[R6RS] my notes on today's conference call (30 May 2006)
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Tue May 30 13:59:18 EDT 2006
Conference call May 30 2006
All present by about 12:46pm:
Kent, Anton, Matthew, Mike, Will
Note: our weekly meeting time is now Tuesday 12:45-1:45.
0. finalize agenda (1 minute)
1. action items from 5/24/2006 (5 minutes)
- email note re: unicode and filenames (Matthew)
done
- start discussion of script support (Mike)
started
- reword I/O-related exception questions (Mike)
done
- consider commitment for reference implementations (All)
ongoing
- carried over:
- complete and commit updated status report (Kent)
in progress
- comment on syntax srfi (All but Kent)
Mike's comments are still the only ones
- withdraw Unicode SRFI (Matthew)
done
- mail refined core/language split proposal (Anton)
ongoing
- update library srfi (Matthew and Kent)
in progress
- update reference implementation for arithmetic SRFI (Will)
in progress
- discuss SRFI 1 candidates (All)
including: every, any, fold, fold-right, iota, filter, filter-map,
partition, find, concatenate, and generalized member, remove, assoc
scheduled for today's conference call
- respond to Mike's proposal for eval (All but Mike)
open
More stuff:
- i/o
SRFI 79 and 81 give a good idea of what is proposed
2. dynamic-wind (10 minutes)
published papers specify different semantics for the
dynamic environment of the in and out thunks
proposed: not in until in thunk completes; out as soon as
out thunk is called
Will will generate examples for which it matters
3. SRFI 1 procedures (15 minutes)
see below for details
For next week's agenda:
dynamic-wind
finish discussion of SRFI 1
eval
4. adjourned about 1:46pm
* * *
These notes are based on Kent's message earlier today:
To help focus our discussion of SRFI-1 procedures, I've created brief
summaries of the possible candidates.
The first section covers the SRFI-1 procedures that one or more of
us have proposed to include. The second section covers generalized
versions of member, remove, and assoc. The third section covers specific
removal procedures: remq, remv, and remove, i.e., counterparts to
memq/memv/member and assq/assv/assoc.
The Scheme definitions shown are for illustration only; most lack adequate
error checking, and some are not as efficient as they could be.
Kent
-------- SRFI-1 procedures
(any pred list1 list2 ...)
- as in SRFI 1 except same constraints on argument lists as we've
agreed upon for map
(define any
(lambda (pred ls . ls*)
(and (not (null? ls))
(let loop ([ls ls] [ls* ls*])
(if (null? (cdr ls))
(apply pred (car ls) (map car ls*))
(or (apply pred (car ls) (map car ls*))
(loop (cdr ls) (map cdr ls*))))))))
(any < '(1 2 3) '(1 2 3)) ;=> #f
(any < '(1 2 3) '(3 2 1)) ;=> #t
(any car '((#f) (b) (#f))) ;=> b
(any car '((a) (b) (c))) ;=> a
Shall we put something like this in?
yes, unanimous
Potential problem with name:
if (any pred ls) is true, then it sounds like the predicate
is true of any element of ls
Suggested names:
any
some
exists Will, Matthew, Mike, Kent
fold-or-all
or-fold
ormap
first
Rename to exists
--------
(every pred list1 list2 ...)
Suggested names:
every Mike (acceptable to all)
forall Will, Kent, Anton (acceptable to all)
Final vote:
every
forall Will, Kent, Anton
Rename to forall
- as in SRFI 1 except same constraints on argument lists as we've
agreed upon for map
(define every
(lambda (pred ls . ls*)
(or (null? ls)
(let loop ([ls ls] [ls* ls*])
(if (null? (cdr ls))
(apply pred (car ls) (map car ls*))
(and (apply pred (car ls) (map car ls*))
(loop (cdr ls) (map cdr ls*))))))))
(every <= '(1 2 3) '(1 2 3)) ;=> #t
(every <= '(1 2 3) '(3 2 1)) ;=> #f
(every car '((#f) (b) (#f))) ;=> #f
(every car '((a) (b) (c))) ;=> c
--------
(concatenate list-of-lists)
- as in SRFI 1
- can last element of list-of-lists be a non-list?
- is (concatenate x) actually clearer than (apply append x)?
("concatenate" is one character shorter than "apply append")
- may be present because some implementations don't allow
as many arguments with apply as with concatenate
(define concatenate
(lambda (list-of-lists)
(apply append list-of-lists)))
(concatenate '((1 2) (3 4 5))) ;=> (1 2 3 4 5)
Do we want this in R6RS?
no, 4-1
--------
(filter pred list)
- as in SRFI 1
- more useful if generalized to accept more than one list
and return multiple lists as values
(define filter
(lambda (pred ls)
(let f ([ls ls])
(if (null? ls)
'()
(if (pred (car ls))
(cons (car ls) (f (cdr ls)))
(f (cdr ls)))))))
(filter even? '(1 2 3 4 5)) ;=> (2 4)
Include filter: yes
Shall we generalize to accept more than one list and return multiple values?
Will, Kent, Matthew: yes
others abstain
--------
(filter-map proc list1 list2 ...)
- as in SRFI 1 except same constraints on argument lists as we've
agreed upon for map
(define filter-map
(lambda (proc ls . ls*)
(filter values
(apply map proc ls ls*))))
(filter-map (lambda (x) (memq 'b x)) '((a b) (b c) (c d))) ;=> ((b) (b c))
Do we want this?
No: Will, Kent, Matthew, Anton
Yes: Mike
--------
(find pred ls)
- as in SRFI 1 except same constraints on argument list as we've
agreed upon for memq/memv/member
(define find
(lambda (pred ls)
(cond
[(generalized-member pred ls) => car]
[else #f])))
(find even? '(1 2 3 4 5)) ;=> 2
(find even? '(1 3 5 7 9)) ;=> #f
Tabled until after discussion of generalized-member
--------
(fold cons nil list1 list2 ...)
- as in SRFI 1 except same constraints on argument lists as we've
agreed upon for map
(define fold
(lambda (cons nil ls . ls*)
(let f ([nil nil] [ls ls] [ls* ls*])
(if (null? ls)
nil
(f (apply cons (car ls) (append (map car ls*) (list nil)))
(cdr ls)
(map cdr ls*))))))
(fold cons '(q) '(a b c)) ;=> (c b a q)
(fold + 0 '(1 2 3) '(4 5 6)) ;=> 21
Should rename to fold-left (unanimous).
But it isn't symmetric with fold-right; shouldn't it be?
Tabled to next week so we can think about it.
--------
(fold-right kons knil list1 list2 ...)
- as in SRFI 1 except same constraints on argument lists as we've
agreed upon for map
(define fold-right
(lambda (cons nil ls . ls*)
(let f ([ls ls] [ls* ls*])
(if (null? ls)
nil
(apply cons (car ls)
(append (map car ls*) (list (f (cdr ls) (map cdr ls*)))))))))
(fold-right cons '(q) '(a b c)) ;=> (a b c q)
(fold-right + 0 '(1 2 3) '(4 5 6)) ;=> 21
Tabled for symmetry with the tabling of fold.
--------
(iota count [start [step]])
- as in SRFI 1 except that start can be specified even if step cannot.
(define iota
(rec iota
(case-lambda
[(count) (iota count 0 1)]
[(count start) (iota count start 1)]
[(count start step)
(if (= count 0)
'()
(cons start (iota (- count 1) (+ start step) step)))])))
(iota 5) ;=> (0 1 2 3 4)
(iota 5 1) ;=> (1 2 3 4 5)
(iota 5 1 -.25) ;=> (1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.0)
Will proposes restricting start and step to exact numbers.
The first has to be an exact integer.
Restrictions accepted unanimously.
Do we want iota?
Will, Kent, Matthew
Anton abstains
Mike is against
Shall we include the step argument?
Kent: yes (switched from no after example given of use)
Matthew: no
Mike: abstain (switched from no)
Will: yes
Anton: yes
--------
(partition pred list)
- as in SRFI 1
(define partition
(lambda (pred ls)
(let f ([ls ls])
(if (null? ls)
(values '() '())
(let-values ([(ls1 ls2) (f (cdr ls))])
(if (pred (car ls))
(values (cons (car ls) ls1) ls2)
(values ls1 (cons (car ls) ls2))))))))
(partition even? '(1 2 3 4 5)) ;=> (2 4)
; (1 3 5)
Tabled for lack of time.
The remaining procedures are also tabled for lack of time,
and will be considered next week.
-------- generalized member, remove, assoc
(generalized-member pred list)
- returns first pair of list whose car satisfies pred, if any,
otherwise #f
- same constraints on argument list as we've agreed upon for
memq/memv/member
- can we come up with a better name?
- SRFI 1 calls this find-tail.
- SRFI 1 also generalizes member with = argument
(define generalized-member
(lambda (pred ls)
(let f ([ls ls])
(and (not (null? ls))
(if (pred (car ls))
ls
(f (cdr ls)))))))
(generalized-member even? '(1 2 3 4 5)) ;=> (2 3 4 5)
(generalized-member even? '(1 3 5 7 9)) ;=> #f
(generalized-remove pred list)
- returns new list with elements satisfying pred removed
- raises exception if list is not a list
- can we come up with a better name?
- SRFI 1 calls this remove, but remove has a different meaning
in some Scheme systems and in Common Lisp
(define generalized-remove
(lambda (pred ls)
(filter (lambda (x) (not (pred x))) ls)))
(generalized-remove even? '(1 2 3 4 5)) ;=> (1 3 5)
(generalized-assoc pred alist)
- returns first pair of alist whose car satisfies pred, if any,
otherwise #f
- same constraints on argument list as we've agreed upon for
assq/assv/assoc
- can we come up with a better name?
- SRFI 1 generalizes assoc with = argument
(define generalized-assoc
(lambda (pred alist)
(find (lambda (x) (pred (car x))) alist)))
(generalized-assoc
(lambda (x) (not (= x x)))
'((0 . zero) (+nan.0 . #f) (+inf.0 . big))) ;=> (+inf.0 . big)
-------- specific removal procedures
(remq x list)
(define remq
(lambda (x list)
(generalized-remove (lambda (y) (eq? y x)) list)))
(remq 'b '(a b c b a)) ;=> (a c a)
(remv x list)
(define remv
(lambda (x list)
(generalized-remove (lambda (y) (eqv? y x)) list)))
(remv 3.14 '(pi 3.14 3.1416 #\x03C0)) ;=> (pi 3.1416 #\x03C0)
(remove x list)
(define remove
(lambda (x list)
(generalized-remove (lambda (y) (equal? y x)) list)))
(remove "a" '(a "a" #\a (a))) ;=> (a #\a (a))
[End of notes]
More information about the R6RS
mailing list