
(simplify-arith-op '+ + exprs))
(define-op-simplifier (* exprs)
(simplify-arith-op '* * exprs))
And now
(simplify '(+ a (* 1 2 (+ 4 5)) (* 3 4) 6 (* b)))
'(+ a 36 b)
Which is reasonably neat.
You can go further than this, For instance when coalescing numbers for an operator you can simply elide sequences of the identity for that operator: (* 1 1 a 1 1 b) can be simplified to (* a b), not (* 1 a 1 b). It may seem silly to do that: who would ever write such an expression, but they can quite easily occur when simplifying complicated expressions.
There is a gist of an elaborated version of this code. It may still be buggy.
How does the map function implemented in racket and why, recursion or iteration.
Maybe some implementation example
How to implement map
The map function walks a list (or multiple lists), and applies a given function to every value of a list. For example mappiing add1 to a list results in:
> (map add1 '(1 2 3 4))
'(2 3 4 5)
As such, you can implement map as a recursive function:
(define (map func lst)
(if (empty? lst)
'()
(cons (func (first lst)) (map func (rest lst)))))
Of course, map can accept any number of arguments, with each element passed to the given prop. For example, you can zip two lists together using map list:
> (map list '(1 2 3) '(a b c))
'((1 a) (2 b) (3 c))
To implement this variable arity map, we need to make use of the apply function:
(define (map proc lst . lst*)
(if (empty? lst)
'()
(cons (apply proc (first lst) (map first lst*))
(apply map proc (rest lst) (map rest lst*)))))
Now, this does assume all of the given lists have the same length, otherwise you will get some unexpected behavior. To do that right you would want to run empty? on all lists, not just the first one. But...when you use it, you get:
> (map list '(a b c) '(1 2 3))
'((a 1) (b 2) (c 3))
Note that map here calls itself recursively 3 times. A faster implementation might do some unrolling to run faster. A better implementation would also do proper error checking, which I have elided for this example.
How Racket's map is implemented
If you open up DrRacket (using the latest Racket 7 nightly) and make the following file:
#lang racket
map
You can now right click on map and select Open Defining File. From here, you can see that map is renamed from the definition map2. The definition of which is:
(define map2
(let ([map
(case-lambda
[(f l)
(if (or-unsafe (and (procedure? f)
(procedure-arity-includes? f 1)
(list? l)))
(let loop ([l l])
(cond
[(null? l) null]
[else
(let ([r (cdr l)]) ; so `l` is not necessarily retained during `f`
(cons (f (car l)) (loop r)))]))
(gen-map f (list l)))]
[(f l1 l2)
(if (or-unsafe
(and (procedure? f)
(procedure-arity-includes? f 2)
(list? l1)
(list? l2)
(= (length l1) (length l2))))
(let loop ([l1 l1] [l2 l2])
(cond
[(null? l1) null]
[else
(let ([r1 (cdr l1)]
[r2 (cdr l2)])
(cons (f (car l1) (car l2))
(loop r1 r2)))]))
(gen-map f (list l1 l2)))]
[(f l . args) (gen-map f (cons l args))])])
map))
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 :)