hw14 - CS61A Week 14 solutions HOMEWORK 4.25 UNLESS in...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sheet1 Page 1 CS61AWeek 14 solutions HOMEWORK: --------- 4.25 UNLESS in normal vs. applicative order In ordinary (applicative order) Scheme, this version of FACTORIAL will be an infinite loop, because the argument subexpression (* n (factorial (- n 1))) is evaluated before UNLESS is called, whether or not n is 1. In normal order Scheme it'll work fine, because the argument subexpressions aren't evaluated until they're needed. What will actually happen is that each use of the special form IF within UNLESS will force the computation of (= n 1), but no multiplications will happen until the evaluator tries to print the result. In effect, (factorial 5) returns the thunk (lambda () (* 5 (* 4 (* 3 (* 2 (* 1 1)))))) and that gets evaluated just in time to print the answer. 4.26 Normal order vs. special forms For Ben's side of the argument we must implement UNLESS as a derived expression: (define (unless->if exp) (make-if (unless-predicate exp) (unless-consequent exp) (unless-alternative exp))) (define unless-predicate cadr) (define unless-alternative caddr) (define unless-consequent cadddr) Notice that we reversed the order of the last two subexpressions in the call to make-if. Then we just add a clause ((unless? exp) (eval (unless->if exp) env)) to the ordinary metacircular evaluator, or ((unless? exp) (analyze (unless->if exp))) to the analyzing evaluator. For Alyssa's side of the argument, we need a case in which it's useful to have a Scheme special form available as an ordinary procedure. The only thing we can do with ordinary procedures but not with special forms is use
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Page 2 them as arguments to higher-order procedures. An example using UNLESS will be a little strained, so first we'll look at a more common situation involving a different special form, namely AND. We'd like to be able to say (define (all-true? tf-list) (accumulate and tf-list)) Now, here's the strained example using UNLESS: Suppose we have a list of true-false values and we'd like to add up the number of true ones. Here's a somewhat strange way to do it: (define zero-list (cons 0 '())) (set-cdr! zero-list zero-list) (define one-list (cons 1 '())) (set-cdr! one-list one-list) (define (howmany-true tf-list) (apply + (map unless tf-list zero-list one-list))) Zero-list is an infinite list of zeros of ones. We make use of the fact that MAP's end test is that its first argument is empty, so MAP will return a list the same size as the argument tf-list. For example, if tf-list is (#t #t #f #t) then map will return (1 1 0 1) created, in effect, this way: (list (unless #t 0 1) (unless #t 0 1) (unless #f 0 1) (unless #t 0 1)) And so + will return 3, the number of trues in the list. 4.28 Why force the operator of a combination?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/14/2009 for the course PEIS 100 taught by Professor Mckenzie during the Spring '08 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 54

hw14 - CS61A Week 14 solutions HOMEWORK 4.25 UNLESS in...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online