I'm just playing with an NFA for string recognition. I have a macro that creates a function which consumes input and passes on the rest to some other functions. Because there might be loops in my NFA graph, I'm using letrec to put the whole thing together. Here is some code (been testing in PLT-Scheme):
(define-syntax-rule (match chars next accepting)
; a function that consumes a list of chars from a list l.
; on success (if there's more to do) invokes each of next on the remainder of l.
(lambda (l)
(let loop ((c chars) (s l))
(cond
((empty? c)
(cond
((and (empty? s) accepting) #t)
(else
(ormap (lambda (x) (x s)) next))))
((empty? s) #f)
((eq? (car c) (car s))
(loop (cdr c) (cdr s)))
(else #f)))))
; matches (a|b)*ac. e .g. '(a a b b a c)
(define (matches? l)
(letrec
([s4 (match '( ) '() #t)]
[s3 (match '(c) `(,s4) #f)]
[s2 (match '(a) `(,s3) #f)]
[s1 (match '( ) `(,s2 ,s5) #f)]
[s5 (match '( ) `(,s6 ,s7) #f)]
[s6 (match '(a) `(,s8) #f)]
[s7 (match '(b) `(,s8) #f)]
[s8 (match '( ) `(,s1) #f)])
(s1 l)))
(matches? '(a c))
(matches? '(a b b b a c))
(matches? '(z a b b b a c))
Now, what if I had a simple data-structure to represent my NFA, like a list of lists. e.g.
'((s4 () () #t)
(s3 (c) (s4) #f)
...)
My question is: How would I turn that list into the former letrec statement? I'm not too good with Macros and my understanding is that I probably shouldn't be using eval.
If the list is known at compile time (what I mean is, before your program starts running) then you can use a macro. Otherwise you must use eval.
It's ok. This is one of the good uses for eval. :)
I came up with this macro which seems to do the job
(I'm not an expert either):
(define-syntax nfa
(syntax-rules (let-bindings)
; All the let bindings have been expanded
[(nfa start (let-bindings . bindings))
(lambda (l) (letrec bindings (start l)))]
; Otherwise, expand the next binding
[(nfa start (let-bindings . bindings) (s c n a) . rest)
(nfa start (let-bindings (s (match 'c (list . n) a)) . bindings) . rest)]
; Insert the expanded bindings list
[(nfa start states)
(nfa start (let-bindings) . states)]))
; matches (a|b)*ac. e .g. '(a a b b a c)
(define matches?
(nfa s1 ([s4 ( ) () #t]
[s3 (c) (s4) #f]
[s2 (a) (s3) #f]
[s1 ( ) (s2 s5) #f]
[s5 ( ) (s6 s7) #f]
[s6 (a) (s8) #f]
[s7 (b) (s8) #f]
[s8 ( ) (s1) #f])))
The trick is to use intermediate forms to create "subtitution loops",
and reserve identifiers (cf. let-bindings) to distinguish these intermediate forms
from direct usage of the macro.
I think your problem can be seprate into 2 subproblem:
write a macro that consumes a NFA description and generate a NFA automatically,I call this macro make-NFA
apply make-NFA to a list generated programatically,I call this macro apply-macro
the second subproblem is easy:
(define-syntax apply-macro
(syntax-rules ()
((_ macro ls)
(eval
`(macro ,#ls)
(interaction-environment)))))
;(define ls '(1 2 3))
;(apply-macro if ls)=>2
the first question,I have a DFA sample,you can write a NFA by youself:
(define-syntax make-DFA
(syntax-rules (: ->)
((_ init-state (state : result (symbol -> next) ...) ...)
(letrec
((state
(lambda(sigma)
(cond
((null? sigma) result)
(else
(case (car sigma)
((symbol)
(next (cdr sigma)))...
(else false))))))... )
init-state))))
(define DFA1
(make-DFA q1
(q1 : true (#\a -> q2)
(#\b -> q3))
(q2 : false (#\a -> q1)
(#\b -> q4))
(q3 : false (#\a -> q4)
(#\b -> q1))
(q4 : true (#\a -> q3)
(#\b -> q2))))
(DFA1 (string->list "ababa"));=>#f
well,may be define-macro is a better way to implement apply-macro.
Related
say I have two lists in lisp
(setq a '(p q))
(setq b '(1 2))
(car a) is p
(car b) is 1
now I want to define a symbol '(test p 1) but if I use below
(setq c '(test (car a) (car b)))
I get '(test (car a) (car b))
it is understandable, but I just want to know how can I substitute those (car a) to p and (car b) to 1 and form a new symbol of '(test p 1)
Thanks
First off, setq should not be used on unbound variables. You can use setq on established variables. Also for global variables you should use *earmuffs*.
(defparameter *a* '(p q))
(defparameter *b* '(1 2))
(car *a*) ; ==> p
(car *b*) ; ==> 1
The quote will use the quotes structure as data. That means everything expr where you write 'expr will never be evaluated beyond taking the data verbatim. New lists are created with cons. eg.
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* (cons 'test
(cons (car *a*)
(cons (car *b*)
'()))))
cons is the primitive, but CL has several other ways to create lists. eg. the same with the function list:
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* (list 'test (car *a*) (car *b*)))
The second the structure becomes more complex using quasiquote/unquote/unquote-splice is a lot easier.
;; creates/updates binding *x* to point at the newly created list (test p 1)
(defparameter *c* `(test ,(car *a*) ,(car *b*)))
;; more complex example
(defmacro my-let ((&rest bindings) &body body)
`((lambda ,(mapcar #'car bindings)
,#body)
,(mapcar #'cadr bindings)))
(macroexpand-1 '(my-let ((a 10) (b 20)) (print "hello") (+ (* a a) (* b b))))
; ==> ((lambda (a b)
; (print "hello")
; (+ (* a a) (* b b)))
; (10 20))
Note that this is just sugar for the identical structure made with cons, list, and append. It might be optimized for minimal memory use so will share structure. eg. `(,x b c) in a procedure will do (cons x '(b c)) which means if you create two versions their cdr will be eq and you should refrain from mutating these parts.
If you want to make a list the function you want is list:
(list 'test (car a) (car b))`
Will be the list (test p 1).
Note that the purpose of quote (abbreviated ', so '(x) is identical to (quote (x))) is simply to tell the evaluator that what follows is literal data, not code. So, in (list 'test ...), which is the same as (list (quote test) ...) then quote tells the evaluator that test is being used as a literal datum, rather than as the name of a binding, and similarly '(p q) means 'this is a literal list with elements p and q', while (p q) means 'this is a form for evaluation, whose meaning depends on what p is')
To complete the answer from tfb, you can write
`(test ,(car a) ,(car b)
This is strictly the same of
(list 'test (car a) (car b)
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.
Preface: I'm currently taking a condensed course that is apparently taught in LISP and I've never worked with LISP in my life so I had to learn the language over a weekend. I apologize in advance for the abysmal code. I'm just familiar enough with LISP's syntax to get the code working and not much more.
I'm currently working on a program that solves the map coloring problem. This code takes a sequence where the first element of each sub sequence is a state and the second element represents a color. ex: '((A R) (B G) (C G) (D Y) (E B) (F B)) and then checks to make sure that no state has the same color as a state it's constrained by (defined by the constraint list). I know there are probably a lot of cleaner and simpler ways to do this but what I'm currently struggling with is having my dolist loops immediately return the value T whenever the if statement is met. So far I've been unable to get the functions to simply return a value and had to resort to this really ugly/wrong method of setting a variable to true and waiting for the loop to finish in order to make the code work. I've tried using return and just having T inside the if statements but, in both cases, the loop would finish instead of returning a value and I have no idea why.
(setq constraint '((A (B C E)) (B (A E F)) (C (A E F)) (D (F)) (E (A B C F)) (F (B C D E))))
(defun check_constraint (f s)
(setf ans nil)
(dolist (state constraint)
(if (eq (first state) f)
(if (search (list s) (second state))
(setf ans T) ;;where I want it to just return T
)
)
)
ans
)
;;ex: ((A R) (B R) (C B) (D R) (E B) (F G))
(defun check_conflict (lst)
(setf anb nil)
(dolist (state lst)
(dolist (neighbor (remove state lst))
(if (check_constraint (first state) (first neighbor))
(if (eq (second state) (second neighbor))
(setf anb T)) ;;where I want it to just return T
)
)
)
anb
)
EDIT: I ended up just fixing this with recursion. The code is cleaner now but I'd still love to know what my issue was. This is the recursive code.
(setq constraint '((A (B C E)) (B (A E F)) (C (A E F)) (D (F)) (E (A B C F)) (F (B C D E))))
(defun check_constraint (lst f s)
(COND
((null lst) nil)
((search (list (car (car lst))) f)
(if (search s (second (car lst))) T))
(t (check_constraint (cdr lst) f s))
)
)
(defun check_neighbor (check lst)
(COND
((null lst) nil)
((check_constraint constraint (list (car check)) (list (first (first lst))))
(if (eq (second check) (second (car lst))) T))
(t (check_neighbor check (cdr lst)))
)
)
;;(check_state '((A R) (B R) (C B) (D R) (E B) (F G)))
(defun check_state (lst)
(COND
((null lst) nil)
((check_neighbor (car lst) (cdr lst)) T)
(t (check_state (cdr lst)))
)
)
First a few style issues. You should use DEFVAR or DEFPARAMETER to declare global variables. Those should also have asterisks around the name to show that they are global (or special actually).
(defparameter *constraint*
'((A (B C E))
(B (A E F))
(C (A E F))
(D (F))
(E (A B C F))
(F (B C D E))))
The lisp convention for naming things is to use dashes between words (CHECK-CONSTRAINT instead of CHECK_CONSTRAINT). You should also prefer full words for variable names instead of abbreviations (LIST instead of LST). The closing parentheses should not be written on their own line.
Then the actual problem. You can use RETURN to return a value from a block named NIL. Loops establish such a block, so you can write the first function like
(defun check-constraint (first second)
(dolist (state *constraint*)
(when (and (eq first (first state))
(member second (second state)))
(return t))))
It's better to use WHEN instead of IF when there's only a then-branch. I also combined the two IFs into one using AND. Since you were wrapping S in a list for using SEARCH, I figured you probably want to use MEMBER instead (although I'm not sure since I don't exactly know what the code is supposed to do). You can change that back if it's wrong.
You probably could also simplify it to
(defun check-constraint (first second)
(member second (second (find first *constraint* :key #'first))))
In the second function you have two loops. If you use RETURN to return from the inner one, you just end up continuing the outer loop and ignoring the return value. So you have to use RETURN-FROM to return from the function instead of the inner loop.
(defun check-conflict (list)
(dolist (state list)
(dolist (neighbor (remove state list))
(when (and (check-constraint (first state) (first neighbor))
(eq (second state) (second neighbor)))
(return-from check-conflict t)))))
I am confused about the difference between '(()) and (cons null null) in scheme.
The code below show that b and c are completely the same thing.
(define (dup2 x)
(let ((d '(())))
(set-car! d (car x))
(set-cdr! d (cdr x))
d))
(define a '(1 2))
(define b (dup2 a))
(define c (dup2 a))
(set-car! b 2)
> c ;; --> (2 2)
However, when I used dup instead of dup2:
(define (dup x)
(let ((d (cons null null)))
(set-car! d (car x))
(set-cdr! d (cdr x))
d))
(define a '(1 2))
(define b (dup a))
(define c (dup a))
(set-car! b 2)
> c ;; --> (1 2)
Variable b and c are different. I have done some experiments, but I haven't understand yet.
The value of d in the first implementation is literal data, and is modified with undefined consequences. To highlight what's happening, consider the following code:
(define (incorrect-list-null-and-x x)
(let ((l '(()))) ; a list of the form (() . ())
(set-cdr! l (cons x (cdr l))) ; (cdr l) is (), so (cons x (cdr l)) should be (x . ()) == (x), right?
; and now l should be (() . (x . ())) == (() x), right?
l))
The expected result is that (incorrect-list-null-and-x n) should return a list of the form (() n), and it does the first time, but successive calls are still accessing the same data:
(incorrect-list-null-and-x 1) ;=> (() 1)
(incorrect-list-null-and-x 2) ;=> (() 2 1)
(incorrect-list-null-and-x 3) ;=> (() 3 2 1)
(incorrect-list-null-and-x 4) ;=> (() 4 3 2 1)
The same problem manifests itself a bit differently in your dup2. Every value returned from dup2 is actually the same pair:
(let* ((x (dup2 (cons 1 2)))
(y (dup2 (cons 3 4))))
(display x)
(display y))
outputs:
(3 . 4)(3 . 4)
because the call (dup2 (cons 3 4)) modifies the same structure that was previously returned by (dup2 (cons 1 2)).
Data literals, like '(()), are meant to be read-only, and modifying it using set-car! or set-cdr! has undefined behaviour. For predictable behaviour, use the (cons '() '()) version if you want to use set-car! or set-cdr! on it.
In particular, cons creates a new cons cell, whereas a data literal usually won't.
Still, for the purposes of implementing dup, why are you using set-car! and set-cdr! anyway? Just use cons directly:
(define (dup x)
(cons (car x) (cdr x)))
In your first code snippet you use (d '(())) which ends up binding a literal to d. You then modify the literal which is generally undefined. In your second code snippet you use (d (cons null null)) which binds d to a newly created 'cons cell' which you then modify. There is no problem modifying that.
Note: you've not defined null. Perhaps you meant '()?
I have found the code from this lesson online (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/ftpdir/6.001-fall91/ps4/matcher-from-lecture.scm), and I am having a heck of a time trying to debug it. The code looks pretty comparable to what Sussman has written:
;;; Scheme code from the Pattern Matcher lecture
;; Pattern Matching and Simplification
(define (match pattern expression dictionary)
(cond ((eq? dictionary 'failed) 'failed)
((atom? pattern)
(if (atom? expression)
(if (eq? pattern expression)
dictionary
'failed)
'failed))
((arbitrary-constant? pattern)
(if (constant? expression)
(extend-dictionary pattern expression dictionary)
'failed))
((arbitrary-variable? pattern)
(if (variable? expression)
(extend-dictionary pattern expression dictionary)
'failed))
((arbitrary-expression? pattern)
(extend-dictionary pattern expression dictionary))
((atom? expression) 'failed)
(else
(match (cdr pattern)
(cdr expression)
(match (car pattern)
(car expression)
dictionary)))))
(define (instantiate skeleton dictionary)
(cond ((atom? skeleton) skeleton)
((skeleton-evaluation? skeleton)
(evaluate (evaluation-expression skeleton)
dictionary))
(else (cons (instantiate (car skeleton) dictionary)
(instantiate (cdr skeleton) dictionary)))))
(define (simplifier the-rules)
(define (simplify-exp exp)
(try-rules (if (compound? exp)
(simplify-parts exp)
exp)))
(define (simplify-parts exp)
(if (null? exp)
'()
(cons (simplify-exp (car exp))
(simplify-parts (cdr exp)))))
(define (try-rules exp)
(define (scan rules)
(if (null? rules)
exp
(let ((dictionary (match (pattern (car rules))
exp
(make-empty-dictionary))))
(if (eq? dictionary 'failed)
(scan (cdr rules))
(simplify-exp (instantiate (skeleton (car rules))
dictionary))))))
(scan the-rules))
simplify-exp)
;; Dictionaries
(define (make-empty-dictionary) '())
(define (extend-dictionary pat dat dictionary)
(let ((vname (variable-name pat)))
(let ((v (assq vname dictionary)))
(cond ((null? v)
(cons (list vname dat) dictionary))
((eq? (cadr v) dat) dictionary)
(else 'failed)))))
(define (lookup var dictionary)
(let ((v (assq var dictionary)))
(if (null? v)
var
(cadr v))))
;; Expressions
(define (compound? exp) (pair? exp))
(define (constant? exp) (number? exp))
(define (variable? exp) (atom? exp))
;; Rules
(define (pattern rule) (car rule))
(define (skeleton rule) (cadr rule))
;; Patterns
(define (arbitrary-constant? pattern)
(if (pair? pattern) (eq? (car pattern) '?c) false))
(define (arbitrary-expression? pattern)
(if (pair? pattern) (eq? (car pattern) '? ) false))
(define (arbitrary-variable? pattern)
(if (pair? pattern) (eq? (car pattern) '?v) false))
(define (variable-name pattern) (cadr pattern))
;; Skeletons & Evaluations
(define (skeleton-evaluation? skeleton)
(if (pair? skeleton) (eq? (car skeleton) ':) false))
(define (evaluation-expression evaluation) (cadr evaluation))
;; Evaluate (dangerous magic)
(define (evaluate form dictionary)
(if (atom? form)
(lookup form dictionary)
(apply (eval (lookup (car form) dictionary)
user-initial-environment)
(mapcar (lambda (v) (lookup v dictionary))
(cdr form)))))
;;
;; A couple sample rule databases...
;;
;; Algebraic simplification
(define algebra-rules
'(
( ((? op) (?c c1) (?c c2)) (: (op c1 c2)) )
( ((? op) (? e ) (?c c )) ((: op) (: c) (: e)) )
( (+ 0 (? e)) (: e) )
( (* 1 (? e)) (: e) )
( (* 0 (? e)) 0 )
( (* (?c c1) (* (?c c2) (? e ))) (* (: (* c1 c2)) (: e)) )
( (* (? e1) (* (?c c ) (? e2))) (* (: c ) (* (: e1) (: e2))) )
( (* (* (? e1) (? e2)) (? e3)) (* (: e1) (* (: e2) (: e3))) )
( (+ (?c c1) (+ (?c c2) (? e ))) (+ (: (+ c1 c2)) (: e)) )
( (+ (? e1) (+ (?c c ) (? e2))) (+ (: c ) (+ (: e1) (: e2))) )
( (+ (+ (? e1) (? e2)) (? e3)) (+ (: e1) (+ (: e2) (: e3))) )
( (+ (* (?c c1) (? e)) (* (?c c2) (? e))) (* (: (+ c1 c2)) (: e)) )
( (* (? e1) (+ (? e2) (? e3))) (+ (* (: e1) (: e2))
(* (: e1) (: e3))) )
))
(define algsimp (simplifier algebra-rules))
;; Symbolic Differentiation
(define deriv-rules
'(
( (dd (?c c) (? v)) 0 )
( (dd (?v v) (? v)) 1 )
( (dd (?v u) (? v)) 0 )
( (dd (+ (? x1) (? x2)) (? v)) (+ (dd (: x1) (: v))
(dd (: x2) (: v))) )
( (dd (* (? x1) (? x2)) (? v)) (+ (* (: x1) (dd (: x2) (: v)))
(* (dd (: x1) (: v)) (: x2))) )
( (dd (** (? x) (?c n)) (? v)) (* (* (: n) (+ (: x) (: (- n 1))))
(dd (: x) (: v))) )
))
(define dsimp (simplifier deriv-rules))
(define scheme-rules
'(( (square (?c n)) (: (* n n)) )
( (fact 0) 1 )
( (fact (?c n)) (* (: n) (fact (: (- n 1)))) )
( (fib 0) 0 )
( (fib 1) 1 )
( (fib (?c n)) (+ (fib (: (- n 1)))
(fib (: (- n 2)))) )
( ((? op) (?c e1) (?c e2)) (: (op e1 e2)) ) ))
(define scheme-evaluator (simplifier scheme-rules))
I'm running it in DrRacket with the R5RS, and the first problem I ran into was that atom? was an undefined identifier. So, I found that I could add the following:
(define (atom? x) ; atom? is not in a pair or null (empty)
(and (not (pair? x))
(not (null? x))))
I then tried to figure out how to actually run this beast, so I watched the video again and saw him use the following:
(dsimp '(dd (+ x y) x))
As stated by Sussman, I should get back (+ 1 0). Instead, using R5RS I seem to be breaking in the extend-dictionary procedure at the line:
((eq? (cadr v) dat) dictionary)
The specific error it's returning is: mcdr: expects argument of type mutable-pair; given #f
When using neil/sicp I'm breaking in the evaluate procedure at the line:
(apply (eval (lookup (car form) dictionary)
user-initial-environment)
The specific error it's returning is: unbound identifier in module in: user-initial-environment
So, with all of that being said, I'd appreciate some help, or the a good nudge in the right direction. Thanks!
Your code is from 1991. Since R5RS came out in 1998, the code must be written for R4RS (or older).
One of the differences between R4RS and later Schemes is that the empty list was interpreted as false in the R4RS and as true in R5RS.
Example:
(if '() 1 2)
gives 1 in R5RS but 2 in R4RS.
Procedures such as assq could therefore return '() instead of false.
This is why you need to change the definition of extend-directory to:
(define (extend-dictionary pat dat dictionary)
(let ((vname (variable-name pat)))
(let ((v (assq vname dictionary)))
(cond ((not v)
(cons (list vname dat) dictionary))
((eq? (cadr v) dat) dictionary)
(else 'failed)))))
Also back in those days map was called mapcar. Simply replace mapcar with map.
The error you saw in DrRacket was:
mcdr: expects argument of type <mutable-pair>; given '()
This means that cdr got an empty list. Since an empty list has
no cdr this gives an error message. Now DrRacket writes mcdr
instead of cdr, but ignore that for now.
Best advice: Go through one function at a time and test it with
a few expressions in the REPL. This is easier than figuring
everything out at once.
Finally begin your program with:
(define user-initial-environment (scheme-report-environment 5))
Another change from R4RS (or MIT Scheme in 1991?).
Addendum:
This code http://pages.cs.brandeis.edu/~mairson/Courses/cs21b/sym-diff.scm almost runs.
Prefix it in DrRacket with:
#lang r5rs
(define false #f)
(define user-initial-environment (scheme-report-environment 5))
(define mapcar map)
And in extend-directory change the (null? v) to (not v).
That at least works for simple expressions.
Here is the code that works for me with mit-scheme (Release 9.1.1).
You also may use this code. It runs on Racket.
For running "eval" without errors, the following needed to be added
(define ns (make-base-namespace))
(apply (eval '+ ns) '(1 2 3))