I apologize for the bad English..
I have a task to write a function called "make-bag" that counts occurences of every value in a list
and returns a list of dotted pairs like this: '((value1 . num-occurences1) (value2 . num-occurences2) ...)
For example:
(make-bag '(d c a b b c a))
((d . 1) (c . 2) (a . 2) (b . 2))
(the list doesn't have to be sorted)
Our lecturer allows us to us functions MAPCAR and also FILTER (suppose it is implemented),
but we are not allowed to use REMOVE-DUPLICATES and COUNT-IF.
He also demands that we will use recursion.
Is there a way to count every value only once without removing duplicates?
And if there is a way, can it be done by recursion?
First of, I agree with Mr. Joswig - Stackoverflow isn't a place to ask for answers to homework. But, I will answer your question in a way that you may not be able to use it directly without some extra digging and being able to understand how hash-tables and lexical closures work. Which in it's turn will be a good exercise for your advancement.
Is there a way to count every value only once without removing duplicates? And if there is a way, can it be done by recursion?
Yes, it's straight forward with hash-tables, here are two examples:
;; no state stored
(defun make-bag (lst)
(let ((hs (make-hash-table)))
(labels ((%make-bag (lst)
(if lst
(multiple-value-bind (val exists)
(gethash (car lst) hs)
(if exists
(setf (gethash (car lst) hs) (1+ val))
(setf (gethash (car lst) hs) 1))
(%make-bag (cdr lst)))
hs)))
(%make-bag lst))))
Now, if you try evaluate this form twice, you will get the same answer each time:
(gethash 'a (make-bag '(a a a a b b b c c b a 1 2 2 1 3 3 4 5 55)))
> 5
> T
(gethash 'a (make-bag '(a a a a b b b c c b a 1 2 2 1 3 3 4 5 55)))
> 5
> T
And this is a second example:
;; state is stored....
(let ((hs (make-hash-table)))
(defun make-bag (lst)
(if lst
(multiple-value-bind (val exists)
(gethash (car lst) hs)
(if exists
(setf (gethash (car lst) hs) (1+ val))
(setf (gethash (car lst) hs) 1))
(make-bag (cdr lst)))
hs)))
Now, if you try to evaluate this form twice, you will get answer doubled the second time:
(gethash 'x (make-bag '(x x x y y x z z z z x)))
> 5
> T
(gethash 'x (make-bag '(x x x y y x z z z z x)))
> 10
> T
Why did the answer doubled?
How to convert contents of a hash table to an assoc list?
Also note that recursive functions usually "eat" lists, and sometimes have an accumulator that accumulates the results of each step, which is returned at the end. Without hash-tables and ability of using remove-duplicates/count-if, logic gets a bit convoluted since you are forced to use basic functions.
Well, here's the answer, but to make it a little bit more useful as a learning exercise, I'm going to leave some blanks, you'll have to fill.
Also note that using a hash table for this task would be more advantageous because the access time to an element stored in a hash table is fixed (and usually very small), while the access time to an element stored in a list has linear complexity, so would grow with longer lists.
(defun make-bag (list)
(let (result)
(labels ((%make-bag (list)
(when list
(let ((key (assoc (car <??>) <??>)))
(if key (incf (cdr key))
(setq <??>
(cons (cons (car <??>) 1) <??>)))
(%make-bag (cdr <??>))))))
(%make-bag list))
result))
There may be variations of this function, but they would be roughly based on the same principle.
Related
I want to implement the sorting function in common-lisp with this INSERT function
k means cons cell with number & val, and li means list where I want insert k into.
with this function, I can make a list of cell
(defun INSERT (li k) (IF (eq li nil) (cons (cons(car k)(cdr k)) nil)
(IF (eq (cdr li) nil)
(IF (< (car k)(caar li)) (cons (cons(car k)(cdr k)) li)
(cons (car li) (cons (cons(car k)(cdr k)) (cdr li)) )
)
(cond
( (eq (< (caar li) (car k)) (< (car k) (caadr li)) )
(cons (car k) (cons (cons (car k) (cdr k)) (cdr li)) ) )
(t (cons (car li) (INSERT (cdr li) k)) )))))
and what I want is the code of this function below. it has only one parameter li(non sorted list)
(defun Sort_List (li)(...this part...))
without using assignment, and using the INSERT function
Your insert function is very strange. In fact I find it so hard to read that I cn't work out what it's doing except that there's no need to check for both the list being null and its cdr being null. It also conses a lot of things it doesn't need, unless you are required by some part of the specification of the problem to make copies of the conses you are inserting.
Here is a version of it which is much easier to read and which does not copy when it does not need to. Note that this takes its arguments in the other order to yours:
(defun insert (thing into)
(cond ((null into)
(list thing))
((< (car thing) (car (first into)))
(cons thing into))
(t (cons (first into)
(insert thing (rest into))))))
Now, what is the algorithm for insertion sort? Well, essentially it is:
loop over the list to be sorted:
for each element, insert it into the sorted list;
finally return the sorted list.
And we're not allowed to use assignment to do this.
Well, there is a standard trick to do this sort of thing, which is to use a tail-recursive function with an accumulator argument, which accumulates the results. We can either write this function as an explicit auxiliary function, or we can make it a local function. I'm going to do the latter both because there's no reason for a function which is only ever used locally to be globally visible, and because (as I'm assuming this is homework) it makes it harder to submit directly.
So here is this version of the function:
(defun insertion-sort (l)
(labels ((is-loop (tail sorted)
(if (null tail)
sorted
(is-loop (rest tail) (insert (first tail) sorted)))))
(is-loop l '())))
This approach is fairly natural in Scheme, but not very natural in CL. An alternative approach which does not use assignment, at least explicitly, is to use do. Here is a version which uses do:
(defun insertion-sort (l)
(do ((tail l (rest tail))
(sorted '() (insert (first tail) sorted)))
((null tail) sorted)))
There are two notes about this version.
First of all, although it's not explicitly using assignment it pretty clearly implicitly is doing so. I think that's probably cheating.
Secondly it's a bit subtle why it works: what, exactly, is the value of tail in (insert (first tail) sorted), and why?
A version which is clearer, but uses loop which you are probably not meant to know about, is
(defun insertion-sort (l)
(loop for e in l
for sorted = (insert e '()) then (insert e sorted)
finally (return sorted)))
This, however, is also pretty explicitly using assignment.
As Kaz has pointed out below, there is an obvious way (which I should have seen!) of doing this using the CL reduce function. What reduce does, conceptually, is to successively collapse a sequence of elements by calling a function which takes two arguments. So, for instance
(reduce #'+ '(1 2 3 4))
is the same as
(+ (+ (+ 1 2) 3) 4)
This is easier to see if you use cons as the function:
> > (reduce #'cons '(1 2 3 4))
(((1 . 2) . 3) . 4)
> (cons (cons (cons 1 2) 3) 4)
(((1 . 2) . 3) . 4)
Well, of course, insert, as defined above, is really suitable for this: it takes an ordered list and inserts a new pair into it, returning a new ordered list. There are two problems:
my insert takes its arguments in the wrong order (this is possibly why the original one took the arguments in the other order!);
there needs to be a way of 'seeding' the initial sorted list, which will be ().
Well we can fix the wrong-argument-order either by rewriting insert, or just by wrapping it in a function which swaps the arguments: I'll do the latter because I don't want to revisit what I wrote above and I don't want two versions of the function.
You can 'seed' the initial null value by either just prepending it to the list of things to sort, or in fact reduce has a special option to provide the initial value, so we'll use that.
So using reduce we get this version of insertion-sort:
(defun insertion-sort (l)
(reduce (lambda (a e)
(insert e a))
l :initial-value '()))
And we can test this:
> (insertion-sort '((1 . a) (-100 . 2) (64.2 . "x") (-2 . y)))
((-100 . 2) (-2 . y) (1 . a) (64.2 . "x"))
and it works fine.
So the final question the is: are we yet again cheating by using some function whose definition obviously must involve assignment? Well, no, we're not, because you can quite easily write a simplified reduce and see that it does not need to use assignment. This version is much simpler than CL's reduce, and in particular it explicitly requires the initial-value argument:
(defun reduce/simple (f list accum)
(if (null list)
accum
(reduce/simple f (rest list) (funcall f accum (first list)))))
(Again, this is not very natural CL code since it relies on tail-call elimination to handle large lists, but it makes the point that you can do this without assignment.)
And so now we can write one final version of insertion-sort:
(defun insertion-sort (l)
(reduce/simple (lambda (a e)
(insert e a))
l '()))
And it's easy to check that this works as well.
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 :)
I need a function that will take in a list with words and split that list into two lists if at any point the word 'FOO' is found. I have come up with a recursive solution, may not be the best, but I am having a bit of trouble. I only need to pass 1 argument, the list to be analyzed, but I do not know how to build up the second list off to the side. Any suggestions? Thanks!
;Splits a list into 2 if the word 'FOO' is present
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
;LOAD FILE: (load "C:\\split.lisp")
;USAGE: (split '(with great power foo comes great responsibility) '())
;OUTPUT: ((with great power)(comes great responsibility))
(defun split (x y)
(cond
( ;IF: first element in list is nil
(EQ (car x) nil)
x ;RETURN the list
)
( ;ELSE IF: first element is 'FOO'
(EQ (car x) 'FOO)
(cons (reverse y ) (cons (cdr x) nil))
)
( ;ELSE: recursively call split but pass the rest of x and
;prepend y with the head of x
t
(split (cdr x) (cons (car x) y))
)
) ;END cond
) ;END split
The first test should be different.
The following is not a really good solution: it is not tail-recursive and it uses side-effects. But still...
(defun split (x)
(cond ((null x) x)
((eq (first x) 'foo)
(list nil (rest x)))
(t (let ((l (split (rest x))))
(push (first x) (first l))
l))))
Above uses the PUSH macro. One of the interesting facilities of Common Lisp is that you can use places to modify. In this cases we modify the first sublist of our list to be returned. We push the first element of the list onto the first sublist.
CL-USER 12 > (split '(1 2 3 foo a b c))
((1 2 3) (A B C))
In Common Lisp one would usually write a solution in a non-recursive fashion.
In your recursive version, the typical way to reduce a function to one argument is this: Write the function with one argument and this function then calls a helper function with two arguments. The helper function can also be locally defined using LABELS.
Here's my take on it, using nothing but lists:
(defun split (lst)
(labels ((split-rec (lst a)
(cond
((or (null lst)
(eq (car lst) 'foo))
(values (reverse a) (cdr lst)))
(t (split-rec (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) a))))))
(split-rec lst ())))
split offloads most of the work to split-rec (defined in the labels call), which recursively consumes the list of tokens, until it reaches the end of the list, or sees 'foo. At that point, it immediately takes the remainder of the list and treats that as the second list. Because the first list (a) is being built-up recursively, split-rec has to reverse it before returning it.
Here are a couple of runs through the REPL:
> (split '(with great power foo comes great responsibility))
(WITH GREAT POWER) ;
(COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY)
> (split '(with great power comes great responsibility))
(WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY) ;
NIL
> (split nil)
NIL ;
NIL
> (split '(with great power foo comes great foo responsibility) :on 'foo)
(COMES GREAT) ;
(WITH GREAT POWER RESPONSIBILITY)
> (split '(foo with great power comes great responsibility) :on 'foo)
NIL ;
(WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY)
Most of the edge cases that I could think up are handled, and two lists are always returned. Callers can use multiple-value-bind to get both lists out, i.e.:
(multiple-value-bind (a b)
(split '(with great power foo comes great responsibility))
; do something useful with a and b
)
(defun split (lst)
(let* ((a (make-array (length lst) :initial-contents lst))
(index (position 'foo a)))
(cond ((null index) a)
(t (cons (loop for i from 0 to (1- index)
collect (aref a i))
(list (loop for i from (1+ index) to (1- (length a))
collect (aref a i))))))))
Create an array from the list so that there elements are easier to access.
Check if foo exists, if it does mark the index
Use loop to create two lists, one of the elements before foo, and another one of the elements after foo, and cons them together.
Here I've also tried! :)
There's one thing you would want to clarify though: in corner cases like: foo is the first element of the list, should you return two lists or only the second one? If foo is the last element in the list, should you return list and nil or only the first list? If foo isn't in the list, should you return just the list, or list and nil / nil and list?
(defun split (list &key (on-symbol 'foo))
(let (result result-head)
(mapl
#'(lambda (a)
(if (eql (car a) on-symbol)
(return-from split
(if result
(values result (copy-list (cdr a)))
(copy-list (cdr a))))
(if result
(setf (cdr result-head) (list (car a))
result-head (cdr result-head))
(setf result (list (car a))
result-head result)))) list) result))
(split '(1 2 3 4 5 foo a b c))
(split '(foo 1 2 3 4 5 foo a b c))
(split '(1 2 3 4 5 a b c))
I'm having issues trying to form code for a problem I want to resolve. It goes like this:
~ Goal: flatten a nested list into one number
If the object is a list, replace the list with the sum of its atoms.
With nested lists, flatten the innermost lists first and work from there.
Example:
(CONDENSE '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5))
(2 3 4 (6) (2 3 (3)) 5)
(2 3 4 (6) (8) 5)
(28)
=> 28
I've tried to implement the flatten list function for this problem and I ended up with this:
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst)))
(t (append (flatten (apply #'+ (cdr lst))))))
But it gives me errors :(
Could anyone explain to me what is wrong with my processing/code? How can I improve it?
UPDATE: JUNE 5 2012
(defun condense(lxt)
(typecase lxt
(number (abs lxt))
(list
(if (all-atoms lxt)
(calculate lxt)
(condense (mapcar #'condense lxt))))))
So here, in this code, my true intent is shown. I have a function calculate that performs a calculation based off the values in the list. It is not necessarily the same operation each time. Also, I am aware that I am returning the absolute value of the number; I did this because I couldn't find another way to return the number itself. I need to find a way to return the number if the lxt is a number. And I had it recurse two times at the bottom, because this is one way that it loops on itself infinitely until it computes a single number. NOTE: this function doesn't implement a flatten function anymore nor does it use anything from it.
Imagine you have your function already. What does it get? What must it produce?
Given an atom, what does it return? Given a simple list of atoms, what should it return?
(defun condense (x)
(typecase x
(number
; then what?
(condense-number x))
(list
; then what?
(if (all-atoms x)
(condense-list-of-atoms x) ; how to do that?
(process-further-somehow
(condense-lists-inside x))))
; what other clauses, if any, must be here?
))
What must condense-lists-inside do? According to your description, it is to condense the nested lists inside - each into a number, and leave the atoms intact. So it will leave a list of numbers. To process that further somehow, we already "have" a function, condense-list-of-atoms, right?
Now, how to implement condense-lists-inside? That's easy,
(defun condense-lists-inside (xs)
(mapcar #'dowhat xs))
Do what? Why, condense, of course! Remember, we imagine we have it already. As long as it gets what it's meant to get, it shall produce what it is designed to produce. Namely, given an atom or a list (with possibly nested lists inside), it will produce a number.
So now, fill in the blanks, and simplify. In particular, see whether you really need the all-atoms check.
edit: actually, using typecase was an unfortunate choice, as it treats NIL as LIST. We need to treat NIL differently, to return a "zero value" instead. So it's better to use the usual (cond ((null x) ...) ((numberp x) ...) ((listp x) ...) ... ) construct.
About your new code: you've erred: to process the list of atoms returned after (mapcar #'condense x), we have a function calculate that does that, no need to go so far back as to condense itself. When you substitute calculate there, it will become evident that the check for all-atoms is not needed at all; it was only a pedagogical device, to ease the development of the code. :) It is OK to make superfluous choices when we develop, if we then simplify them away, after we've achieved the goal of correctness!
But, removing the all-atoms check will break your requirement #2. The calculation will then proceed as follows
(CONDENSE '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5))
==
(calculate (mapcar #'condense '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5)))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 (condense '(3 1 1 1)) (condense '(2 3 (1 2))) 5))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 (calculate '(3 1 1 1))
(calculate (list 2 3 (calculate '(1 2)))) 5))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 6 (calculate '(2 3 3)) 5))
==
(calculate (list 2 3 4 6 8 5))
==
28
I.e. it'll proceed in left-to-right fashion instead of the from the deepest-nested level out. Imagining the nested list as a tree (which it is), this would "munch" on the tree from its deepest left corner up and to the right; the code with all-atoms check would proceed strictly by the levels up.
So the final simplified code is:
(defun condense (x)
(if (listp x)
(reduce #'+ (mapcar #'condense x))
(abs x)))
a remark: Looking at that last illustration of reduction sequence, a clear picture emerges - of replacing each node in the argument tree with a calculate application. That is a clear case of folding, just such that is done over a tree instead of a plain list, as reduce is.
This can be directly coded with what's known as "car-cdr recursion", replacing each cons cell with an application of a combining function f on two results of recursive calls into car and cdr components of the cell:
(defun condense (x) (reduce-tree x #'+ 0))
(defun reduce-tree (x f z)
(labels ((g (x)
(cond
((consp x) (funcall f (g (car x)) (g (cdr x))))
((numberp x) x)
((null x) z)
(T (error "not a number")))))
(g x)))
As you can see this version is highly recursive, which is not that good.
Is this homework? If so, please mark it as such. Some hints:
are you sure the 'condensation' of the empty list in nil? (maybe you should return a number?)
are you sure the condensation of one element is a list? (maybe you should return a number?)
are you sure the condensation of the last case is a list? (shouldn't you return a number)?
In short, how is your condense ever going to return 28 if all your returned values are lists?
Task: With nested lists, flatten the innermost lists first and work from there
sum
flatten lists
For sum use REDUCE, not APPLY.
For flatten lists you need a loop. Lisp already provides specialized mapping functions.
Slightly more advanced: both the sum and the flatten can be done by a call to REDUCE.
You can also write down the recursion without using a higher-order function like APPLY, REDUCE, ... That's a bit more work.
Here's added the explanation of the errors you were having, actually you were close to solving your problem, just a bit more effort and you would get it right.
; compiling (DEFUN CONDENSE ...)
; file: /tmp/file8dCll3
; in: DEFUN CONDENSE
; (T (APPEND (FLATTEN (APPLY #'+ (CDR LST)))))
;
; caught WARNING:
; The function T is undefined, and its name is reserved
; by ANSI CL so that even
; if it were defined later, the code doing so would not be portable.
;
; compilation unit finished
; Undefined function:
; T
; caught 1 WARNING condition
;STYLE-WARNING: redefining CONDENSE in DEFUN
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst)))
;.------- this is a function call, not a condition
;| (you closed the parens too early)
(t (append (flatten (apply #'+ (cdr lst))))))
;; Argument Y is not a NUMBER: (3 1 1 1)
;; [Condition of type SIMPLE-TYPE-ERROR]
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst)); .-- not a number!
;You are calling #'+ -------. |
;on something, which | '(3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5)
; is not a number. | |
(t (append (flatten (apply #'+ (cdr lst)))))))
;; You probably wanted to flatten first, and then sum
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil); .--- returns just the
((atom lst) (list lst)); / atom 28, you can
; .---------------------/ just remove it.
(t (append (apply #'+ (flatten lst))))))
;; Now, you are lucky that append would just return the
;; atom if it's not a list
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst))
(t (apply #'+ (flatten lst)))))
;; Again, you are lucky because (apply can take enough arguments
;; while your list is reasonably small - this will not always be
;; the case, that is why you need to use something more durable,
;; for example, reduce.
(defun condense (lst)
(cond
((null lst) nil)
((atom lst) (list lst))
(t (reduce #'+ (flatten lst)))))
;; Whoa!
(condense '(2 3 4 (3 1 1 1) (2 3 (1 2)) 5))
This is all given the flatten function actually works.
If your lisp already implements flatten and reduce functions (such as Clojure, which I will use here), you can just do something like:
user=> (defn condense [l] (reduce + 0 (flatten l)))
#'user/condense
user=> (condense [1 [2 [[3 4] 5]]])
15
user=>
Failing that, a naive implementation of those functions might be:
(defn flatten [l]
(cond (nil? l) l
(coll? l) (let [[h & t] l]
(concat (flatten h) (flatten t)))
true [l]))
and:
(defn reduce [op initial-value [h & t]]
(if (nil? t)
(op initial-value h)
(op initial-value (reduce op h t))))
But make sure to check the semantics of the particular Lisp you are using. Also, if you are implementing reduce and flatten, you may want to make them tail recursive which I didn't so as to maintain clarity.
In Common Lisp you would do something like:
(defun flatten (l)
(cond ((null l) l)
((atom l) (list l))
(t (append (flatten (car l))
(flatten (cdr l))))))
and use apply instead of reduce:
(defun condense (l) (apply #'+ (flatten l)))