Skip to main content
Code Review

Return to Question

Added a new attempt at the function
Source Link
jimypbr
jimypbr
  • 68
  • 5

Edit -- After a useful discussion with Timothy Pratley about clojure.walk

After looking at the source code of clojure.walk I have come up with a third square-tree function that extends the square-tree2, but now preserves the input collection types of the input tree like clojure.walk does:

    (defn square-tree3
      [tree]
      (cond
        (list? tree) (apply list (map square-tree3 tree))
        (seq? tree) (doall (map square-tree3 tree))
        (coll? tree) (into (empty tree) (map square-tree3 tree))
        :else (square tree)))

So it extends the answer to the coll? predicate with a (into (empty tree)...) which puts the result of map into whatever type of collection tree is. It also adds cases for list and seq types, handling each of them in their own special way so that they replicate into the same collection type.

Edit -- After a useful discussion with Timothy Pratley about clojure.walk

After looking at the source code of clojure.walk I have come up with a third square-tree function that extends the square-tree2, but now preserves the input collection types of the input tree like clojure.walk does:

    (defn square-tree3
      [tree]
      (cond
        (list? tree) (apply list (map square-tree3 tree))
        (seq? tree) (doall (map square-tree3 tree))
        (coll? tree) (into (empty tree) (map square-tree3 tree))
        :else (square tree)))

So it extends the answer to the coll? predicate with a (into (empty tree)...) which puts the result of map into whatever type of collection tree is. It also adds cases for list and seq types, handling each of them in their own special way so that they replicate into the same collection type.

deleted 14 characters in body
Source Link
Jamal
Jamal
  • 35.2k
  • 13
  • 134
  • 238

I am working on Problem 2.30 from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-15.html#%_sec_2.2Problem 2.230 from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs). I book is in scheme, but I am doing the exercises in Clojure.

  • I want the functions to work with lists and vector inputs.

    I want the functions to work with lists and vector inputs.

  • I am unsure if 1 is the proper usage of lazy-seq and whether there is a neater way to express this.

    I am unsure if 1 is the proper usage of lazy-seq and whether there is a neater way to express this.

  • Is (col? (first s)) the correct predicate here? I find it tricky in Clojure to test if the node in the tree is another sub-tree or if it is number. In Scheme it is easier because you have the pair? predicate. Would like to see if there is a better way.

    Is (col? (first s)) the correct predicate here? I find it tricky in Clojure to test if the node in the tree is another sub-tree or if it is number. In Scheme it is easier because you have the pair? predicate. I would like to see if there is a better way.

Thanks.

I am working on Problem 2.30 from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-15.html#%_sec_2.2.2). I book is in scheme, but I am doing the exercises in Clojure.

  • I want the functions to work with lists and vector inputs.

  • I am unsure if 1 is the proper usage of lazy-seq and whether there is a neater way to express this.

  • Is (col? (first s)) the correct predicate here? I find it tricky in Clojure to test if the node in the tree is another sub-tree or if it is number. In Scheme it is easier because you have the pair? predicate. Would like to see if there is a better way.

Thanks.

I am working on Problem 2.30 from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. I book is in scheme, but I am doing the exercises in Clojure.

  • I want the functions to work with lists and vector inputs.
  • I am unsure if 1 is the proper usage of lazy-seq and whether there is a neater way to express this.
  • Is (col? (first s)) the correct predicate here? I find it tricky in Clojure to test if the node in the tree is another sub-tree or if it is number. In Scheme it is easier because you have the pair? predicate. I would like to see if there is a better way.
Source Link
jimypbr
jimypbr
  • 68
  • 5

Squaring a tree in Clojure

I am working on Problem 2.30 from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-15.html#%_sec_2.2.2). I book is in scheme, but I am doing the exercises in Clojure.

The problem is to write code that takes a tree of numbers and return a new tree with the numbers squared. I have done it in two ways:

  1. Without higher-order functions:

     (defn square-tree1 [tree]
   (lazy-seq
     (when-let [s (seq tree)]
       (if (coll? (first s)) 
         (cons (square-tree1 (first s))
               (square-tree1 (rest s)))
         (cons (square (first s))
               (square-tree1 (rest s)))))))

  2. Using map

     (defn square-tree2 [tree]
   (if (coll? tree)
     (map square-tree2 tree)
     (square tree)))

Where:

(defn square [x]
  (* x x))

My tests for this are:

(deftest e2.30a
  (testing "Ex 2.30a: square-tree"
    (is (=
         (square-tree1
          (list 1
                (list 2 (list 3 4) 5)
                (list 6 7)))
         '(1 (4 (9 16) 25) (36 49))))
    (is (= (square-tree1 '()) '()))
    (is (= (square-tree1 [1 2 3 4 5]) [1 4 9 16 25]))
    (is (= (square-tree1 [1 [2 [3]]]) [1 [4 [9]]]))))

  • I want the functions to work with lists and vector inputs.

  • I am unsure if 1 is the proper usage of lazy-seq and whether there is a neater way to express this.

  • Is (col? (first s)) the correct predicate here? I find it tricky in Clojure to test if the node in the tree is another sub-tree or if it is number. In Scheme it is easier because you have the pair? predicate. Would like to see if there is a better way.

Thanks.