The following test is rejected:
CL-USER> (apply 'and '(t t t))
; Evaluation aborted on #<CCL::CALL-SPECIAL-OPERATOR-OR-MACRO #x3020013A1F3D>
My first reply was trying to encapsulate the call to the and special operator into a lambda or defining my own definition, but of course it can't work. Since it would results in calling the apply function for 'and on the &rest parameter... How would you tackle the issue?
Use the function EVERY instead.
(every #'identity '(t t t)) -> t
You can't apply special operators.
Next solution:
(reduce (lambda (a b) (and a b))
'(t t t)
:initial-value t)
Don't use APPLY for list operations. Use REDUCE.
Related
I have a function whose single argument can be one of:
quoted list (which I will eval within a context)
function
How to express this as a contract for this argument?
My first guess was:
(or/c expr? list?)
Any better ideas or this is right?
Since expr? does not exist, you should either use procedure? or something using the arrow constructor (for example (-> number? any/c)) for the function part of the contract.
Moreover, since this is a contract for a function, you should include both domain and range using ->.
Example:
#lang racket
(require racket/contract)
(require rackunit)
(define/contract (f x)
(-> (or/c (-> number? number?) list?) (or/c number? list?))
(if (list? x)
x
(x 3)))
(check-equal? (f '()) '())
(check-equal? (f add1) 4)
I am trying to solve the last part of question 4.4 of the Structure and Interpretation of computer programming; the task is to implement or as a syntactic transformation. Only elementary syntactic forms are defined; quote, if, begin, cond, define, apply and lambda.
(or a b ... c) is equal to the first true value or false if no value is true.
The way I want to approach it is to transform for example (or a b c) into
(if a a (if b b (if c c false)))
the problem with this is that a, b, and c would be evaluated twice, which could give incorrect results if any of them had side-effects. So I want something like a let
(let ((syma a))
(if syma syma (let ((symb b))
(if symb symb (let ((symc c))
(if (symc symc false)) )) )) )
and this in turn could be implemented via lambda as in Exercise 4.6. The problem now is determining symbols syma, symb and symc; if for example the expression b contains a reference to the variable syma, then the let will destroy the binding. Thus we must have that syma is a symbol not in b or c.
Now we hit a snag; the only way I can see out of this hole is to have symbols that cannot have been in any expression passed to eval. (This includes symbols that might have been passed in by other syntactic transformations).
However because I don't have direct access to the environment at the expression I'm not sure if there is any reasonable way of producing such symbols; I think Common Lisp has the function gensym for this purpose (which would mean sticking state in the metacircular interpreter, endangering any concurrent use).
Am I missing something? Is there a way to implement or without using gensym? I know that Scheme has it's own hygenic macro system, but I haven't grokked how it works and I'm not sure whether it's got a gensym underneath.
I think what you might want to do here is to transform to a syntactic expansion where the evaluation of the various forms aren't nested. You could do this, e.g., by wrapping each form as a lambda function and then the approach that you're using is fine. E.g., you can do turn something like
(or a b c)
into
(let ((l1 (lambda () a))
(l2 (lambda () b))
(l3 (lambda () c)))
(let ((v1 (l1)))
(if v1 v1
(let ((v2 (l2)))
(if v2 v2
(let ((v3 (l3)))
(if v3 v3
false)))))))
(Actually, the evaluation of the lambda function calls are still nested in the ifs and lets, but the definition of the lambda functions are in a location such that calling them in the nested ifs and lets doesn't cause any difficulty with captured bindings.) This doesn't address the issue of how you get the variables l1–l3 and v1–v3, but that doesn't matter so much, none of them are in scope for the bodies of the lambda functions, so you don't need to worry about whether they appear in the body or not. In fact, you can use the same variable for all the results:
(let ((l1 (lambda () a))
(l2 (lambda () b))
(l3 (lambda () c)))
(let ((v (l1)))
(if v v
(let ((v (l2)))
(if v v
(let ((v (l3)))
(if v v
false)))))))
At this point, you're really just doing loop unrolling of a more general form like:
(define (functional-or . functions)
(if (null? functions)
false
(let ((v ((first functions))))
(if v v
(functional-or (rest functions))))))
and the expansion of (or a b c) is simply
(functional-or (lambda () a) (lambda () b) (lambda () c))
This approach is also used in an answer to Why (apply and '(1 2 3)) doesn't work while (and 1 2 3) works in R5RS?. And none of this required any GENSYMing!
In SICP you are given two ways of implementing or. One that handles them as special forms which is trivial and one as derived expressions. I'm unsure if they actually thought you would see this as a problem, but you can do it by implementing gensym or altering variable? and how you make derived variables like this:
;; a unique tag to identify special variables
(define id (vector 'id))
;; a way to make such variable
(define (make-var x)
(list id x))
;; redefine variable? to handle macro-variables
(define (variable? exp)
(or (symbol? exp)
(tagged-list? exp id)))
;; makes combinations so that you don't evaluate
;; every part twice in case of side effects (set!)
(define (or->combination terms)
(if (null? terms)
'false
(let ((tmp (make-var 'tmp)))
(list (make-lambda (list tmp)
(list (make-if tmp
tmp
(or->combination (cdr terms)))))
(car terms)))))
;; My original version
;; This might not be good since it uses backquotes not introduced
;; until chapter 5 and uses features from exercise 4.6
;; Though, might be easier to read for some so I'll leave it.
(define (or->combination terms)
(if (null? terms)
'false
(let ((tmp (make-var 'tmp)))
`(let ((,tmp ,(car terms)))
(if ,tmp
,tmp
,(or->combination (cdr terms)))))))
How it works is that make-var creates a new list every time it is called, even with the same argument. Since it has id as it's first element variable? will identify it as a variable. Since it's a list it will only match in variable lookup with eq? if it is the same list, so several nested or->combination tmp-vars will all be seen as different by lookup-variable-value since (eq? (list) (list)) => #f and special variables being lists they will never shadow any symbol in code.
This is influenced by eiod, by Al Petrofsky, which implements syntax-rules in a similar manner. Unless you look at others implementations as spoilers you should give it a read.
i'm having a problem with this lisp function. I want to create a function that receives two lists, and verifies if the elements of the first list (all of them) occur in the second list, it returns True if this happens.
Currently i have the following code:
(defun ocorre-listas (l1 l2)
(dolist (elem1 l1)
(dolist (elem2 l2)
(if (equal elem1 elem2)
t))))
It's not working, as expected. Should i try to do it just with a simple recursion? I'm really not getting how i can iterate both lists in search of equal elements.
I decided to try without the dolists. This is what i have now, it's still not working.
(defun ocorre-listas (l1 l2)
(cond ((null l1) nil)
((null l2) nil)
((if (/= (first l1)(first l2)) (ocorre-listas l1 (rest l2))))
(t (if (= (first l1) (first l2)) (ocorre-listas (rest l1)(rest l2))))))
I get a warning saying that "t" is an undefined function. Also, every example i try returns null. What am i doing wrong ?
In the second piece of code, if the first list is empty then all of its elements are in the second one.
You don't need the ifs since you are inside a cond
After test if the lists are empty, you'll only need to test if the first element of the first list is in the second one and call the function again with the first list without this element
Instead of trying to do everything in one function, consider splitting it into two (or more) functions, e.g.
One that takes a number and the second list, and tests whether the number appears in the list
Another that iterates over the numbers in the first list, and for each one tests (using the first function) whether it appears in the second list.
As well as DOLIST, consider using MAPCAR and FIND-IF (assuming they are allowed in this assignment.)
So you need to check if every element of l1 is a member of l2. These are both functions in the Common Lisp standard library, so if you're allowed to use them, you can build a simple solution with them.
See the common lisp subsetp
predicate and its implementation:
CL-USER> (subsetp '(1 2 3) '(1 2 3 4)
T
To be able to work on both lists at the same time, the trick is probably to sort the lists before starting the recursion. Then it should be a simple matter of comparing the first element, and applying the same function to the rest of the list recursively, with some CAR/CDR magic added of course...
While there are many ways to do this, I would recommend using a hash table to avoid O(n^2) complexity. Using a hash table, you can achieve O(n) complexity.
here is a union function
(defun my-union (a b)
(let ((h (make-hash-table :test #'equal)))
(mapcar (lambda (x) (setf (gethash x h) x)) a)
(mapcan (lambda (x) (when (gethash x h) (list x))) b)))
here is a function testing for IDENTICAL elements in boths lists
(defun same-elements (a b)
(apply #'= (mapcar #'length (list (my-union a b) a b))))
here is a function making sure a is a subset of b (what you asked)
(defun subset (a b)
(same-elements (my-union a b) a))
I'm trying to write a function which checks if every element in the list x has property a, so I wrote:
(defun check (a x)
(if (listp x)
(eval (cons 'and (mapcar #'a x)))))
but it doesn't work. (Basically I want a to be the name of a function, say blablabla, and in the body of the check-function, by #'a I want to mean the function blablabla, instead of a function called a.) Now the code above doesn't work. I think in Lisp one should be able to plug in functions. How can I fix it?
(It is literally my first day on lisp, so it might be a stupid question ;)
and BTW I'm using Lispworks 6.0 personal version.)
There is no need to use the sharp-quote syntax here. Its purpose is to use a function name in a variable position, but a is a variable already. Just write a instead of #'a.
You don't need eval you can use apply.
To the problem: You need funcall because you provide a as argument. (Edit: Not in this case.) By quoting you just refer to the function a not the a in this function.
(defun check (a xs)
(if (listp xs)
(every #'identity (mapcar a
xs))))
Better, use loop:
(defun check (a xs)
(if (listp xs)
(loop for x in xs
always (funcall a x))))
Best, use every:
(defun check (a xs)
(if (listp xs)
(every a xs)))
Here is how I would write something like your check function. I tried to give it a more descriptive name.
(defun are-all-elements-fullfilling-fun-p (fun ls)
(every #'identity (mapcar fun ls)))
Edit: Note that a shorter and better definition is
(defun are-all-elements-fullfilling-fun-p (fun ls)
(every fun ls)))
Now let's say we want to call it with this function. Note that I tend to use declarations when possible. I quite often screw something up and debugging is easy if the compiler can figure the error out. Also the code will run faster.
(defun is-even-p (n)
(declare (type number n))
(the boolean (= 0 (mod n 2))))
You have to place the #' here:
(are-all-elements-fullfilling-fun-p #'is-even-p '(1 2 3 4))
(are-all-elements-fullfilling-fun-p #'is-even-p '(38 2 4))
In elisp I can evaluate or as a function just like +.
(or nil 0 nil) ==> 0
(+ 1 0 1) ==> 2
I can use apply to apply + to a list
(apply '+ '(1 0 1)) ==> 2
So, I would think or would work the same way, but it doesn't.
(apply 'or '(nil 0 nil)) ==> error: (invalid-function or)
I imagine this comes from some internal magic used to implement the short-circuit evaluation. How can I use apply to execute the or operation over a list?
P.S. my desired application is to find out whether any elements on the command line match a particular pattern, so the important part of what I am writing is:
(apply 'or (mapcar (lambda (x) (string-match-p "pattern" x)) command-line-args))
But it doesn't work
The problem is that or is a macro (which is the "internal magic" in question), and you're right that that's done so it can do short-circuiting. If or was a function, then calling it would need to follow the usual rules for evaluating a function call: all the arguments would need to get evaluated before the call is made.
See also this question -- it's about Scheme but it's the exact same issue.
As for a solution, you should probably use some, as in:
(some (lambda (x) (string-match-p "pattern" x)) command-line-args)
Note: this uses common lisp that is not included in emacs by default. Just use (require 'cl)
If it makes you feel any better, you're in good company! This is the third question in the "Common Pitfalls" section of the Lisp FAQ:
Here's the simple, but not necessarily satisfying, answer: AND and OR are
macros, not functions; APPLY and FUNCALL can only be used to invoke
functions, not macros and special operators.
...and Eli is of course right on the money with his suggestion to use SOME:
The Common Lisp functions EVERY and SOME can be used to get the
functionality you intend when trying to apply #'AND and #'OR.
(The FAQ and this answer are mostly about Common Lisp but in this case if you omit the # character the answer is the same.)
If you don't care performance, use (eval (cons 'or '(nil 0 nil)))
When I was trying to 'apply' a macro to an argument list, I got an error that the function is unbound, which means that, 'apply' only receives a function, instead of a macro, as its first argument.
In order to fix this, I wrote a new function 'apply-macro' as follows:
(defun apply-macro (macro arg-list)
(eval
`(,macro ,#(loop for arg in arg-list
collect `(quote ,arg)))))
For instance, I wrote a macro to concatenate multiple lists together:
(defmacro conc-lists (&rest lists)
`(funcall #'concatenate 'list ,#lists))
e.g.
(conc-lists '(a b) '(c d) '(e f)) ;;=> (A B C D E F)
Now try 'apply-macro':
(apply-macro 'conc-lists '((a b) (c d) (e f)))
It works and returns the same output.
In fact, it will be expanded into:
(eval
(conc-lists (quote (a b)) (quote (c d)) (quote (e f))))
You can also pass a form to a macro:
(apply-macro 'conc-lists (maplist #'list '(a b c)))
;;=> ((A B C) (B C) (C))
Get back to your question, it's solved:
(apply-macro 'or '(nil 0 nil)) ;;=> 0
I'm only guessing here, but I think or might be one of these 20-odd 'functions' in lisp that are not really functions, since they don't always evaluate all parameters.
This makes sense to make or one of these, since if you have found one TRUE, you can stop searching. In other words, or is not a function as a form of optimization. Still only guessing though.
Eli Barzilay's answer is correct and idiomatic. I want to provide an alternative answer based on dash.el, the library I use to write terse functional-style code, when I have to work with lists. or returns the first non-nil element, nil otherwise, due to short-circuiting. Therefore simply use -first:
(-first 'identity '(nil 0 1 nil)) ; 0
(-first 'identity '(nil nil)) ; nil
identity function simply returns its argument. Which is clever, because -first applies a predicate until it returns non-nil. identity returns non-nil if the argument is itself non-nil. If you simply want to test whether there is non-nil elements in a list, use -any? instead:
(-any? 'identity '(nil 0 1 nil)) ; t
(-any? 'identity '(nil nil)) ; nil