;; The first three lines of this file were inserted by DrRacket. They record metadata ;; about the language level of this file in a form that our tools can easily process. #reader(lib "htdp-intermediate-reader.ss" "lang")((modname lect14-list-intro) (read-case-sensitive #t) (teachpacks ()) (htdp-settings #(#t constructor repeating-decimal #f #t none #f ()))) #| Follow the design recipe (the practically-final version!): ---- Per data type: 1. Choose data definition 2. Give some examples of the data 3. Template: a. If handling a union type, include a cond w/ one branch per option. b. If handling a product-type, pull out each piece (field). c. Add the natural recursive call (as appropriate) d. Inventory: In all cases, think about what *type* (each piece) is, and think of some functions that process that type. ---- Per function: 4. write test cases 5. (a-d): header, purpose, contract/type, copy the template, and stub it. 6. Inventory with values: Consider a particular test case, and think about what *specific* *value* of each sub-expression. 7. complete the body 8. run tests |# #| Definition: argument: the value passed into a function parameter: a function's local variable/identifier which is initialized from the arguments (each time the function is *called*). |# #| Definition (informal): the *signature* for a function is: the function's name, it's return-type, and the type of all parameters (and the order they appear in). Gist: it's the info needed (a) for a user to properly *call* the function, and (b) for the compiler/type-checker/interpreter to verify the syntax (and types) of a function-call. (I'll sometimes accidentally say that parameter-names are part of the signature, but that's not technically true; it just aligns with the first line of a function-declaration in many Algol-like syntaxes (e.g. Java), which I'll call the function header.) This definition doesn't address overloading, type-hierarchies, auto-conversion, keyword-arguments, var-args, dynamically-typed languages, class- vs instance-methods ... but the gist is good enough for our purposes. (And what about scope, visibility modifiers, and namespaces? I suspect those are *not* typically included in peoples' definitions of 'signature'; the reason is that in language-implementation, determining scope is usually done in a different step from verifying a function-call.) |# #| Today's+Tomorrow's outline: 1. Design recipe (recall, v.quickly). 2. data def'n for: list (including the non-built-in-way) 3. processing a list: sum write: length write: contains? (return a bool) write: triple-every-even (return a *list*) write: my-max (note bad run-time) learn: let* |# ; Data Definition: ; list-of-number is: ; empty, or ; (cons number list-of-number) ; "constructed list" ; Examples of data: empty ; () (cons 4 empty) ; (4) (cons 2 (cons 4 empty)) ; (2 4) (cons 3 (cons 2 (cons 4 empty))) ;(3 2 4) ; empty is a built-in constant ; cons is a built-in structure with two fields: first, rest ;(define-struct cons (first rest)) ; The constructor isn't *actually* `make-cons`, but instead just `cons`. ; The selectors aren't *actually* `cons-first`, but instead just `first` ; and not `cons-rest`, but instead just `rest`. ; ; There *is* a predicate `cons?`. ;; template: ; fun-for-list : list-of-number -> ??? ; (define (fun-for-list a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) ...] [(cons? a-lon) (... (first a-lon) ... (fun-for-list (rest a-lon)) ...)])) ; sum: list-of-number -> number ; (check-expect (sum empty) 0) (check-expect (sum (cons 4 empty)) 4) (check-expect (sum (cons 7 (cons 4 empty))) 11) (check-expect (sum (cons 3 (cons 7 (cons 4 empty)))) 14) ; sum : list-of-number -> number ; REturn the sum of all the numbers in `a-lon`. ; (define (sum a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) 0] [(cons? a-lon) (+ (first a-lon) (sum (rest a-lon)))])) (check-expect (my-length empty) 0) (check-expect (my-length (cons 4 empty)) 1) (check-expect (my-length (cons 2 (cons 4 empty))) 2) (check-expect (my-length (cons 93 (cons 2 (cons 4 empty)))) 3) (define (my-length a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) 0] [(cons? a-lon) (add1 (my-length (rest a-lon)))])) ; contains? : list-of-number, number -> boolean ; Does `alon` contain `target`? ; #;(define (contains? a-lon target) false) ; Alternately: we can simplify `(if true )` ; to `(or )` (check-expect (contains? empty 4) false) (check-expect (contains? (cons 4 empty) 4) true) (check-expect (contains? (cons 4 empty) 99) false) (check-expect (contains? (cons 2 (cons 4 empty)) 99) false) (check-expect (contains? (cons 2 (cons 4 empty)) 2) true) (check-expect (contains? (cons 2 (cons 4 empty)) 4) true) (check-expect (contains? (cons 93 (cons 2 (cons 4 empty))) 93) true) (check-expect (contains? (cons 93 (cons 2 (cons 4 empty))) 4) true) (check-expect (contains? (cons 93 (cons 2 (cons 4 empty))) 77) false) (check-expect (contains? (cons 93 (cons 2 (cons 93 empty))) 93) true) ; co (define (contains? a-lon target) (cond [(empty? a-lon) false] [(cons? a-lon) (or (= target (first a-lon)) (contains? (rest a-lon) target))])) #| Quiz: - give a list containing 17, -4, 2 (in that order) - write a function which takes in a list-of-number, and (mumblemumble...) |# ; Functions *returning* a list: ; triple-the-evens (and leave odd numbers untouched) ; (check-expect (tee empty) empty) (check-expect (tee (cons 4 empty)) (cons 12 empty)) (check-expect (tee (cons 93 (cons 2 (cons 4 empty)))) (cons 93 (cons 6 (cons 12 empty)))) ; tee : list-of-number -> list-of-number ; "triple-every-even" -- return another list like `a-lon`, ; but every even number is tripled (and odd numbers are unchanged). ; (define (tee a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) empty] [(cons? a-lon) (cons (if (even? (first a-lon)) (* 3 (first a-lon)) (* 1 (first a-lon))) (tee (rest a-lon)))])) ;;; Reminder, of the data-def'n: ;;; ; list-of-number is: ; empty, or ; (cons number list-of-number) ; "constructed list" #| We are *always* returning a cons, so factor out the common code: (cons (if (odd? (first a-lon)) (* 1 (first a-lon)) (* 3 (first a-lon))) (tee (rest a-lon)))])) But hey, we we are always multiplying the first by *something*, so factor: |# #| (cons (* (if (even? (first a-lon)) 3 1) (first a-lon)) (tee (rest a-lon)))])) |# ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; my-max (check-expect (my-max (cons 4 (cons 7 empty))) 7) (check-expect (my-max (cons 4 (cons 7 empty))) 7) ;(check-expect (my-max empty) -inf.0) ; Um, this *claims* to fail (check-expect (my-max (cons -5 (cons -4 (cons -3 (cons -2 (cons -1 empty)))))) -1) (define (func-for-list a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) ...] [(cons? a-lon) (...(first a-lon) ... (func-for-list (rest a-lon)) ....)])) ; my-max : list-of-number -> number ; (define (my-max a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) -inf.0] [(cons? a-lon) (if (< (first a-lon) (my-max (rest a-lon))) (my-max (rest a-lon)) (first a-lon))])) ; This passes all our tests! ; However, this implementation does have a problem, ; only revealed under stress tests: ; (check-expect (my-max (cons -18 (cons -17 (cons -16 (cons -15 (cons -14 (cons -13 (cons -12 (cons -11 (cons -10 (cons -9 (cons -8 (cons -7 (cons -6 (cons -5 (cons -4 (cons -3 (cons -2 (cons -1 empty))))))))))))))))))) -1) (check-expect (my-max (cons -22 (cons -21 (cons -20 (cons -19 (cons -18 (cons -17 (cons -16 (cons -15 (cons -14 (cons -13 (cons -12 (cons -11 (cons -10 (cons -9 (cons -8 (cons -7 (cons -6 (cons -5 (cons -4 (cons -3 (cons -2 (cons -1 empty))))))))))))))))))))))) -1) ; The problem is the repeated computation: ; every time the result-of-recursive call is bigger than the first, ; we *re*calculate the recursive call. ; (Worst case is ascending list, where the recursive result is always bigger). ; Solution: use a variable, to remember the result of the recursive call: ; Use `let*` #;(define (my-max a-lon) (cond [(empty? a-lon) -inf.0] [(cons? a-lon) (let {[max-of-rest (my-max (rest a-lon))] } (if (< (first a-lon) max-of-rest) max-of-rest (first a-lon)))])) (my-max (cons 3 (cons 7 (cons 2 (cons 9 empty))))) ; The Law of Scheme (and, Racket): ; An Expr is: ; ... ; (eval an-expr) is: ; cond ; ...lambda, so that 'define' meets the above ; ...'let' as 'lambda'. ; First: `let*`: use a variable(?) to avoid repeated computation. ; (Hey, could we do this with a helper function instead of `let*`?) ; (Does that trick ALWAYS work?) ; Some points: ; The +inf.0 trick doesn't work for (say) min-string. ; Really, the contract is wrong: should be non-empty-list. ; (To think about: what is Data def'n, for non-empty-list?) ; Later: We'll see a sol'n: a helper-function, w/ an accumulator: ; `max-helper : number, list-of-number -> number` ; - another data-def'n: natnum ; - ! ; - nums-up-to-zero ; Return a list of `i` numbers leading up to 0 (e.g. -3,-2,-1). ; (define (nums-below-0 i) (cond [(zero? i) empty] [(positive? i) (cons (- i) (nums-below-0 (sub1 i)))])) (check-expect (nums-below-0 2) (cons -2 (cons -1 empty))) (check-expect (nums-below-0 0) empty) (check-expect (nums-below-0 1) (cons -1 empty)) ; `lambda` ; w/ an add'l argument: ; deltas; cumulate