Search found 45 matches
- Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:41 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Help me interpret an expression, please
- Replies: 4
- Views: 13970
Re: Help me interpret an expression, please
Yes, I believe your understanding is correct.
- Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:16 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Help me interpret an expression, please
- Replies: 4
- Views: 13970
Re: Help me interpret an expression, please
#vu8 is merely a way of representing* a bit vector whereby each element of the list of values within the parentheses represents 8-bits of the bit vector. As a binary number, #vu8(1 0 0 0) is equivalent to a "1" followed by 24 zeros; as a decimal number it is the same as 256*256*256, or 2^2...
- Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:34 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: implement a full adder
- Replies: 1
- Views: 10045
Re: implement a full adder
Your code appears to have been corrupted when you pasted it (for example, your 'xor' procedure seems to have been cut off mid-stream).
- Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:55 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Recursive Version of let?
- Replies: 5
- Views: 7134
Re: Recursive Version of let?
One more thing: assuming my (admittedly amateur) problem should ever occur, which of the two examples would be better coding practice (using let* instead of let in the second, of course)? Well, "better" depends upon what your goals are. Are you aiming for faster execution, fewer memory re...
- Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:58 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Convert Scheme to Lisp (Recursive)
- Replies: 5
- Views: 6388
Re: Convert Scheme to Lisp (Recursive)
Just to elaborate a little on the explanation of the Scheme end of things. The named let form (let loop ((var1 value1) ... (varN valueN)) <body> ) is (as gugamilare suggested) merely syntactic sugar for a form that would originally be something akin to the following: (let ((loop #f)) (set! loop (lam...
Re: Macros
It worked fine for me when I invoked using the command 'gsi -:s'.Indecipherable wrote:Doesn't work in Gambit-C.
- Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:48 pm
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Questions In Matrix Multiplication
- Replies: 5
- Views: 18886
Re: Questions In Matrix Multiplication
to make a multiplication we need at least 2 arguments right? Technically, no. If passed no arguments, the '*' function in Scheme returns "1"; if passed one argument, it returns that argument. When we (map * row) what multiplication is done? Perhaps this would be made clear by considering ...
- Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:12 am
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: help writing a max procedure
- Replies: 4
- Views: 14618
Re: help writing a max procedure
(define my-max (lambda ( l ) (define helper (lambda ( hold-value l ) (define bigger (lambda ( m n ) (if (> m n) m n))) (cond ((null? (cdr l)) (bigger hold-value (car l))) (else (if (> (car l)hold-value) (helper (car l)(cdr l)) (helper hold-value(cdr l))))))) (helper 0 l))) and it works fine .. It i...
- Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:51 am
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: Questions In Matrix Multiplication
- Replies: 5
- Views: 18886
Re: Questions In Matrix Multiplication
1)In the first prodecure(line 6) we call as "map * row column" but my map is like (map proc lst).In line 6 there is one more argument.So i can't understand why and how it works. In general, the number of lists supplied when using 'map' needs to match the number of arguments expected by fu...
- Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:06 am
- Forum: Scheme
- Topic: reversing a list
- Replies: 3
- Views: 12779
Re: reversing a list
Like most Schemes, Racket provides a 'reverse' procedure . Your approach to reversing a list is basically sound, but you are performing some unnecessary steps (and it would be better if it handled the case of an empty list). The traditional Scheme way of defining a function that loops through a list...