diff options
| author | Craig Jennings <c@cjennings.net> | 2025-10-12 11:47:26 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Craig Jennings <c@cjennings.net> | 2025-10-12 11:47:26 -0500 |
| commit | 092304d9e0ccc37cc0ddaa9b136457e56a1cac20 (patch) | |
| tree | ea81999b8442246c978b364dd90e8c752af50db5 /assets/info/sicp.info | |
changing repositories
Diffstat (limited to 'assets/info/sicp.info')
| -rw-r--r-- | assets/info/sicp.info | 33394 |
1 files changed, 33394 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/assets/info/sicp.info b/assets/info/sicp.info new file mode 100644 index 00000000..beb889f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/info/sicp.info @@ -0,0 +1,33394 @@ +This is sicp.info, produced by makeinfo version 4.8 from sicp.texi. + +INFO-DIR-SECTION The Algorithmic Language Scheme +START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY +* SICP: (sicp). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs +END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Top, Next: UTF, Prev: (dir), Up: (dir) + +Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs +================================================= + +Second Edition +by Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman, with Julie Sussman +foreword by Alan J. Perlis +(C) 1996 Massachusetts Institute of Technology + +Unofficial Texinfo Format version 2.neilvandyke4 (January 10, 2007) + +* Menu: + +* UTF:: Unofficial Texinfo Format +* Dedication:: Dedication +* Foreword:: Foreword +* Preface:: Preface to the Second Edition +* Preface 1e:: Preface to the First Edition +* Acknowledgements:: Acknowledgements +* Chapter 1:: Building Abstractions with Procedures +* Chapter 2:: Building Abstractions with Data +* Chapter 3:: Modularity, Objects, and State +* Chapter 4:: Metalinguistic Abstraction +* Chapter 5:: Computing with Register Machines +* References:: References +* Index:: Index + + --- The Detailed Node Listing --- + +Programming in Lisp + +* 1-1:: The Elements of Programming +* 1-2:: Procedures and the Processes They Generate +* 1-3:: Formulating Abstractions with Higher-Order Procedures + +The Elements of Programming + +* 1-1-1:: Expressions +* 1-1-2:: Naming and the Environment +* 1-1-3:: Evaluating Combinations +* 1-1-4:: Compound Procedures +* 1-1-5:: The Substitution Model for Procedure Application +* 1-1-6:: Conditional Expressions and Predicates +* 1-1-7:: Example: Square Roots by Newton's Method +* 1-1-8:: Procedures as Black-Box Abstractions + +Procedures and the Processes They Generate + +* 1-2-1:: Linear Recursion and Iteration +* 1-2-2:: Tree Recursion +* 1-2-3:: Orders of Growth +* 1-2-4:: Exponentiation +* 1-2-5:: Greatest Common Divisors +* 1-2-6:: Example: Testing for Primality + +Formulating Abstractions with Higher-Order Procedures + +* 1-3-1:: Procedures as Arguments +* 1-3-2:: Constructing Procedures Using `Lambda' +* 1-3-3:: Procedures as General Methods +* 1-3-4:: Procedures as Returned Values + +Building Abstractions with Data + +* 2-1:: Introduction to Data Abstraction +* 2-2:: Hierarchical Data and the Closure Property +* 2-3:: Symbolic Data +* 2-4:: Multiple Representations for Abstract Data +* 2-5:: Systems with Generic Operations + +Introduction to Data Abstraction + +* 2-1-1:: Example: Arithmetic Operations for Rational Numbers +* 2-1-2:: Abstraction Barriers +* 2-1-3:: What Is Meant by Data? +* 2-1-4:: Extended Exercise: Interval Arithmetic + +Hierarchical Data and the Closure Property + +* 2-2-1:: Representing Sequences +* 2-2-2:: Hierarchical Structures +* 2-2-3:: Sequences as Conventional Interfaces +* 2-2-4:: Example: A Picture Language + +Symbolic Data + +* 2-3-1:: Quotation +* 2-3-2:: Example: Symbolic Differentiation +* 2-3-3:: Example: Representing Sets +* 2-3-4:: Example: Huffman Encoding Trees + +Multiple Representations for Abstract Data + +* 2-4-1:: Representations for Complex Numbers +* 2-4-2:: Tagged data +* 2-4-3:: Data-Directed Programming and Additivity + +Systems with Generic Operations + +* 2-5-1:: Generic Arithmetic Operations +* 2-5-2:: Combining Data of Different Types +* 2-5-3:: Example: Symbolic Algebra + +Modularity, Objects, and State + +* 3-1:: Assignment and Local State +* 3-2:: The Environment Model of Evaluation +* 3-3:: Modeling with Mutable Data +* 3-4:: Concurrency: Time Is of the Essence +* 3-5:: Streams + +Assignment and Local State + +* 3-1-1:: Local State Variables +* 3-1-2:: The Benefits of Introducing Assignment +* 3-1-3:: The Costs of Introducing Assignment + +The Environment Model of Evaluation + +* 3-2-1:: The Rules for Evaluation +* 3-2-2:: Applying Simple Procedures +* 3-2-3:: Frames as the Repository of Local State +* 3-2-4:: Internal Definitions + +Modeling with Mutable Data + +* 3-3-1:: Mutable List Structure +* 3-3-2:: Representing Queues +* 3-3-3:: Representing Tables +* 3-3-4:: A Simulator for Digital Circuits +* 3-3-5:: Propagation of Constraints + +Concurrency: Time Is of the Essence + +* 3-4-1:: The Nature of Time in Concurrent Systems +* 3-4-2:: Mechanisms for Controlling Concurrency + +Streams + +* 3-5-1:: Streams Are Delayed Lists +* 3-5-2:: Infinite Streams +* 3-5-3:: Exploiting the Stream Paradigm +* 3-5-4:: Streams and Delayed Evaluation +* 3-5-5:: Modularity of Functional Programs and Modularity of + Objects + +Metalinguistic Abstraction + +* 4-1:: The Metacircular Evaluator +* 4-2:: Variations on a Scheme -- Lazy Evaluation +* 4-3:: Variations on a Scheme -- Nondeterministic Computing +* 4-4:: Logic Programming + +The Metacircular Evaluator + +* 4-1-1:: The Core of the Evaluator +* 4-1-2:: Representing Expressions +* 4-1-3:: Evaluator Data Structures +* 4-1-4:: Running the Evaluator as a Program +* 4-1-5:: Data as Programs +* 4-1-6:: Internal Definitions +* 4-1-7:: Separating Syntactic Analysis from Execution + +Variations on a Scheme -- Lazy Evaluation + +* 4-2-1:: Normal Order and Applicative Order +* 4-2-2:: An Interpreter with Lazy Evaluation +* 4-2-3:: Streams as Lazy Lists + +Variations on a Scheme -- Nondeterministic Computing + +* 4-3-1:: Amb and Search +* 4-3-2:: Examples of Nondeterministic Programs +* 4-3-3:: Implementing the `Amb' Evaluator + +Logic Programming + +* 4-4-1:: Deductive Information Retrieval +* 4-4-2:: How the Query System Works +* 4-4-3:: Is Logic Programming Mathematical Logic? +* 4-4-4:: Implementing the Query System + +Implementing the Query System + +* 4-4-4-1:: The Driver Loop and Instantiation +* 4-4-4-2:: The Evaluator +* 4-4-4-3:: Finding Assertions by Pattern Matching +* 4-4-4-4:: Rules and Unification +* 4-4-4-5:: Maintaining the Data Base +* 4-4-4-6:: Stream Operations +* 4-4-4-7:: Query Syntax Procedures +* 4-4-4-8:: Frames and Bindings + +Computing with Register Machines + +* 5-1:: Designing Register Machines +* 5-2:: A Register-Machine Simulator +* 5-3:: Storage Allocation and Garbage Collection +* 5-4:: The Explicit-Control Evaluator +* 5-5:: Compilation + +Designing Register Machines + +* 5-1-1:: A Language for Describing Register Machines +* 5-1-2:: Abstraction in Machine Design +* 5-1-3:: Subroutines +* 5-1-4:: Using a Stack to Implement Recursion +* 5-1-5:: Instruction Summary + +A Register-Machine Simulator + +* 5-2-1:: The Machine Model +* 5-2-2:: The Assembler +* 5-2-3:: Generating Execution Procedures for Instructions +* 5-2-4:: Monitoring Machine Performance + +Storage Allocation and Garbage Collection + +* 5-3-1:: Memory as Vectors +* 5-3-2:: Maintaining the Illusion of Infinite Memory + +Registers and operations + +* 5-4-1:: The Core of the Explicit-Control Evaluator +* 5-4-2:: Sequence Evaluation and Tail Recursion +* 5-4-3:: Conditionals, Assignments, and Definitions +* 5-4-4:: Running the Evaluator + +An overview of the compiler + +* 5-5-1:: Structure of the Compiler +* 5-5-2:: Compiling Expressions +* 5-5-3:: Compiling Combinations +* 5-5-4:: Combining Instruction Sequences +* 5-5-5:: An Example of Compiled Code +* 5-5-6:: Lexical Addressing +* 5-5-7:: Interfacing Compiled Code to the Evaluator + + +File: sicp.info, Node: UTF, Next: Dedication, Prev: Top, Up: Top + +Unofficial Texinfo Format +************************* + +This is the second edition SICP book, from Unofficial Texinfo Format. + + You are probably reading it in an Info hypertext browser, such as +the Info mode of Emacs. You might alternatively be reading it +TeX-formatted on your screen or printer, though that would be silly. +And, if printed, expensive. + + The freely-distributed official HTML-and-GIF format was first +converted personually to Unofficial Texinfo Format (UTF) version 1 by +Lyssa Ayth during a long Emacs lovefest weekend in April, 2001. + + The UTF is easier to search than the HTML format. It is also much +more accessible to people running on modest computers, such as donated +'386-based PCs. A 386 can, in theory, run Linux, Emacs, and a Scheme +interpreter simultaneously, but most 386s probably can't also run both +Netscape and the necessary X Window System without prematurely +introducing budding young underfunded hackers to the concept of "thrashing". +UTF can also fit uncompressed on a 1.44MB floppy diskette, which may +come in handy for installing UTF on PCs that do not have Internet or +LAN access. + + The Texinfo conversion has been a straight transliteration, to the +extent possible. Like the TeX-to-HTML conversion, this was not without +some introduction of breakage. In the case of Unofficial Texinfo +Format, figures have suffered an amateurish resurrection of the lost +art of ASCII art. Also, it's quite possible that some errors of +ambiguity were introduced during the conversion of some of the copious +superscripts (`^') and subscripts (`_'). Divining _which_ has been +left as an exercise to the reader. But at least we don't put our brave +astronauts at risk by encoding the _greater-than-or-equal_ symbol as +`<u>></u>'. + + If you modify `sicp.texi' to correct errors or improve the ASCII +art, then update the `@set utfversion 2.neilvandyke4' line to reflect +your delta. For example, if you started with Lytha's version `1', and +your name is Bob, then you could name your successive versions +`1.bob1', `1.bob2', ... `1.bobn'. Also update `utfversiondate'. If +you want to distribute your version on the Web, then embedding the +string "sicp.texi" somewhere in the file or Web page will make it +easier for people to find with Web search engines. + + It is believed that the Unofficial Texinfo Format is in keeping with +the spirit of the graciously freely-distributed HTML version. But you +never know when someone's armada of lawyers might need something to do, +and get their shorts all in a knot over some benign little thing, so +think twice before you use your full name or distribute Info, DVI, +PostScript, or PDF formats that might embed your account or machine +name. + +Peath, + +Lytha Ayth + + Addendum: See also the SICP video lectures by Abelson and Sussman: +`http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/' + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Dedication, Next: Foreword, Prev: UTF, Up: Top + +Dedication +********** + +This book is dedicated, in respect and admiration, to the spirit that +lives in the computer. + + "I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer + science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an + awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customers got shafted + every now and then, and after a while we began to take their + complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were + responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these + machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for + stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping + fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never + loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become + missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world + has too many of those already. What you know about computing + other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful + computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think + and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more + than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more." + + --Alan J. Perlis (April 1, 1922 February 7, 1990) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Foreword, Next: Preface, Prev: Dedication, Up: Top + +Foreword +******** + +Educators, generals, dieticians, psychologists, and parents program. +Armies, students, and some societies are programmed. An assault on +large problems employs a succession of programs, most of which spring +into existence en route. These programs are rife with issues that +appear to be particular to the problem at hand. To appreciate +programming as an intellectual activity in its own right you must turn +to computer programming; you must read and write computer +programs--many of them. It doesn't matter much what the programs are +about or what applications they serve. What does matter is how well +they perform and how smoothly they fit with other programs in the +creation of still greater programs. The programmer must seek both +perfection of part and adequacy of collection. In this book the use of +"program" is focused on the creation, execution, and study of programs +written in a dialect of Lisp for execution on a digital computer. +Using Lisp we restrict or limit not what we may program, but only the +notation for our program descriptions. + + Our traffic with the subject matter of this book involves us with +three foci of phenomena: the human mind, collections of computer +programs, and the computer. Every computer program is a model, hatched +in the mind, of a real or mental process. These processes, arising +from human experience and thought, are huge in number, intricate in +detail, and at any time only partially understood. They are modeled to +our permanent satisfaction rarely by our computer programs. Thus even +though our programs are carefully handcrafted discrete collections of +symbols, mosaics of interlocking functions, they continually evolve: we +change them as our perception of the model deepens, enlarges, +generalizes until the model ultimately attains a metastable place +within still another model with which we struggle. The source of the +exhilaration associated with computer programming is the continual +unfolding within the mind and on the computer of mechanisms expressed +as programs and the explosion of perception they generate. If art +interprets our dreams, the computer executes them in the guise of +programs! + + For all its power, the computer is a harsh taskmaster. Its programs +must be correct, and what we wish to say must be said accurately in +every detail. As in every other symbolic activity, we become convinced +of program truth through argument. Lisp itself can be assigned a +semantics (another model, by the way), and if a program's function can +be specified, say, in the predicate calculus, the proof methods of +logic can be used to make an acceptable correctness argument. +Unfortunately, as programs get large and complicated, as they almost +always do, the adequacy, consistency, and correctness of the +specifications themselves become open to doubt, so that complete formal +arguments of correctness seldom accompany large programs. Since large +programs grow from small ones, it is crucial that we develop an arsenal +of standard program structures of whose correctness we have become +sure--we call them idioms--and learn to combine them into larger +structures using organizational techniques of proven value. These +techniques are treated at length in this book, and understanding them +is essential to participation in the Promethean enterprise called +programming. More than anything else, the uncovering and mastery of +powerful organizational techniques accelerates our ability to create +large, significant programs. Conversely, since writing large programs +is very taxing, we are stimulated to invent new methods of reducing the +mass of function and detail to be fitted into large programs. + + Unlike programs, computers must obey the laws of physics. If they +wish to perform rapidly--a few nanoseconds per state change--they must +transmit electrons only small distances (at most 11 over 2 feet). The +heat generated by the huge number of devices so concentrated in space +has to be removed. An exquisite engineering art has been developed +balancing between multiplicity of function and density of devices. In +any event, hardware always operates at a level more primitive than that +at which we care to program. The processes that transform our Lisp +programs to "machine" programs are themselves abstract models which we +program. Their study and creation give a great deal of insight into +the organizational programs associated with programming arbitrary +models. Of course the computer itself can be so modeled. Think of it: +the behavior of the smallest physical switching element is modeled by +quantum mechanics described by differential equations whose detailed +behavior is captured by numerical approximations represented in +computer programs executing on computers composed of ...! + + It is not merely a matter of tactical convenience to separately +identify the three foci. Even though, as they say, it's all in the +head, this logical separation induces an acceleration of symbolic +traffic between these foci whose richness, vitality, and potential is +exceeded in human experience only by the evolution of life itself. At +best, relationships between the foci are metastable. The computers are +never large enough or fast enough. Each breakthrough in hardware +technology leads to more massive programming enterprises, new +organizational principles, and an enrichment of abstract models. Every +reader should ask himself periodically "Toward what end, toward what +end?"--but do not ask it too often lest you pass up the fun of +programming for the constipation of bittersweet philosophy. + + Among the programs we write, some (but never enough) perform a +precise mathematical function such as sorting or finding the maximum of +a sequence of numbers, determining primality, or finding the square +root. We call such programs algorithms, and a great deal is known of +their optimal behavior, particularly with respect to the two important +parameters of execution time and data storage requirements. A +programmer should acquire good algorithms and idioms. Even though some +programs resist precise specifications, it is the responsibility of the +programmer to estimate, and always to attempt to improve, their +performance. + + Lisp is a survivor, having been in use for about a quarter of a +century. Among the active programming languages only Fortran has had a +longer life. Both languages have supported the programming needs of +important areas of application, Fortran for scientific and engineering +computation and Lisp for artificial intelligence. These two areas +continue to be important, and their programmers are so devoted to these +two languages that Lisp and Fortran may well continue in active use for +at least another quarter-century. + + Lisp changes. The Scheme dialect used in this text has evolved from +the original Lisp and differs from the latter in several important +ways, including static scoping for variable binding and permitting +functions to yield functions as values. In its semantic structure +Scheme is as closely akin to Algol 60 as to early Lisps. Algol 60, +never to be an active language again, lives on in the genes of Scheme +and Pascal. It would be difficult to find two languages that are the +communicating coin of two more different cultures than those gathered +around these two languages. Pascal is for building pyramids--imposing, +breathtaking, static structures built by armies pushing heavy blocks +into place. Lisp is for building organisms--imposing, breathtaking, +dynamic structures built by squads fitting fluctuating myriads of +simpler organisms into place. The organizing principles used are the +same in both cases, except for one extraordinarily important +difference: The discretionary exportable functionality entrusted to the +individual Lisp programmer is more than an order of magnitude greater +than that to be found within Pascal enterprises. Lisp programs inflate +libraries with functions whose utility transcends the application that +produced them. The list, Lisp's native data structure, is largely +responsible for such growth of utility. The simple structure and +natural applicability of lists are reflected in functions that are +amazingly nonidiosyncratic. In Pascal the plethora of declarable data +structures induces a specialization within functions that inhibits and +penalizes casual cooperation. It is better to have 100 functions +operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 +data structures. As a result the pyramid must stand unchanged for a +millennium; the organism must evolve or perish. + + To illustrate this difference, compare the treatment of material and +exercises within this book with that in any first-course text using +Pascal. Do not labor under the illusion that this is a text digestible +at MIT only, peculiar to the breed found there. It is precisely what a +serious book on programming Lisp must be, no matter who the student is +or where it is used. + + Note that this is a text about programming, unlike most Lisp books, +which are used as a preparation for work in artificial intelligence. +After all, the critical programming concerns of software engineering +and artificial intelligence tend to coalesce as the systems under +investigation become larger. This explains why there is such growing +interest in Lisp outside of artificial intelligence. + + As one would expect from its goals, artificial intelligence research +generates many significant programming problems. In other programming +cultures this spate of problems spawns new languages. Indeed, in any +very large programming task a useful organizing principle is to control +and isolate traffic within the task modules via the invention of +language. These languages tend to become less primitive as one +approaches the boundaries of the system where we humans interact most +often. As a result, such systems contain complex language-processing +functions replicated many times. Lisp has such a simple syntax and +semantics that parsing can be treated as an elementary task. Thus +parsing technology plays almost no role in Lisp programs, and the +construction of language processors is rarely an impediment to the rate +of growth and change of large Lisp systems. Finally, it is this very +simplicity of syntax and semantics that is responsible for the burden +and freedom borne by all Lisp programmers. No Lisp program of any size +beyond a few lines can be written without being saturated with +discretionary functions. Invent and fit; have fits and reinvent! We +toast the Lisp programmer who pens his thoughts within nests of +parentheses. + +Alan J. Perlis +New Haven, Connecticut + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Preface, Next: Preface 1e, Prev: Foreword, Up: Top + +Preface to the Second Edition +***************************** + + Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is + meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as + a soap bubble? + + --Alan J. Perlis + + The material in this book has been the basis of MIT's entry-level +computer science subject since 1980. We had been teaching this +material for four years when the first edition was published, and +twelve more years have elapsed until the appearance of this second +edition. We are pleased that our work has been widely adopted and +incorporated into other texts. We have seen our students take the +ideas and programs in this book and build them in as the core of new +computer systems and languages. In literal realization of an ancient +Talmudic pun, our students have become our builders. We are lucky to +have such capable students and such accomplished builders. + + In preparing this edition, we have incorporated hundreds of +clarifications suggested by our own teaching experience and the +comments of colleagues at MIT and elsewhere. We have redesigned most +of the major programming systems in the book, including the +generic-arithmetic system, the interpreters, the register-machine +simulator, and the compiler; and we have rewritten all the program +examples to ensure that any Scheme implementation conforming to the +IEEE Scheme standard (IEEE 1990) will be able to run the code. + + This edition emphasizes several new themes. The most important of +these is the central role played by different approaches to dealing +with time in computational models: objects with state, concurrent +programming, functional programming, lazy evaluation, and +nondeterministic programming. We have included new sections on +concurrency and nondeterminism, and we have tried to integrate this +theme throughout the book. + + The first edition of the book closely followed the syllabus of our +MIT one-semester subject. With all the new material in the second +edition, it will not be possible to cover everything in a single +semester, so the instructor will have to pick and choose. In our own +teaching, we sometimes skip the section on logic programming (section +*Note 4-4::), we have students use the register-machine simulator but +we do not cover its implementation (section *Note 5-2::), and we give +only a cursory overview of the compiler (section *Note 5-5::). Even +so, this is still an intense course. Some instructors may wish to +cover only the first three or four chapters, leaving the other material +for subsequent courses. + + The World-Wide-Web site `http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/' provides +support for users of this book. This includes programs from the book, +sample programming assignments, supplementary materials, and +downloadable implementations of the Scheme dialect of Lisp. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Preface 1e, Next: Acknowledgements, Prev: Preface, Up: Top + +Preface to the First Edition +**************************** + + A computer is like a violin. You can imagine a novice trying + first a phonograph and then a violin. The latter, he says, sounds + terrible. That is the argument we have heard from our humanists + and most of our computer scientists. Computer programs are good, + they say, for particular purposes, but they aren't flexible. + Neither is a violin, or a typewriter, until you learn how to use + it. + + --Marvin Minsky, "Why Programming Is a Good Medium for Expressing + Poorly-Understood and Sloppily-Formulated Ideas" + + "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" is the +entry-level subject in computer science at the Massachusetts Institute +of Technology. It is required of all students at MIT who major in +electrical engineering or in computer science, as one-fourth of the +"common core curriculum," which also includes two subjects on circuits +and linear systems and a subject on the design of digital systems. We +have been involved in the development of this subject since 1978, and +we have taught this material in its present form since the fall of 1980 +to between 600 and 700 students each year. Most of these students have +had little or no prior formal training in computation, although many +have played with computers a bit and a few have had extensive +programming or hardware-design experience. + + Our design of this introductory computer-science subject reflects +two major concerns. First, we want to establish the idea that a +computer language is not just a way of getting a computer to perform +operations but rather that it is a novel formal medium for expressing +ideas about methodology. Thus, programs must be written for people to +read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. Second, we +believe that the essential material to be addressed by a subject at +this level is not the syntax of particular programming-language +constructs, nor clever algorithms for computing particular functions +efficiently, nor even the mathematical analysis of algorithms and the +foundations of computing, but rather the techniques used to control the +intellectual complexity of large software systems. + + Our goal is that students who complete this subject should have a +good feel for the elements of style and the aesthetics of programming. +They should have command of the major techniques for controlling +complexity in a large system. They should be capable of reading a +50-page-long program, if it is written in an exemplary style. They +should know what not to read, and what they need not understand at any +moment. They should feel secure about modifying a program, retaining +the spirit and style of the original author. + + These skills are by no means unique to computer programming. The +techniques we teach and draw upon are common to all of engineering +design. We control complexity by building abstractions that hide +details when appropriate. We control complexity by establishing +conventional interfaces that enable us to construct systems by +combining standard, well-understood pieces in a "mix and match" way. +We control complexity by establishing new languages for describing a +design, each of which emphasizes particular aspects of the design and +deemphasizes others. + + Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that +"computer science" is not a science and that its significance has +little to do with computers. The computer revolution is a revolution +in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The +essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called "procedural +epistemology"--the study of the structure of knowledge from an +imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of +view taken by classical mathematical subjects. Mathematics provides a +framework for dealing precisely with notions of "what is." Computation +provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "how to." + + In teaching our material we use a dialect of the programming +language Lisp. We never formally teach the language, because we don't +have to. We just use it, and students pick it up in a few days. This +is one great advantage of Lisp-like languages: They have very few ways +of forming compound expressions, and almost no syntactic structure. +All of the formal properties can be covered in an hour, like the rules +of chess. After a short time we forget about syntactic details of the +language (because there are none) and get on with the real +issues--figuring out what we want to compute, how we will decompose +problems into manageable parts, and how we will work on the parts. +Another advantage of Lisp is that it supports (but does not enforce) +more of the large-scale strategies for modular decomposition of +programs than any other language we know. We can make procedural and +data abstractions, we can use higher-order functions to capture common +patterns of usage, we can model local state using assignment and data +mutation, we can link parts of a program with streams and delayed +evaluation, and we can easily implement embedded languages. All of +this is embedded in an interactive environment with excellent support +for incremental program design, construction, testing, and debugging. +We thank all the generations of Lisp wizards, starting with John +McCarthy, who have fashioned a fine tool of unprecedented power and +elegance. + + Scheme, the dialect of Lisp that we use, is an attempt to bring +together the power and elegance of Lisp and Algol. From Lisp we take +the metalinguistic power that derives from the simple syntax, the +uniform representation of programs as data objects, and the +garbage-collected heap-allocated data. From Algol we take lexical +scoping and block structure, which are gifts from the pioneers of +programming-language design who were on the Algol committee. We wish +to cite John Reynolds and Peter Landin for their insights into the +relationship of Church's [lambda] calculus to the structure of +programming languages. We also recognize our debt to the +mathematicians who scouted out this territory decades before computers +appeared on the scene. These pioneers include Alonzo Church, Barkley +Rosser, Stephen Kleene, and Haskell Curry. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Acknowledgements, Next: Chapter 1, Prev: Preface 1e, Up: Top + +Acknowledgements +**************** + +We would like to thank the many people who have helped us develop this +book and this curriculum. + + Our subject is a clear intellectual descendant of "6.231," a +wonderful subject on programming linguistics and the [lambda] calculus +taught at MIT in the late 1960s by Jack Wozencraft and Arthur Evans, Jr. + + We owe a great debt to Robert Fano, who reorganized MIT's +introductory curriculum in electrical engineering and computer science +to emphasize the principles of engineering design. He led us in +starting out on this enterprise and wrote the first set of subject +notes from which this book evolved. + + Much of the style and aesthetics of programming that we try to teach +were developed in conjunction with Guy Lewis Steele Jr., who +collaborated with Gerald Jay Sussman in the initial development of the +Scheme language. In addition, David Turner, Peter Henderson, Dan +Friedman, David Wise, and Will Clinger have taught us many of the +techniques of the functional programming community that appear in this +book. + + Joel Moses taught us about structuring large systems. His +experience with the Macsyma system for symbolic computation provided +the insight that one should avoid complexities of control and +concentrate on organizing the data to reflect the real structure of the +world being modeled. + + Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert formed many of our attitudes about +programming and its place in our intellectual lives. To them we owe +the understanding that computation provides a means of expression for +exploring ideas that would otherwise be too complex to deal with +precisely. They emphasize that a student's ability to write and modify +programs provides a powerful medium in which exploring becomes a +natural activity. + + We also strongly agree with Alan Perlis that programming is lots of +fun and we had better be careful to support the joy of programming. +Part of this joy derives from observing great masters at work. We are +fortunate to have been apprentice programmers at the feet of Bill +Gosper and Richard Greenblatt. + + It is difficult to identify all the people who have contributed to +the development of our curriculum. We thank all the lecturers, +recitation instructors, and tutors who have worked with us over the +past fifteen years and put in many extra hours on our subject, +especially Bill Siebert, Albert Meyer, Joe Stoy, Randy Davis, Louis +Braida, Eric Grimson, Rod Brooks, Lynn Stein, and Peter Szolovits. We +would like to specially acknowledge the outstanding teaching +contributions of Franklyn Turbak, now at Wellesley; his work in +undergraduate instruction set a standard that we can all aspire to. We +are grateful to Jerry Saltzer and Jim Miller for helping us grapple +with the mysteries of concurrency, and to Peter Szolovits and David +McAllester for their contributions to the exposition of +nondeterministic evaluation in *Note Chapter 4::. + + Many people have put in significant effort presenting this material +at other universities. Some of the people we have worked closely with +are Jacob Katzenelson at the Technion, Hardy Mayer at the University of +California at Irvine, Joe Stoy at Oxford, Elisha Sacks at Purdue, and +Jan Komorowski at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. +We are exceptionally proud of our colleagues who have received major +teaching awards for their adaptations of this subject at other +universities, including Kenneth Yip at Yale, Brian Harvey at the +University of California at Berkeley, and Dan Huttenlocher at Cornell. + + Al Moye' arranged for us to teach this material to engineers at +Hewlett-Packard, and for the production of videotapes of these +lectures. We would like to thank the talented instructors--in +particular Jim Miller, Bill Siebert, and Mike Eisenberg--who have +designed continuing education courses incorporating these tapes and +taught them at universities and industry all over the world. + + Many educators in other countries have put in significant work +translating the first edition. Michel Briand, Pierre Chamard, and +Andre' Pic produced a French edition; Susanne Daniels-Herold produced a +German edition; and Fumio Motoyoshi produced a Japanese edition. We do +not know who produced the Chinese edition, but we consider it an honor +to have been selected as the subject of an "unauthorized" translation. + + It is hard to enumerate all the people who have made technical +contributions to the development of the Scheme systems we use for +instructional purposes. In addition to Guy Steele, principal wizards +have included Chris Hanson, Joe Bowbeer, Jim Miller, Guillermo Rozas, +and Stephen Adams. Others who have put in significant time are Richard +Stallman, Alan Bawden, Kent Pitman, Jon Taft, Neil Mayle, John Lamping, +Gwyn Osnos, Tracy Larrabee, George Carrette, Soma Chaudhuri, Bill +Chiarchiaro, Steven Kirsch, Leigh Klotz, Wayne Noss, Todd Cass, Patrick +O'Donnell, Kevin Theobald, Daniel Weise, Kenneth Sinclair, Anthony +Courtemanche, Henry M. Wu, Andrew Berlin, and Ruth Shyu. + + Beyond the MIT implementation, we would like to thank the many people +who worked on the IEEE Scheme standard, including William Clinger and +Jonathan Rees, who edited the R^4RS, and Chris Haynes, David Bartley, +Chris Hanson, and Jim Miller, who prepared the IEEE standard. + + Dan Friedman has been a long-time leader of the Scheme community. +The community's broader work goes beyond issues of language design to +encompass significant educational innovations, such as the high-school +curriculum based on EdScheme by Schemer's Inc., and the wonderful books +by Mike Eisenberg and by Brian Harvey and Matthew Wright. + + We appreciate the work of those who contributed to making this a +real book, especially Terry Ehling, Larry Cohen, and Paul Bethge at the +MIT Press. Ella Mazel found the wonderful cover image. For the second +edition we are particularly grateful to Bernard and Ella Mazel for help +with the book design, and to David Jones, TeX wizard extraordinaire. +We also are indebted to those readers who made penetrating comments on +the new draft: Jacob Katzenelson, Hardy Mayer, Jim Miller, and +especially Brian Harvey, who did unto this book as Julie did unto his +book `Simply Scheme'. + + Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support of the +organizations that have encouraged this work over the years, including +suppport from Hewlett-Packard, made possible by Ira Goldstein and Joel +Birnbaum, and support from DARPA, made possible by Bob Kahn. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Chapter 1, Next: Chapter 2, Prev: Acknowledgements, Up: Top + +1 Building Abstractions with Procedures +*************************************** + + The acts of the mind, wherein it exerts its power over simple + ideas, are chiefly these three: 1. Combining several simple ideas + into one compound one, and thus all complex ideas are made. 2. + The second is bringing two ideas, whether simple or complex, + together, and setting them by one another so as to take a view of + them at once, without uniting them into one, by which it gets all + its ideas of relations. 3. The third is separating them from all + other ideas that accompany them in their real existence: this is + called abstraction, and thus all its general ideas are made. + + --John Locke, _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ (1690) + + We are about to study the idea of a "computational process". +Computational processes are abstract beings that inhabit computers. As +they evolve, processes manipulate other abstract things called "data". +The evolution of a process is directed by a pattern of rules called a "program". +People create programs to direct processes. In effect, we conjure the +spirits of the computer with our spells. + + A computational process is indeed much like a sorcerer's idea of a +spirit. It cannot be seen or touched. It is not composed of matter at +all. However, it is very real. It can perform intellectual work. It +can answer questions. It can affect the world by disbursing money at a +bank or by controlling a robot arm in a factory. The programs we use +to conjure processes are like a sorcerer's spells. They are carefully +composed from symbolic expressions in arcane and esoteric "programming +languages" that prescribe the tasks we want our processes to perform. + + A computational process, in a correctly working computer, executes +programs precisely and accurately. Thus, like the sorcerer's +apprentice, novice programmers must learn to understand and to +anticipate the consequences of their conjuring. Even small errors +(usually called "bugs" or "glitches") in programs can have complex and +unanticipated consequences. + + Fortunately, learning to program is considerably less dangerous than +learning sorcery, because the spirits we deal with are conveniently +contained in a secure way. Real-world programming, however, requires +care, expertise, and wisdom. A small bug in a computer-aided design +program, for example, can lead to the catastrophic collapse of an +airplane or a dam or the self-destruction of an industrial robot. + + Master software engineers have the ability to organize programs so +that they can be reasonably sure that the resulting processes will +perform the tasks intended. They can visualize the behavior of their +systems in advance. They know how to structure programs so that +unanticipated problems do not lead to catastrophic consequences, and +when problems do arise, they can "debug" their programs. Well-designed +computational systems, like well-designed automobiles or nuclear +reactors, are designed in a modular manner, so that the parts can be +constructed, replaced, and debugged separately. + +Programming in Lisp +................... + +We need an appropriate language for describing processes, and we will +use for this purpose the programming language Lisp. Just as our +everyday thoughts are usually expressed in our natural language (such +as English, French, or Japanese), and descriptions of quantitative +phenomena are expressed with mathematical notations, our procedural +thoughts will be expressed in Lisp. Lisp was invented in the late +1950s as a formalism for reasoning about the use of certain kinds of +logical expressions, called "recursion equations", as a model for +computation. The language was conceived by John McCarthy and is based +on his paper "Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their +Computation by Machine" (McCarthy 1960). + + Despite its inception as a mathematical formalism, Lisp is a +practical programming language. A Lisp "interpreter" is a machine that +carries out processes described in the Lisp language. The first Lisp +interpreter was implemented by McCarthy with the help of colleagues and +students in the Artificial Intelligence Group of the MIT Research +Laboratory of Electronics and in the MIT Computation Center.(1) Lisp, +whose name is an acronym for LISt Processing, was designed to provide +symbol-manipulating capabilities for attacking programming problems +such as the symbolic differentiation and integration of algebraic +expressions. It included for this purpose new data objects known as +atoms and lists, which most strikingly set it apart from all other +languages of the period. + + Lisp was not the product of a concerted design effort. Instead, it +evolved informally in an experimental manner in response to users' +needs and to pragmatic implementation considerations. Lisp's informal +evolution has continued through the years, and the community of Lisp +users has traditionally resisted attempts to promulgate any "official" +definition of the language. This evolution, together with the +flexibility and elegance of the initial conception, has enabled Lisp, +which is the second oldest language in widespread use today (only +Fortran is older), to continually adapt to encompass the most modern +ideas about program design. Thus, Lisp is by now a family of dialects, +which, while sharing most of the original features, may differ from one +another in significant ways. The dialect of Lisp used in this book is +called Scheme.(2) + + Because of its experimental character and its emphasis on symbol +manipulation, Lisp was at first very inefficient for numerical +computations, at least in comparison with Fortran. Over the years, +however, Lisp compilers have been developed that translate programs +into machine code that can perform numerical computations reasonably +efficiently. And for special applications, Lisp has been used with +great effectiveness.(3) Although Lisp has not yet overcome its old +reputation as hopelessly inefficient, Lisp is now used in many +applications where efficiency is not the central concern. For example, +Lisp has become a language of choice for operating-system shell +languages and for extension languages for editors and computer-aided +design systems. + + If Lisp is not a mainstream language, why are we using it as the +framework for our discussion of programming? Because the language +possesses unique features that make it an excellent medium for studying +important programming constructs and data structures and for relating +them to the linguistic features that support them. The most +significant of these features is the fact that Lisp descriptions of +processes, called "procedures", can themselves be represented and +manipulated as Lisp data. The importance of this is that there are +powerful program-design techniques that rely on the ability to blur the +traditional distinction between "passive" data and "active" processes. +As we shall discover, Lisp's flexibility in handling procedures as data +makes it one of the most convenient languages in existence for +exploring these techniques. The ability to represent procedures as +data also makes Lisp an excellent language for writing programs that +must manipulate other programs as data, such as the interpreters and +compilers that support computer languages. Above and beyond these +considerations, programming in Lisp is great fun. + +* Menu: + +* 1-1:: The Elements of Programming +* 1-2:: Procedures and the Processes They Generate +* 1-3:: Formulating Abstractions with Higher-Order Procedures + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The `Lisp 1 Programmer's Manual' appeared in 1960, and the `Lisp +1.5 Programmer's Manual' (McCarthy 1965) was published in 1962. The +early history of Lisp is described in McCarthy 1978. + + (2) The two dialects in which most major Lisp programs of the 1970s +were written are MacLisp (Moon 1978; Pitman 1983), developed at the MIT +Project MAC, and Interlisp (Teitelman 1974), developed at Bolt Beranek +and Newman Inc. and the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Portable +Standard Lisp (Hearn 1969; Griss 1981) was a Lisp dialect designed to +be easily portable between different machines. MacLisp spawned a +number of subdialects, such as Franz Lisp, which was developed at the +University of California at Berkeley, and Zetalisp (Moon 1981), which +was based on a special-purpose processor designed at the MIT Artificial +Intelligence Laboratory to run Lisp very efficiently. The Lisp dialect +used in this book, called Scheme (Steele 1975), was invented in 1975 by +Guy Lewis Steele Jr. and Gerald Jay Sussman of the MIT Artificial +Intelligence Laboratory and later reimplemented for instructional use +at MIT. Scheme became an IEEE standard in 1990 (IEEE 1990). The +Common Lisp dialect (Steele 1982, Steele 1990) was developed by the +Lisp community to combine features from the earlier Lisp dialects to +make an industrial standard for Lisp. Common Lisp became an ANSI +standard in 1994 (ANSI 1994). + + (3) One such special application was a breakthrough computation of +scientific importance--an integration of the motion of the Solar System +that extended previous results by nearly two orders of magnitude, and +demonstrated that the dynamics of the Solar System is chaotic. This +computation was made possible by new integration algorithms, a +special-purpose compiler, and a special-purpose computer all +implemented with the aid of software tools written in Lisp (Abelson et +al. 1992; Sussman and Wisdom 1992). + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1, Next: 1-2, Prev: Chapter 1, Up: Chapter 1 + +1.1 The Elements of Programming +=============================== + +A powerful programming language is more than just a means for +instructing a computer to perform tasks. The language also serves as a +framework within which we organize our ideas about processes. Thus, +when we describe a language, we should pay particular attention to the +means that the language provides for combining simple ideas to form +more complex ideas. Every powerful language has three mechanisms for +accomplishing this: + +"primitive expressions" + which represent the simplest entities the language is concerned + with, + +"means of combination" + by which compound elements are built from simpler ones, and + +"means of abstraction" + by which compound elements can be named and manipulated as units. + + + In programming, we deal with two kinds of elements: procedures and +data. (Later we will discover that they are really not so distinct.) +Informally, data is "stuff" that we want to manipulate, and procedures +are descriptions of the rules for manipulating the data. Thus, any +powerful programming language should be able to describe primitive data +and primitive procedures and should have methods for combining and +abstracting procedures and data. + + In this chapter we will deal only with simple numerical data so that +we can focus on the rules for building procedures.(1) In later chapters +we will see that these same rules allow us to build procedures to +manipulate compound data as well. + +* Menu: + +* 1-1-1:: Expressions +* 1-1-2:: Naming and the Environment +* 1-1-3:: Evaluating Combinations +* 1-1-4:: Compound Procedures +* 1-1-5:: The Substitution Model for Procedure Application +* 1-1-6:: Conditional Expressions and Predicates +* 1-1-7:: Example: Square Roots by Newton's Method +* 1-1-8:: Procedures as Black-Box Abstractions + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The characterization of numbers as "simple data" is a barefaced +bluff. In fact, the treatment of numbers is one of the trickiest and +most confusing aspects of any programming language. Some typical +issues involved are these: Some computer systems distinguish "integers", +such as 2, from "real numbers", such as 2.71. Is the real number 2.00 +different from the integer 2? Are the arithmetic operations used for +integers the same as the operations used for real numbers? Does 6 +divided by 2 produce 3, or 3.0? How large a number can we represent? +How many decimal places of accuracy can we represent? Is the range of +integers the same as the range of real numbers? Above and beyond these +questions, of course, lies a collection of issues concerning roundoff +and truncation errors - the entire science of numerical analysis. +Since our focus in this book is on large-scale program design rather +than on numerical techniques, we are going to ignore these problems. +The numerical examples in this chapter will exhibit the usual roundoff +behavior that one observes when using arithmetic operations that +preserve a limited number of decimal places of accuracy in noninteger +operations. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-1, Next: 1-1-2, Prev: 1-1, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.1 Expressions +----------------- + +One easy way to get started at programming is to examine some typical +interactions with an interpreter for the Scheme dialect of Lisp. +Imagine that you are sitting at a computer terminal. You type an "expression", +and the interpreter responds by displaying the result of its "evaluating" +that expression. + + One kind of primitive expression you might type is a number. (More +precisely, the expression that you type consists of the numerals that +represent the number in base 10.) If you present Lisp with a number + + 486 + +the interpreter will respond by printing (1) + + 486 + + Expressions representing numbers may be combined with an expression +representing a primitive procedure (such as `+' or `*') to form a +compound expression that represents the application of the procedure to +those numbers. For example: + + (+ 137 349) + 486 + + (- 1000 334) + 666 + + (* 5 99) + 495 + + (/ 10 5) + 2 + + (+ 2.7 10) + 12.7 + + Expressions such as these, formed by delimiting a list of +expressions within parentheses in order to denote procedure +application, are called "combinations". The leftmost element in the +list is called the "operator", and the other elements are called "operands". +The value of a combination is obtained by applying the procedure +specified by the operator to the "arguments" that are the values of the +operands. + + The convention of placing the operator to the left of the operands +is known as "prefix notation", and it may be somewhat confusing at +first because it departs significantly from the customary mathematical +convention. Prefix notation has several advantages, however. One of +them is that it can accommodate procedures that may take an arbitrary +number of arguments, as in the following examples: + + (+ 21 35 12 7) + 75 + + (* 25 4 12) + 1200 + + No ambiguity can arise, because the operator is always the leftmost +element and the entire combination is delimited by the parentheses. + + A second advantage of prefix notation is that it extends in a +straightforward way to allow combinations to be nested, that is, to +have combinations whose elements are themselves combinations: + + (+ (* 3 5) (- 10 6)) + 19 + + There is no limit (in principle) to the depth of such nesting and to +the overall complexity of the expressions that the Lisp interpreter can +evaluate. It is we humans who get confused by still relatively simple +expressions such as + + (+ (* 3 (+ (* 2 4) (+ 3 5))) (+ (- 10 7) 6)) + +which the interpreter would readily evaluate to be 57. We can help +ourselves by writing such an expression in the form + + (+ (* 3 + (+ (* 2 4) + (+ 3 5))) + (+ (- 10 7) + 6)) + +following a formatting convention known as "pretty-printing", in which +each long combination is written so that the operands are aligned +vertically. The resulting indentations display clearly the structure +of the expression.(2) + + Even with complex expressions, the interpreter always operates in +the same basic cycle: It reads an expression from the terminal, +evaluates the expression, and prints the result. This mode of +operation is often expressed by saying that the interpreter runs in a "read-eval-print +loop". Observe in particular that it is not necessary to explicitly +instruct the interpreter to print the value of the expression.(3) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Throughout this book, when we wish to emphasize the distinction +between the input typed by the user and the response printed by the +interpreter, we will show the latter in slanted characters. + + (2) Lisp systems typically provide features to aid the user in +formatting expressions. Two especially useful features are one that +automatically indents to the proper pretty-print position whenever a +new line is started and one that highlights the matching left +parenthesis whenever a right parenthesis is typed. + + (3) Lisp obeys the convention that every expression has a value. +This convention, together with the old reputation of Lisp as an +inefficient language, is the source of the quip by Alan Perlis +(paraphrasing Oscar Wilde) that "Lisp programmers know the value of +everything but the cost of nothing." + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-2, Next: 1-1-3, Prev: 1-1-1, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.2 Naming and the Environment +-------------------------------- + +A critical aspect of a programming language is the means it provides +for using names to refer to computational objects. We say that the +name identifies a "variable" whose "value" is the object. + + In the Scheme dialect of Lisp, we name things with `define'. Typing + + (define size 2) + +causes the interpreter to associate the value 2 with the name +`size'.(1) Once the name `size' has been associated with the number 2, +we can refer to the value 2 by name: + + size + 2 + + (* 5 size) + 10 + + Here are further examples of the use of `define': + + (define pi 3.14159) + + (define radius 10) + + (* pi (* radius radius)) + 314.159 + + (define circumference (* 2 pi radius)) + + circumference + 62.8318 + + `Define' is our language's simplest means of abstraction, for it +allows us to use simple names to refer to the results of compound +operations, such as the `circumference' computed above. In general, +computational objects may have very complex structures, and it would be +extremely inconvenient to have to remember and repeat their details +each time we want to use them. Indeed, complex programs are +constructed by building, step by step, computational objects of +increasing complexity. The interpreter makes this step-by-step program +construction particularly convenient because name-object associations +can be created incrementally in successive interactions. This feature +encourages the incremental development and testing of programs and is +largely responsible for the fact that a Lisp program usually consists +of a large number of relatively simple procedures. + + It should be clear that the possibility of associating values with +symbols and later retrieving them means that the interpreter must +maintain some sort of memory that keeps track of the name-object pairs. +This memory is called the "environment" (more precisely the "global +environment", since we will see later that a computation may involve a +number of different environments).(2) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) In this book, we do not show the interpreter's response to +evaluating definitions, since this is highly implementation-dependent. + + (2) *Note Chapter 3:: will show that this notion of environment is +crucial, both for understanding how the interpreter works and for +implementing interpreters. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-3, Next: 1-1-4, Prev: 1-1-2, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.3 Evaluating Combinations +----------------------------- + +One of our goals in this chapter is to isolate issues about thinking +procedurally. As a case in point, let us consider that, in evaluating +combinations, the interpreter is itself following a procedure. + + To evaluate a combination, do the following: + + 1. Evaluate the subexpressions of the combination. + + 2. Apply the procedure that is the value of the leftmost + subexpression (the operator) to the arguments that are the + values of the other subexpressions (the operands). + + + Even this simple rule illustrates some important points about +processes in general. First, observe that the first step dictates that +in order to accomplish the evaluation process for a combination we must +first perform the evaluation process on each element of the +combination. Thus, the evaluation rule is "recursive" in nature; that +is, it includes, as one of its steps, the need to invoke the rule +itself.(1) + + Notice how succinctly the idea of recursion can be used to express +what, in the case of a deeply nested combination, would otherwise be +viewed as a rather complicated process. For example, evaluating + + (* (+ 2 (* 4 6)) + (+ 3 5 7)) + +requires that the evaluation rule be applied to four different +combinations. We can obtain a picture of this process by representing +the combination in the form of a tree, as shown in *Note Figure 1-1::. +Each combination is represented by a node with branches corresponding +to the operator and the operands of the combination stemming from it. +The terminal nodes (that is, nodes with no branches stemming from them) +represent either operators or numbers. Viewing evaluation in terms of +the tree, we can imagine that the values of the operands percolate +upward, starting from the terminal nodes and then combining at higher +and higher levels. In general, we shall see that recursion is a very +powerful technique for dealing with hierarchical, treelike objects. In +fact, the "percolate values upward" form of the evaluation rule is an +example of a general kind of process known as "tree accumulation". + + *Figure 1.1:* Tree representation, showing the value of each + subcombination. + + 390 + /|\____________ + / | \ + * 26 15 + /|\ | + / | \ // \\ + + 2 24 / | | \ + /|\ + 3 5 7 + / | \ + * 4 6 + + Next, observe that the repeated application of the first step brings +us to the point where we need to evaluate, not combinations, but +primitive expressions such as numerals, built-in operators, or other +names. We take care of the primitive cases by stipulating that + + * the values of numerals are the numbers that they name, + + * the values of built-in operators are the machine instruction + sequences that carry out the corresponding operations, and + + * the values of other names are the objects associated with those + names in the environment. + + + We may regard the second rule as a special case of the third one by +stipulating that symbols such as `+' and `*' are also included in the +global environment, and are associated with the sequences of machine +instructions that are their "values." The key point to notice is the +role of the environment in determining the meaning of the symbols in +expressions. In an interactive language such as Lisp, it is +meaningless to speak of the value of an expression such as `(+ x 1)' +without specifying any information about the environment that would +provide a meaning for the symbol `x' (or even for the symbol `+'). As +we shall see in *Note Chapter 3::, the general notion of the +environment as providing a context in which evaluation takes place will +play an important role in our understanding of program execution. + + Notice that the evaluation rule given above does not handle +definitions. For instance, evaluating `(define x 3)' does not apply +`define' to two arguments, one of which is the value of the symbol `x' +and the other of which is 3, since the purpose of the `define' is +precisely to associate `x' with a value. (That is, `(define x 3)' is +not a combination.) + + Such exceptions to the general evaluation rule are called forms +"special forms". `Define' is the only example of a special form that +we have seen so far, but we will meet others shortly. Each special +form has its own evaluation rule. The various kinds of expressions +(each with its associated evaluation rule) constitute the syntax of the +programming language. In comparison with most other programming +languages, Lisp has a very simple syntax; that is, the evaluation rule +for expressions can be described by a simple general rule together with +specialized rules for a small number of special forms.(2) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) It may seem strange that the evaluation rule says, as part of +the first step, that we should evaluate the leftmost element of a +combination, since at this point that can only be an operator such as +`+' or `*' representing a built-in primitive procedure such as addition +or multiplication. We will see later that it is useful to be able to +work with combinations whose operators are themselves compound +expressions. + + (2) Special syntactic forms that are simply convenient alternative +surface structures for things that can be written in more uniform ways +are sometimes called "syntactic sugar", to use a phrase coined by Peter +Landin. In comparison with users of other languages, Lisp programmers, +as a rule, are less concerned with matters of syntax. (By contrast, +examine any Pascal manual and notice how much of it is devoted to +descriptions of syntax.) This disdain for syntax is due partly to the +flexibility of Lisp, which makes it easy to change surface syntax, and +partly to the observation that many "convenient" syntactic constructs, +which make the language less uniform, end up causing more trouble than +they are worth when programs become large and complex. In the words of +Alan Perlis, "Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon." + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-4, Next: 1-1-5, Prev: 1-1-3, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.4 Compound Procedures +------------------------- + +We have identified in Lisp some of the elements that must appear in any +powerful programming language: + + * Numbers and arithmetic operations are primitive data and + procedures. + + * Nesting of combinations provides a means of combining operations. + + * Definitions that associate names with values provide a limited + means of abstraction. + + + Now we will learn about "procedure definitions", a much more powerful +abstraction technique by which a compound operation can be given a name +and then referred to as a unit. + + We begin by examining how to express the idea of "squaring." We +might say, "To square something, multiply it by itself." This is +expressed in our language as + + (define (square x) (* x x)) + + We can understand this in the following way: + + (define (square x) (* x x)) + | | | | | | + To square something, multiply it by itself. + + We have here a "compound procedure", which has been given the name +`square'. The procedure represents the operation of multiplying +something by itself. The thing to be multiplied is given a local name, +`x', which plays the same role that a pronoun plays in natural +language. Evaluating the definition creates this compound procedure +and associates it with the name `square'.(1) + + The general form of a procedure definition is + + (define (<NAME> <FORMAL PARAMETERS>) <BODY>) + + The <NAME> is a symbol to be associated with the procedure +definition in the environment.(2) The <FORMAL PARAMETERS> are the names +used within the body of the procedure to refer to the corresponding +arguments of the procedure. The <BODY> is an expression that will +yield the value of the procedure application when the formal parameters +are replaced by the actual arguments to which the procedure is +applied.(3) The <NAME> and the <FORMAL PARAMETERS> are grouped within +parentheses, just as they would be in an actual call to the procedure +being defined. + + Having defined `square', we can now use it: + + (square 21) + 441 + + (square (+ 2 5)) + 49 + + (square (square 3)) + 81 + + We can also use `square' as a building block in defining other +procedures. For example, x^2 + y^2 can be expressed as + + (+ (square x) (square y)) + + We can easily define a procedure `sum-of-squares' that, given any two +numbers as arguments, produces the sum of their squares: + + (define (sum-of-squares x y) + (+ (square x) (square y))) + (sum-of-squares 3 4) + 25 + + Now we can use `sum-of-squares' as a building block in constructing +further procedures: + + (define (f a) + (sum-of-squares (+ a 1) (* a 2))) + + (f 5) + 136 + + Compound procedures are used in exactly the same way as primitive +procedures. Indeed, one could not tell by looking at the definition of +`sum-of-squares' given above whether `square' was built into the +interpreter, like `+' and `*', or defined as a compound procedure. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Observe that there are two different operations being combined +here: we are creating the procedure, and we are giving it the name +`square'. It is possible, indeed important, to be able to separate +these two notions--to create procedures without naming them, and to +give names to procedures that have already been created. We will see +how to do this in section *Note 1-3-2::. + + (2) Throughout this book, we will describe the general syntax of +expressions by using italic symbols delimited by angle brackets--e.g., +<NAME>--to denote the "slots" in the expression to be filled in when +such an expression is actually used. + + (3) More generally, the body of the procedure can be a sequence of +expressions. In this case, the interpreter evaluates each expression +in the sequence in turn and returns the value of the final expression +as the value of the procedure application. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-5, Next: 1-1-6, Prev: 1-1-4, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.5 The Substitution Model for Procedure Application +------------------------------------------------------ + +To evaluate a combination whose operator names a compound procedure, the +interpreter follows much the same process as for combinations whose +operators name primitive procedures, which we described in section +*Note 1-1-3::. That is, the interpreter evaluates the elements of the +combination and applies the procedure (which is the value of the +operator of the combination) to the arguments (which are the values of +the operands of the combination). + + We can assume that the mechanism for applying primitive procedures +to arguments is built into the interpreter. For compound procedures, +the application process is as follows: + + To apply a compound procedure to arguments, evaluate the body of + the procedure with each formal parameter replaced by the + corresponding argument. + + To illustrate this process, let's evaluate the combination + + (f 5) + +where `f' is the procedure defined in section *Note 1-1-4::. We begin +by retrieving the body of `f': + + (sum-of-squares (+ a 1) (* a 2)) + + Then we replace the formal parameter `a' by the argument 5: + + (sum-of-squares (+ 5 1) (* 5 2)) + + Thus the problem reduces to the evaluation of a combination with two +operands and an operator `sum-of-squares'. Evaluating this combination +involves three subproblems. We must evaluate the operator to get the +procedure to be applied, and we must evaluate the operands to get the +arguments. Now `(+ 5 1)' produces 6 and `(* 5 2)' produces 10, so we +must apply the `sum-of-squares' procedure to 6 and 10. These values +are substituted for the formal parameters `x' and `y' in the body of +`sum-of-squares', reducing the expression to + + (+ (square 6) (square 10)) + + If we use the definition of `square', this reduces to + + (+ (* 6 6) (* 10 10)) + +which reduces by multiplication to + + (+ 36 100) + +and finally to + + 136 + + The process we have just described is called the "substitution model" +for procedure application. It can be taken as a model that determines +the "meaning" of procedure application, insofar as the procedures in +this chapter are concerned. However, there are two points that should +be stressed: + + * The purpose of the substitution is to help us think about procedure + application, not to provide a description of how the interpreter + really works. Typical interpreters do not evaluate procedure + applications by manipulating the text of a procedure to substitute + values for the formal parameters. In practice, the "substitution" + is accomplished by using a local environment for the formal + parameters. We will discuss this more fully in *Note Chapter 3:: + and *Note Chapter 4:: when we examine the implementation of an + interpreter in detail. + + * Over the course of this book, we will present a sequence of + increasingly elaborate models of how interpreters work, + culminating with a complete implementation of an interpreter and + compiler in *Note Chapter 5::. The substitution model is only the + first of these models--a way to get started thinking formally + about the evaluation process. In general, when modeling phenomena + in science and engineering, we begin with simplified, incomplete + models. As we examine things in greater detail, these simple + models become inadequate and must be replaced by more refined + models. The substitution model is no exception. In particular, + when we address in *Note Chapter 3:: the use of procedures with + "mutable data," we will see that the substitution model breaks + down and must be replaced by a more complicated model of procedure + application.(1) + + +Applicative order versus normal order +..................................... + +According to the description of evaluation given in section *Note +1-1-3::, the interpreter first evaluates the operator and operands and +then applies the resulting procedure to the resulting arguments. This +is not the only way to perform evaluation. An alternative evaluation +model would not evaluate the operands until their values were needed. +Instead it would first substitute operand expressions for parameters +until it obtained an expression involving only primitive operators, and +would then perform the evaluation. If we used this method, the +evaluation of `(f 5)' would proceed according to the sequence of +expansions + + (sum-of-squares (+ 5 1) (* 5 2)) + + (+ (square (+ 5 1)) (square (* 5 2)) ) + + (+ (* (+ 5 1) (+ 5 1)) (* (* 5 2) (* 5 2))) + +followed by the reductions + + (+ (* 6 6) (* 10 10)) + + (+ 36 100) + + 136 + + This gives the same answer as our previous evaluation model, but the +process is different. In particular, the evaluations of `(+ 5 1)' and +`(* 5 2)' are each performed twice here, corresponding to the reduction +of the expression `(* x x)' with `x' replaced respectively by `(+ 5 1)' +and `(* 5 2)'. + + This alternative "fully expand and then reduce" evaluation method is +known as "normal-order evaluation", in contrast to the "evaluate the +arguments and then apply" method that the interpreter actually uses, +which is called "applicative-order evaluation". It can be shown that, +for procedure applications that can be modeled using substitution +(including all the procedures in the first two chapters of this book) +and that yield legitimate values, normal-order and applicative-order +evaluation produce the same value. (See *Note Exercise 1-5:: for an +instance of an "illegitimate" value where normal-order and +applicative-order evaluation do not give the same result.) + + Lisp uses applicative-order evaluation, partly because of the +additional efficiency obtained from avoiding multiple evaluations of +expressions such as those illustrated with `(+ 5 1)' and `(* 5 2)' +above and, more significantly, because normal-order evaluation becomes +much more complicated to deal with when we leave the realm of +procedures that can be modeled by substitution. On the other hand, +normal-order evaluation can be an extremely valuable tool, and we will +investigate some of its implications in *Note Chapter 3:: and *Note +Chapter 4::.(2) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Despite the simplicity of the substitution idea, it turns out to +be surprisingly complicated to give a rigorous mathematical definition +of the substitution process. The problem arises from the possibility of +confusion between the names used for the formal parameters of a +procedure and the (possibly identical) names used in the expressions to +which the procedure may be applied. Indeed, there is a long history of +erroneous definitions of "substitution" in the literature of logic and +programming semantics. See Stoy 1977 for a careful discussion of +substitution. + + (2) In *Note Chapter 3:: we will introduce "stream processing", +which is a way of handling apparently "infinite" data structures by +incorporating a limited form of normal-order evaluation. In section +*Note 4-2:: we will modify the Scheme interpreter to produce a +normal-order variant of Scheme. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-6, Next: 1-1-7, Prev: 1-1-5, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.6 Conditional Expressions and Predicates +-------------------------------------------- + +The expressive power of the class of procedures that we can define at +this point is very limited, because we have no way to make tests and to +perform different operations depending on the result of a test. For +instance, we cannot define a procedure that computes the absolute value +of a number by testing whether the number is positive, negative, or +zero and taking different actions in the different cases according to +the rule + + / + | x if x > 0 + |x| = < 0 if x = 0 + | -x if x < 0 + \ + + This construct is called a "case analysis", and there is a special +form in Lisp for notating such a case analysis. It is called `cond' +(which stands for "conditional"), and it is used as follows: + + (define (abs x) + (cond ((> x 0) x) + ((= x 0) 0) + ((< x 0) (- x)))) + + The general form of a conditional expression is + + (cond (<P1> <E1>) + (<P2> <E2>) + ... + (<PN> <EN>)) + +consisting of the symbol `cond' followed by parenthesized pairs of +expressions + + (<P> <E>) + +called "clauses". The first expression in each pair is a "predicate"--that +is, an expression whose value is interpreted as either true or false.(1) + + Conditional expressions are evaluated as follows. The predicate +<P1> is evaluated first. If its value is false, then <P2> is +evaluated. If <P2>'s value is also false, then <P3> is evaluated. +This process continues until a predicate is found whose value is true, +in which case the interpreter returns the value of the corresponding expression +"consequent expression" <E> of the clause as the value of the +conditional expression. If none of the <P>'s is found to be true, the +value of the `cond' is undefined. + + The word "predicate" is used for procedures that return true or +false, as well as for expressions that evaluate to true or false. The +absolute-value procedure `abs' makes use of the primitive predicates +`>', `<', and `='.(2) These take two numbers as arguments and test +whether the first number is, respectively, greater than, less than, or +equal to the second number, returning true or false accordingly. + + Another way to write the absolute-value procedure is + + (define (abs x) + (cond ((< x 0) (- x)) + (else x))) + +which could be expressed in English as "If x is less than zero return - +x; otherwise return x." `Else' is a special symbol that can be used in +place of the <P> in the final clause of a `cond'. This causes the +`cond' to return as its value the value of the corresponding <E> +whenever all previous clauses have been bypassed. In fact, any +expression that always evaluates to a true value could be used as the +<P> here. + + Here is yet another way to write the absolute-value procedure: + + (define (abs x) + (if (< x 0) + (- x) + x)) + + This uses the special form `if', a restricted type of conditional +that can be used when there are precisely two cases in the case +analysis. The general form of an `if' expression is + + (if <PREDICATE> <CONSEQUENT> <ALTERNATIVE>) + + To evaluate an `if' expression, the interpreter starts by evaluating +the <PREDICATE> part of the expression. If the <PREDICATE> evaluates +to a true value, the interpreter then evaluates the <CONSEQUENT> and +returns its value. Otherwise it evaluates the <ALTERNATIVE> and returns +its value.(3) + + In addition to primitive predicates such as `<', `=', and `>', there +are logical composition operations, which enable us to construct +compound predicates. The three most frequently used are these: + + * `(and <E1> ... <EN>)' + + The interpreter evaluates the expressions <E> one at a time, in + left-to-right order. If any <E> evaluates to false, the value of + the `and' expression is false, and the rest of the <E>'s are not + evaluated. If all <E>'s evaluate to true values, the value of the + `and' expression is the value of the last one. + + * `(or <E1> ... <EN>)' + + The interpreter evaluates the expressions <E> one at a time, in + left-to-right order. If any <E> evaluates to a true value, that + value is returned as the value of the `or' expression, and the + rest of the <E>'s are not evaluated. If all <E>'s evaluate to + false, the value of the `or' expression is false. + + * `(not <E>)' + + The value of a `not' expression is true when the expression <E> + evaluates to false, and false otherwise. + + + Notice that `and' and `or' are special forms, not procedures, because +the subexpressions are not necessarily all evaluated. `Not' is an +ordinary procedure. + + As an example of how these are used, the condition that a number x +be in the range 5 < x < 10 may be expressed as + + (and (> x 5) (< x 10)) + + As another example, we can define a predicate to test whether one +number is greater than or equal to another as + + (define (>= x y) + (or (> x y) (= x y))) + +or alternatively as + + (define (>= x y) + (not (< x y))) + + *Exercise 1.1:* Below is a sequence of expressions. What is the + result printed by the interpreter in response to each expression? + Assume that the sequence is to be evaluated in the order in which + it is presented. + + 10 + + (+ 5 3 4) + + (- 9 1) + + (/ 6 2) + + (+ (* 2 4) (- 4 6)) + + (define a 3) + + (define b (+ a 1)) + + (+ a b (* a b)) + + (= a b) + + (if (and (> b a) (< b (* a b))) + b + a) + + (cond ((= a 4) 6) + ((= b 4) (+ 6 7 a)) + (else 25)) + + (+ 2 (if (> b a) b a)) + + (* (cond ((> a b) a) + ((< a b) b) + (else -1)) + (+ a 1)) + + *Exercise 1.2:* Translate the following expression into prefix + form. + + 5 + 4 + (2 - (3 - (6 + 4/5))) + ----------------------------- + 3(6 - 2)(2 - 7) + + *Exercise 1.3:* Define a procedure that takes three numbers as + arguments and returns the sum of the squares of the two larger + numbers. + + *Exercise 1.4:* Observe that our model of evaluation allows for + combinations whose operators are compound expressions. Use this + observation to describe the behavior of the following procedure: + + (define (a-plus-abs-b a b) + ((if (> b 0) + -) a b)) + + *Exercise 1.5:* Ben Bitdiddle has invented a test to determine + whether the interpreter he is faced with is using + applicative-order evaluation or normal-order evaluation. He + defines the following two procedures: + + (define (p) (p)) + + (define (test x y) + (if (= x 0) + 0 + y)) + + Then he evaluates the expression + + (test 0 (p)) + + What behavior will Ben observe with an interpreter that uses + applicative-order evaluation? What behavior will he observe with + an interpreter that uses normal-order evaluation? Explain your + answer. (Assume that the evaluation rule for the special form + `if' is the same whether the interpreter is using normal or + applicative order: The predicate expression is evaluated first, + and the result determines whether to evaluate the consequent or + the alternative expression.) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) "Interpreted as either true or false" means this: In Scheme, +there are two distinguished values that are denoted by the constants +`#t' and `#f'. When the interpreter checks a predicate's value, it +interprets `#f' as false. Any other value is treated as true. (Thus, +providing `#t' is logically unnecessary, but it is convenient.) In +this book we will use names `true' and `false', which are associated +with the values `#t' and `#f' respectively. + + (2) `Abs' also uses the "minus" operator `-', which, when used with +a single operand, as in `(- x)', indicates negation. + + (3) A minor difference between `if' and `cond' is that the <E> part +of each `cond' clause may be a sequence of expressions. If the +corresponding <P> is found to be true, the expressions <E> are +evaluated in sequence and the value of the final expression in the +sequence is returned as the value of the `cond'. In an `if' +expression, however, the <CONSEQUENT> and <ALTERNATIVE> must be single +expressions. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-7, Next: 1-1-8, Prev: 1-1-6, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.7 Example: Square Roots by Newton's Method +---------------------------------------------- + +Procedures, as introduced above, are much like ordinary mathematical +functions. They specify a value that is determined by one or more +parameters. But there is an important difference between mathematical +functions and computer procedures. Procedures must be effective. + + As a case in point, consider the problem of computing square roots. +We can define the square-root function as + + sqrt(x) = the y such that y >= 0 and y^2 = x + + This describes a perfectly legitimate mathematical function. We +could use it to recognize whether one number is the square root of +another, or to derive facts about square roots in general. On the +other hand, the definition does not describe a procedure. Indeed, it +tells us almost nothing about how to actually find the square root of a +given number. It will not help matters to rephrase this definition in +pseudo-Lisp: + + (define (sqrt x) + (the y (and (>= y 0) + (= (square y) x)))) + + This only begs the question. + + The contrast between function and procedure is a reflection of the +general distinction between describing properties of things and +describing how to do things, or, as it is sometimes referred to, the +distinction between declarative knowledge and imperative knowledge. In +mathematics we are usually concerned with declarative (what is) +descriptions, whereas in computer science we are usually concerned with +imperative (how to) descriptions.(1) + + How does one compute square roots? The most common way is to use +Newton's method of successive approximations, which says that whenever +we have a guess y for the value of the square root of a number x, we +can perform a simple manipulation to get a better guess (one closer to +the actual square root) by averaging y with x/y.(2) For example, we can +compute the square root of 2 as follows. Suppose our initial guess is +1: + + Guess Quotient Average + 1 (2/1) = 2 ((2 + 1)/2) = 1.5 + 1.5 (2/1.5) = 1.3333 ((1.3333 + 1.5)/2) = 1.4167 + 1.4167 (2/1.4167) = 1.4118 ((1.4167 + 1.4118)/2) = 1.4142 + 1.4142 ... ... + +Continuing this process, we obtain better and better approximations to +the square root. + + Now let's formalize the process in terms of procedures. We start +with a value for the radicand (the number whose square root we are +trying to compute) and a value for the guess. If the guess is good +enough for our purposes, we are done; if not, we must repeat the +process with an improved guess. We write this basic strategy as a +procedure: + + (define (sqrt-iter guess x) + (if (good-enough? guess x) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess x) + x))) + + A guess is improved by averaging it with the quotient of the +radicand and the old guess: + + (define (improve guess x) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + +where + + (define (average x y) + (/ (+ x y) 2)) + + We also have to say what we mean by "good enough." The following +will do for illustration, but it is not really a very good test. (See +exercise *Note Exercise 1-7::.) The idea is to improve the answer +until it is close enough so that its square differs from the radicand +by less than a predetermined tolerance (here 0.001):(3) + + (define (good-enough? guess x) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + + Finally, we need a way to get started. For instance, we can always +guess that the square root of any number is 1:(4) + + (define (sqrt x) + (sqrt-iter 1.0 x)) + + If we type these definitions to the interpreter, we can use `sqrt' +just as we can use any procedure: + + (sqrt 9) + 3.00009155413138 + + (sqrt (+ 100 37)) + 11.704699917758145 + + (sqrt (+ (sqrt 2) (sqrt 3))) + 1.7739279023207892 + + (square (sqrt 1000)) + 1000.000369924366 + + The `sqrt' program also illustrates that the simple procedural +language we have introduced so far is sufficient for writing any purely +numerical program that one could write in, say, C or Pascal. This +might seem surprising, since we have not included in our language any +iterative (looping) constructs that direct the computer to do something +over and over again. `Sqrt-iter', on the other hand, demonstrates how +iteration can be accomplished using no special construct other than the +ordinary ability to call a procedure.(5) + + *Exercise 1.6:* Alyssa P. Hacker doesn't see why `if' needs to be + provided as a special form. "Why can't I just define it as an + ordinary procedure in terms of `cond'?" she asks. Alyssa's friend + Eva Lu Ator claims this can indeed be done, and she defines a new + version of `if': + + (define (new-if predicate then-clause else-clause) + (cond (predicate then-clause) + (else else-clause))) + + Eva demonstrates the program for Alyssa: + + (new-if (= 2 3) 0 5) + 5 + + (new-if (= 1 1) 0 5) + 0 + + Delighted, Alyssa uses `new-if' to rewrite the square-root program: + + (define (sqrt-iter guess x) + (new-if (good-enough? guess x) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess x) + x))) + + What happens when Alyssa attempts to use this to compute square + roots? Explain. + + *Exercise 1.7:* The `good-enough?' test used in computing square + roots will not be very effective for finding the square roots of + very small numbers. Also, in real computers, arithmetic operations + are almost always performed with limited precision. This makes + our test inadequate for very large numbers. Explain these + statements, with examples showing how the test fails for small and + large numbers. An alternative strategy for implementing + `good-enough?' is to watch how `guess' changes from one iteration + to the next and to stop when the change is a very small fraction + of the guess. Design a square-root procedure that uses this kind + of end test. Does this work better for small and large numbers? + + *Exercise 1.8:* Newton's method for cube roots is based on the + fact that if y is an approximation to the cube root of x, then a + better approximation is given by the value + + x/y^2 + 2y + ---------- + 3 + + Use this formula to implement a cube-root procedure analogous to + the square-root procedure. (In section *Note 1-3-4:: we will see + how to implement Newton's method in general as an abstraction of + these square-root and cube-root procedures.) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Declarative and imperative descriptions are intimately related, +as indeed are mathematics and computer science. For instance, to say +that the answer produced by a program is "correct" is to make a +declarative statement about the program. There is a large amount of +research aimed at establishing techniques for proving that programs are +correct, and much of the technical difficulty of this subject has to do +with negotiating the transition between imperative statements (from +which programs are constructed) and declarative statements (which can be +used to deduce things). In a related vein, an important current area in +programming-language design is the exploration of so-called very +high-level languages, in which one actually programs in terms of +declarative statements. The idea is to make interpreters sophisticated +enough so that, given "what is" knowledge specified by the programmer, +they can generate "how to" knowledge automatically. This cannot be +done in general, but there are important areas where progress has been +made. We shall revisit this idea in *Note Chapter 4::. + + (2) This square-root algorithm is actually a special case of +Newton's method, which is a general technique for finding roots of +equations. The square-root algorithm itself was developed by Heron of +Alexandria in the first century A.D. We will see how to express the +general Newton's method as a Lisp procedure in section *Note 1-3-4::. + + (3) We will usually give predicates names ending with question +marks, to help us remember that they are predicates. This is just a +stylistic convention. As far as the interpreter is concerned, the +question mark is just an ordinary character. + + (4) Observe that we express our initial guess as 1.0 rather than 1. +This would not make any difference in many Lisp implementations. MIT +Scheme, however, distinguishes between exact integers and decimal +values, and dividing two integers produces a rational number rather +than a decimal. For example, dividing 10 by 6 yields 5/3, while +dividing 10.0 by 6.0 yields 1.6666666666666667. (We will learn how to +implement arithmetic on rational numbers in section *Note 2-1-1::.) If +we start with an initial guess of 1 in our square-root program, and x +is an exact integer, all subsequent values produced in the square-root +computation will be rational numbers rather than decimals. Mixed +operations on rational numbers and decimals always yield decimals, so +starting with an initial guess of 1.0 forces all subsequent values to +be decimals. + + (5) Readers who are worried about the efficiency issues involved in +using procedure calls to implement iteration should note the remarks on +"tail recursion" in section *Note 1-2-1::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-1-8, Prev: 1-1-7, Up: 1-1 + +1.1.8 Procedures as Black-Box Abstractions +------------------------------------------ + +`Sqrt' is our first example of a process defined by a set of mutually +defined procedures. Notice that the definition of `sqrt-iter' is "recursive"; +that is, the procedure is defined in terms of itself. The idea of +being able to define a procedure in terms of itself may be disturbing; +it may seem unclear how such a "circular" definition could make sense +at all, much less specify a well-defined process to be carried out by a +computer. This will be addressed more carefully in section *Note +1-2::. But first let's consider some other important points +illustrated by the `sqrt' example. + + Observe that the problem of computing square roots breaks up +naturally into a number of subproblems: how to tell whether a guess is +good enough, how to improve a guess, and so on. Each of these tasks is +accomplished by a separate procedure. The entire `sqrt' program can be +viewed as a cluster of procedures (shown in *Note Figure 1-2::) that +mirrors the decomposition of the problem into subproblems. + + *Figure 1.2:* Procedural decomposition of the `sqrt' program. + + sqrt + | + sqrt-iter + / \ + good-enough improve + / \ | + square abs average + + The importance of this decomposition strategy is not simply that one +is dividing the program into parts. After all, we could take any large +program and divide it into parts--the first ten lines, the next ten +lines, the next ten lines, and so on. Rather, it is crucial that each +procedure accomplishes an identifiable task that can be used as a +module in defining other procedures. For example, when we define the +`good-enough?' procedure in terms of `square', we are able to regard +the `square' procedure as a "black box." We are not at that moment +concerned with _how_ the procedure computes its result, only with the +fact that it computes the square. The details of how the square is +computed can be suppressed, to be considered at a later time. Indeed, +as far as the `good-enough?' procedure is concerned, `square' is not +quite a procedure but rather an abstraction of a procedure, a so-called "procedural +abstraction". At this level of abstraction, any procedure that +computes the square is equally good. + + Thus, considering only the values they return, the following two +procedures for squaring a number should be indistinguishable. Each +takes a numerical argument and produces the square of that number as +the value.(1) + + (define (square x) (* x x)) + + (define (square x) + (exp (double (log x)))) + + (define (double x) (+ x x)) + + So a procedure definition should be able to suppress detail. The +users of the procedure may not have written the procedure themselves, +but may have obtained it from another programmer as a black box. A +user should not need to know how the procedure is implemented in order +to use it. + +Local names +........... + +One detail of a procedure's implementation that should not matter to +the user of the procedure is the implementer's choice of names for the +procedure's formal parameters. Thus, the following procedures should +not be distinguishable: + + (define (square x) (* x x)) + + (define (square y) (* y y)) + + This principle--that the meaning of a procedure should be +independent of the parameter names used by its author--seems on the +surface to be self-evident, but its consequences are profound. The +simplest consequence is that the parameter names of a procedure must be +local to the body of the procedure. For example, we used `square' in +the definition of `good-enough?' in our square-root procedure: + + (define (good-enough? guess x) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + + The intention of the author of `good-enough?' is to determine if the +square of the first argument is within a given tolerance of the second +argument. We see that the author of `good-enough?' used the name +`guess' to refer to the first argument and `x' to refer to the second +argument. The argument of `square' is `guess'. If the author of +`square' used `x' (as above) to refer to that argument, we see that the +`x' in `good-enough?' must be a different `x' than the one in `square'. +Running the procedure `square' must not affect the value of `x' that +is used by `good-enough?', because that value of `x' may be needed by +`good-enough?' after `square' is done computing. + + If the parameters were not local to the bodies of their respective +procedures, then the parameter `x' in `square' could be confused with +the parameter `x' in `good-enough?', and the behavior of `good-enough?' +would depend upon which version of `square' we used. Thus, `square' +would not be the black box we desired. + + A formal parameter of a procedure has a very special role in the +procedure definition, in that it doesn't matter what name the formal +parameter has. Such a name is called a "bound variable", and we say +that the procedure definition "binds" its formal parameters. The +meaning of a procedure definition is unchanged if a bound variable is +consistently renamed throughout the definition.(2) If a variable is +not bound, we say that it is "free". The set of expressions for which +a binding defines a name is called the "scope" of that name. In a +procedure definition, the bound variables declared as the formal +parameters of the procedure have the body of the procedure as their +scope. + + In the definition of `good-enough?' above, `guess' and `x' are bound +variables but `<', `-', `abs', and `square' are free. The meaning of +`good-enough?' should be independent of the names we choose for `guess' +and `x' so long as they are distinct and different from `<', `-', +`abs', and `square'. (If we renamed `guess' to `abs' we would have +introduced a bug by "capturing" the variable `abs'. It would have +changed from free to bound.) The meaning of `good-enough?' is not +independent of the names of its free variables, however. It surely +depends upon the fact (external to this definition) that the symbol +`abs' names a procedure for computing the absolute value of a number. +`Good-enough?' will compute a different function if we substitute `cos' +for `abs' in its definition. + +Internal definitions and block structure +........................................ + +We have one kind of name isolation available to us so far: The formal +parameters of a procedure are local to the body of the procedure. The +square-root program illustrates another way in which we would like to +control the use of names. The existing program consists of separate +procedures: + + (define (sqrt x) + (sqrt-iter 1.0 x)) + + (define (sqrt-iter guess x) + (if (good-enough? guess x) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess x) x))) + + (define (good-enough? guess x) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + + (define (improve guess x) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + + The problem with this program is that the only procedure that is +important to users of `sqrt' is `sqrt'. The other procedures +(`sqrt-iter', `good-enough?', and `improve') only clutter up their +minds. They may not define any other procedure called `good-enough?' +as part of another program to work together with the square-root +program, because `sqrt' needs it. The problem is especially severe in +the construction of large systems by many separate programmers. For +example, in the construction of a large library of numerical +procedures, many numerical functions are computed as successive +approximations and thus might have procedures named `good-enough?' and +`improve' as auxiliary procedures. We would like to localize the +subprocedures, hiding them inside `sqrt' so that `sqrt' could coexist +with other successive approximations, each having its own private +`good-enough?' procedure. To make this possible, we allow a procedure +to have internal definitions that are local to that procedure. For +example, in the square-root problem we can write + + (define (sqrt x) + (define (good-enough? guess x) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + (define (improve guess x) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + (define (sqrt-iter guess x) + (if (good-enough? guess x) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess x) x))) + (sqrt-iter 1.0 x)) + + Such nesting of definitions, called "block structure", is basically +the right solution to the simplest name-packaging problem. But there +is a better idea lurking here. In addition to internalizing the +definitions of the auxiliary procedures, we can simplify them. Since +`x' is bound in the definition of `sqrt', the procedures +`good-enough?', `improve', and `sqrt-iter', which are defined +internally to `sqrt', are in the scope of `x'. Thus, it is not +necessary to pass `x' explicitly to each of these procedures. Instead, +we allow `x' to be a free variable in the internal definitions, as +shown below. Then `x' gets its value from the argument with which the +enclosing procedure `sqrt' is called. This discipline is called "lexical +scoping".(3) + + (define (sqrt x) + (define (good-enough? guess) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + (define (improve guess) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + (define (sqrt-iter guess) + (if (good-enough? guess) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess)))) + (sqrt-iter 1.0)) + + We will use block structure extensively to help us break up large +programs into tractable pieces.(4) The idea of block structure +originated with the programming language Algol 60. It appears in most +advanced programming languages and is an important tool for helping to +organize the construction of large programs. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) It is not even clear which of these procedures is a more +efficient implementation. This depends upon the hardware available. +There are machines for which the "obvious" implementation is the less +efficient one. Consider a machine that has extensive tables of +logarithms and antilogarithms stored in a very efficient manner. + + (2) The concept of consistent renaming is actually subtle and +difficult to define formally. Famous logicians have made embarrassing +errors here. + + (3) [Footnote 28] Lexical scoping dictates that free variables in a +procedure are taken to refer to bindings made by enclosing procedure +definitions; that is, they are looked up in the environment in which the +procedure was defined. We will see how this works in detail in chapter +3 when we study environments and the detailed behavior of the +interpreter. + + (4) Embedded definitions must come first in a procedure body. The +management is not responsible for the consequences of running programs +that intertwine definition and use. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2, Next: 1-3, Prev: 1-1, Up: Chapter 1 + +1.2 Procedures and the Processes They Generate +============================================== + +We have now considered the elements of programming: We have used +primitive arithmetic operations, we have combined these operations, and +we have abstracted these composite operations by defining them as +compound procedures. But that is not enough to enable us to say that +we know how to program. Our situation is analogous to that of someone +who has learned the rules for how the pieces move in chess but knows +nothing of typical openings, tactics, or strategy. Like the novice +chess player, we don't yet know the common patterns of usage in the +domain. We lack the knowledge of which moves are worth making (which +procedures are worth defining). We lack the experience to predict the +consequences of making a move (executing a procedure). + + The ability to visualize the consequences of the actions under +consideration is crucial to becoming an expert programmer, just as it +is in any synthetic, creative activity. In becoming an expert +photographer, for example, one must learn how to look at a scene and +know how dark each region will appear on a print for each possible +choice of exposure and development conditions. Only then can one +reason backward, planning framing, lighting, exposure, and development +to obtain the desired effects. So it is with programming, where we are +planning the course of action to be taken by a process and where we +control the process by means of a program. To become experts, we must +learn to visualize the processes generated by various types of +procedures. Only after we have developed such a skill can we learn to +reliably construct programs that exhibit the desired behavior. + + A procedure is a pattern for the "local evolution" of a computational +process. It specifies how each stage of the process is built upon the +previous stage. We would like to be able to make statements about the +overall, or "global", behavior of a process whose local evolution has +been specified by a procedure. This is very difficult to do in +general, but we can at least try to describe some typical patterns of +process evolution. + + In this section we will examine some common "shapes" for processes +generated by simple procedures. We will also investigate the rates at +which these processes consume the important computational resources of +time and space. The procedures we will consider are very simple. +Their role is like that played by test patterns in photography: as +oversimplified prototypical patterns, rather than practical examples in +their own right. + +* Menu: + +* 1-2-1:: Linear Recursion and Iteration +* 1-2-2:: Tree Recursion +* 1-2-3:: Orders of Growth +* 1-2-4:: Exponentiation +* 1-2-5:: Greatest Common Divisors +* 1-2-6:: Example: Testing for Primality + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2-1, Next: 1-2-2, Prev: 1-2, Up: 1-2 + +1.2.1 Linear Recursion and Iteration +------------------------------------ + + *Figure 1.3:* A linear recursive process for computing 6!. + + (factorial 6) ------------------------. + (* 6 (factorial 5)) | + (* 6 (* 5 (factorial 4))) | + (* 6 (* 5 (* 4 (factorial 3)))) | + (* 6 (* 5 (* 4 (* 3 (factorial 2))))) | + (* 6 (* 5 (* 4 (* 3 (* 2 (factorial 1)))))) | + (* 6 (* 5 (* 4 (* 3 (* 2 1))))) | + (* 6 (* 5 (* 4 (* 3 2)))) | + (* 6 (* 5 (* 4 6))) | + (* 6 (* 5 24)) | + (* 6 120) | + 720 <-------------------------------' + +We begin by considering the factorial function, defined by + + n! = n * (n - 1) * (n - 2) ... 3 * 2 * 1 + + There are many ways to compute factorials. One way is to make use +of the observation that n! is equal to n times (n - 1)! for any positive +integer n: + + n! = n * [(n - 1) * (n - 2) ... 3 * 2 * 1] = n * (n - 1)! + + Thus, we can compute n! by computing (n - 1)! and multiplying the +result by n. If we add the stipulation that 1! is equal to 1, this +observation translates directly into a procedure: + + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* n (factorial (- n 1))))) + + We can use the substitution model of section *Note 1-1-5:: to watch +this procedure in action computing 6!, as shown in *Note Figure 1-3::. + + Now let's take a different perspective on computing factorials. We +could describe a rule for computing n! by specifying that we first +multiply 1 by 2, then multiply the result by 3, then by 4, and so on +until we reach n. More formally, we maintain a running product, +together with a counter that counts from 1 up to n. We can describe +the computation by saying that the counter and the product +simultaneously change from one step to the next according to the rule + + product <- counter ... product + + counter <- counter + 1 + +and stipulating that n! is the value of the product when the counter +exceeds n. + + *Figure 1.4:* A linear iterative process for computing 6!. + + (factorial 6) -----. + (fact-iter 1 1 6) | + (fact-iter 1 2 6) | + (fact-iter 2 3 6) | + (fact-iter 6 4 6) | + (fact-iter 24 5 6) | + (fact-iter 120 6 6) | + (fact-iter 720 7 6) V + 720 + + Once again, we can recast our description as a procedure for +computing factorials:(1) + + (define (factorial n) + (fact-iter 1 1 n)) + + (define (fact-iter product counter max-count) + (if (> counter max-count) + product + (fact-iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1) + max-count))) + + As before, we can use the substitution model to visualize the +process of computing 6!, as shown in *Note Figure 1-4::. + + Compare the two processes. From one point of view, they seem hardly +different at all. Both compute the same mathematical function on the +same domain, and each requires a number of steps proportional to n to +compute n!. Indeed, both processes even carry out the same sequence of +multiplications, obtaining the same sequence of partial products. On +the other hand, when we consider the "shapes" of the two processes, we +find that they evolve quite differently. + + Consider the first process. The substitution model reveals a shape +of expansion followed by contraction, indicated by the arrow in *Note +Figure 1-3::. The expansion occurs as the process builds up a chain of operations +"deferred operations" (in this case, a chain of multiplications). The +contraction occurs as the operations are actually performed. This type +of process, characterized by a chain of deferred operations, is called +a "recursive process". Carrying out this process requires that the +interpreter keep track of the operations to be performed later on. In +the computation of n!, the length of the chain of deferred +multiplications, and hence the amount of information needed to keep +track of it, grows linearly with n (is proportional to n), just like +the number of steps. Such a process is called a "linear recursive +process". + + By contrast, the second process does not grow and shrink. At each +step, all we need to keep track of, for any n, are the current values +of the variables `product', `counter', and `max-count'. We call this an "iterative +process". In general, an iterative process is one whose state can be +summarized by a fixed number of "state variables", together with a +fixed rule that describes how the state variables should be updated as +the process moves from state to state and an (optional) end test that +specifies conditions under which the process should terminate. In +computing n!, the number of steps required grows linearly with n. Such +a process is called a "linear iterative process". + + The contrast between the two processes can be seen in another way. +In the iterative case, the program variables provide a complete +description of the state of the process at any point. If we stopped +the computation between steps, all we would need to do to resume the +computation is to supply the interpreter with the values of the three +program variables. Not so with the recursive process. In this case +there is some additional "hidden" information, maintained by the +interpreter and not contained in the program variables, which indicates +"where the process is" in negotiating the chain of deferred operations. +The longer the chain, the more information must be maintained.(2) + + In contrasting iteration and recursion, we must be careful not to +confuse the notion of a recursive "process" with the notion of a +recursive "procedure". When we describe a procedure as recursive, we +are referring to the syntactic fact that the procedure definition +refers (either directly or indirectly) to the procedure itself. But +when we describe a process as following a pattern that is, say, +linearly recursive, we are speaking about how the process evolves, not +about the syntax of how a procedure is written. It may seem disturbing +that we refer to a recursive procedure such as `fact-iter' as +generating an iterative process. However, the process really is +iterative: Its state is captured completely by its three state +variables, and an interpreter need keep track of only three variables +in order to execute the process. + + One reason that the distinction between process and procedure may be +confusing is that most implementations of common languages (including +Ada, Pascal, and C) are designed in such a way that the interpretation +of any recursive procedure consumes an amount of memory that grows with +the number of procedure calls, even when the process described is, in +principle, iterative. As a consequence, these languages can describe +iterative processes only by resorting to special-purpose "looping +constructs" such as `do', `repeat', `until', `for', and `while'. The +implementation of Scheme we shall consider in *Note Chapter 5:: does +not share this defect. It will execute an iterative process in +constant space, even if the iterative process is described by a +recursive procedure. An implementation with this property is called "tail-recursive". +With a tail-recursive implementation, iteration can be expressed using +the ordinary procedure call mechanism, so that special iteration +constructs are useful only as syntactic sugar.(3) + + *Exercise 1.9:* Each of the following two procedures defines a + method for adding two positive integers in terms of the procedures + `inc', which increments its argument by 1, and `dec', which + decrements its argument by 1. + + (define (+ a b) + (if (= a 0) + b + (inc (+ (dec a) b)))) + + (define (+ a b) + (if (= a 0) + b + (+ (dec a) (inc b)))) + + Using the substitution model, illustrate the process generated by + each procedure in evaluating `(+ 4 5)'. Are these processes + iterative or recursive? + + *Exercise 1.10:* The following procedure computes a mathematical + function called Ackermann's function. + + (define (A x y) + (cond ((= y 0) 0) + ((= x 0) (* 2 y)) + ((= y 1) 2) + (else (A (- x 1) + (A x (- y 1)))))) + + What are the values of the following expressions? + + (A 1 10) + + (A 2 4) + + (A 3 3) + + Consider the following procedures, where `A' is the procedure + defined above: + + (define (f n) (A 0 n)) + + (define (g n) (A 1 n)) + + (define (h n) (A 2 n)) + + (define (k n) (* 5 n n)) + + Give concise mathematical definitions for the functions computed + by the procedures `f', `g', and `h' for positive integer values of + n. For example, `(k n)' computes 5n^2. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) In a real program we would probably use the block structure +introduced in the last section to hide the definition of `fact-iter': + + (define (factorial n) + (define (iter product counter) + (if (> counter n) + product + (iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1)))) + (iter 1 1)) + + We avoided doing this here so as to minimize the number of things to +think about at once. + + (2) When we discuss the implementation of procedures on register +machines in *Note Chapter 5::, we will see that any iterative process +can be realized "in hardware" as a machine that has a fixed set of +registers and no auxiliary memory. In contrast, realizing a recursive +process requires a machine that uses an auxiliary data structure known +as a "stack". + + (3) Tail recursion has long been known as a compiler optimization +trick. A coherent semantic basis for tail recursion was provided by +Carl Hewitt (1977), who explained it in terms of the "message-passing" +model of computation that we shall discuss in *Note Chapter 3::. +Inspired by this, Gerald Jay Sussman and Guy Lewis Steele Jr. (see +Steele 1975) constructed a tail-recursive interpreter for Scheme. +Steele later showed how tail recursion is a consequence of the natural +way to compile procedure calls (Steele 1977). The IEEE standard for +Scheme requires that Scheme implementations be tail-recursive. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2-2, Next: 1-2-3, Prev: 1-2-1, Up: 1-2 + +1.2.2 Tree Recursion +-------------------- + +Another common pattern of computation is called "tree recursion". As +an example, consider computing the sequence of Fibonacci numbers, in +which each number is the sum of the preceding two: + + 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 21, ... + + In general, the Fibonacci numbers can be defined by the rule + + / + | 0 if n = 0 + Fib(n) = < 1 if n = 1 + | Fib(n - 1) + Fib(n - 2) otherwise + \ + + We can immediately translate this definition into a recursive +procedure for computing Fibonacci numbers: + + (define (fib n) + (cond ((= n 0) 0) + ((= n 1) 1) + (else (+ (fib (- n 1)) + (fib (- n 2)))))) + + *Figure 1.5:* The tree-recursive process generated in computing + `(fib 5)'. + + ..<............ fib5 <.......... + ... ___________/ \___________ . + ... / . ..... \ . + .. fib4 . . . . . fib3 . + .. ____/. \____ .. . __/ \__ . + .. / . . .. \ . .. / . . \ . + .. fib3 . . fib2 . . fib2 . . fib1 . + .. / . \ . . / \ . . / \ ... . | . + .. / . . \ . . / . \ . . / . \ . . 1 . + . fib2 . . fib1. .fib1 . fib0 . .fib1. . fib0 . . . + . / \ . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . .> + V / . \ . 1 . . 1 . . 0 . . 1 . . 0 .. + . fib1 .. fib0.. . . . . . V . .. . + . | . . | . .> .>. . . ..>. .> + . 1 . . 0 . + . . . . + .>. .. + + Consider the pattern of this computation. To compute `(fib 5)', we +compute `(fib 4)' and `(fib 3)'. To compute `(fib 4)', we compute +`(fib 3)' and `(fib 2)'. In general, the evolved process looks like a +tree, as shown in *Note Figure 1-5::. Notice that the branches split +into two at each level (except at the bottom); this reflects the fact +that the `fib' procedure calls itself twice each time it is invoked. + + This procedure is instructive as a prototypical tree recursion, but +it is a terrible way to compute Fibonacci numbers because it does so +much redundant computation. Notice in *Note Figure 1-5:: that the +entire computation of `(fib 3)'--almost half the work--is duplicated. +In fact, it is not hard to show that the number of times the procedure +will compute `(fib 1)' or `(fib 0)' (the number of leaves in the above +tree, in general) is precisely _Fib_(n + 1). To get an idea of how bad +this is, one can show that the value of _Fib_(n) grows exponentially +with n. More precisely (see *Note Exercise 1-13::), _Fib_(n) is the +closest integer to [phi]^n /[sqrt](5), where + + [phi] = (1 + [sqrt]5)/2 ~= 1.6180 + +is the "golden ratio", which satisfies the equation + + [phi]^2 = [phi] + 1 + + Thus, the process uses a number of steps that grows exponentially +with the input. On the other hand, the space required grows only +linearly with the input, because we need keep track only of which nodes +are above us in the tree at any point in the computation. In general, +the number of steps required by a tree-recursive process will be +proportional to the number of nodes in the tree, while the space +required will be proportional to the maximum depth of the tree. + + We can also formulate an iterative process for computing the +Fibonacci numbers. The idea is to use a pair of integers a and b, +initialized to _Fib_(1) = 1 and _Fib_(0) = 0, and to repeatedly apply +the simultaneous transformations + + a <- a + b + b <- a + +It is not hard to show that, after applying this transformation n times, +a and b will be equal, respectively, to _Fib_(n + 1) and _Fib_(n). +Thus, we can compute Fibonacci numbers iteratively using the procedure + + (define (fib n) + (fib-iter 1 0 n)) + + (define (fib-iter a b count) + (if (= count 0) + b + (fib-iter (+ a b) a (- count 1)))) + + This second method for computing _Fib_(n) is a linear iteration. The +difference in number of steps required by the two methods--one linear in +n, one growing as fast as _Fib_(n) itself--is enormous, even for small +inputs. + + One should not conclude from this that tree-recursive processes are +useless. When we consider processes that operate on hierarchically +structured data rather than numbers, we will find that tree recursion +is a natural and powerful tool.(1) But even in numerical operations, +tree-recursive processes can be useful in helping us to understand and +design programs. For instance, although the first `fib' procedure is +much less efficient than the second one, it is more straightforward, +being little more than a translation into Lisp of the definition of the +Fibonacci sequence. To formulate the iterative algorithm required +noticing that the computation could be recast as an iteration with +three state variables. + +Example: Counting change +........................ + +It takes only a bit of cleverness to come up with the iterative +Fibonacci algorithm. In contrast, consider the following problem: How +many different ways can we make change of $ 1.00, given half-dollars, +quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies? More generally, can we write a +procedure to compute the number of ways to change any given amount of +money? + + This problem has a simple solution as a recursive procedure. +Suppose we think of the types of coins available as arranged in some +order. Then the following relation holds: + + The number of ways to change amount a using n kinds of coins equals + + * the number of ways to change amount a using all but the first kind + of coin, plus + + * the number of ways to change amount a - d using all n kinds of + coins, where d is the denomination of the first kind of coin. + + + To see why this is true, observe that the ways to make change can be +divided into two groups: those that do not use any of the first kind of +coin, and those that do. Therefore, the total number of ways to make +change for some amount is equal to the number of ways to make change +for the amount without using any of the first kind of coin, plus the +number of ways to make change assuming that we do use the first kind of +coin. But the latter number is equal to the number of ways to make +change for the amount that remains after using a coin of the first kind. + + Thus, we can recursively reduce the problem of changing a given +amount to the problem of changing smaller amounts using fewer kinds of +coins. Consider this reduction rule carefully, and convince yourself +that we can use it to describe an algorithm if we specify the following +degenerate cases:(2) + + * If a is exactly 0, we should count that as 1 way to make change. + + * If a is less than 0, we should count that as 0 ways to make change. + + * If n is 0, we should count that as 0 ways to make change. + + + We can easily translate this description into a recursive procedure: + + (define (count-change amount) + (cc amount 5)) + + (define (cc amount kinds-of-coins) + (cond ((= amount 0) 1) + ((or (< amount 0) (= kinds-of-coins 0)) 0) + (else (+ (cc amount + (- kinds-of-coins 1)) + (cc (- amount + (first-denomination kinds-of-coins)) + kinds-of-coins))))) + + (define (first-denomination kinds-of-coins) + (cond ((= kinds-of-coins 1) 1) + ((= kinds-of-coins 2) 5) + ((= kinds-of-coins 3) 10) + ((= kinds-of-coins 4) 25) + ((= kinds-of-coins 5) 50))) + + (The `first-denomination' procedure takes as input the number of +kinds of coins available and returns the denomination of the first +kind. Here we are thinking of the coins as arranged in order from +largest to smallest, but any order would do as well.) We can now +answer our original question about changing a dollar: + + (count-change 100) + 292 + + `Count-change' generates a tree-recursive process with redundancies +similar to those in our first implementation of `fib'. (It will take +quite a while for that 292 to be computed.) On the other hand, it is +not obvious how to design a better algorithm for computing the result, +and we leave this problem as a challenge. The observation that a +tree-recursive process may be highly inefficient but often easy to +specify and understand has led people to propose that one could get the +best of both worlds by designing a "smart compiler" that could +transform tree-recursive procedures into more efficient procedures that +compute the same result.(3) + + *Exercise 1.11:* A function f is defined by the rule that f(n) = n + if n<3 and f(n) = f(n - 1) + 2f(n - 2) + 3f(n - 3) if n>= 3. + Write a procedure that computes f by means of a recursive process. + Write a procedure that computes f by means of an iterative + process. + + *Exercise 1.12:* The following pattern of numbers is called "Pascal's + triangle". + + 1 + 1 1 + 1 2 1 + 1 3 3 1 + 1 4 6 4 1 + + The numbers at the edge of the triangle are all 1, and each number + inside the triangle is the sum of the two numbers above it.(4) + Write a procedure that computes elements of Pascal's triangle by + means of a recursive process. + + *Exercise 1.13:* Prove that _Fib_(n) is the closest integer to + [phi]^n/[sqrt](5), where [phi] = (1 + [sqrt](5))/2. Hint: Let + [illegiblesymbol] = (1 - [sqrt](5))/2. Use induction and the + definition of the Fibonacci numbers (see section *Note 1-2-2::) to + prove that _Fib_(n) = ([phi]^n - [illegiblesymbol]^n)/[sqrt](5). + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) An example of this was hinted at in section *Note 1-1-3::: The +interpreter itself evaluates expressions using a tree-recursive process. + + (2) For example, work through in detail how the reduction rule +applies to the problem of making change for 10 cents using pennies and +nickels. + + (3) One approach to coping with redundant computations is to arrange +matters so that we automatically construct a table of values as they +are computed. Each time we are asked to apply the procedure to some +argument, we first look to see if the value is already stored in the +table, in which case we avoid performing the redundant computation. +This strategy, known as "tabulation" or "memoization", can be +implemented in a straightforward way. Tabulation can sometimes be used +to transform processes that require an exponential number of steps +(such as `count-change') into processes whose space and time +requirements grow linearly with the input. See *Note Exercise 3-27::. + + (4) The elements of Pascal's triangle are called the "binomial +coefficients", because the nth row consists of the coefficients of the +terms in the expansion of (x + y)^n. This pattern for computing the +coefficients appeared in Blaise Pascal's 1653 seminal work on +probability theory, `Traite' du triangle arithme'tique'. According to +Knuth (1973), the same pattern appears in the `Szu-yuen Yu"-chien' +("The Precious Mirror of the Four Elements"), published by the Chinese +mathematician Chu Shih-chieh in 1303, in the works of the +twelfth-century Persian poet and mathematician Omar Khayyam, and in the +works of the twelfth-century Hindu mathematician Bha'scara A'cha'rya. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2-3, Next: 1-2-4, Prev: 1-2-2, Up: 1-2 + +1.2.3 Orders of Growth +---------------------- + +The previous examples illustrate that processes can differ considerably +in the rates at which they consume computational resources. One +convenient way to describe this difference is to use the notion of "order +of growth" to obtain a gross measure of the resources required by a +process as the inputs become larger. + + Let n be a parameter that measures the size of the problem, and let +R(n) be the amount of resources the process requires for a problem of +size n. In our previous examples we took n to be the number for which +a given function is to be computed, but there are other possibilities. +For instance, if our goal is to compute an approximation to the square +root of a number, we might take n to be the number of digits accuracy +required. For matrix multiplication we might take n to be the number +of rows in the matrices. In general there are a number of properties +of the problem with respect to which it will be desirable to analyze a +given process. Similarly, R(n) might measure the number of internal +storage registers used, the number of elementary machine operations +performed, and so on. In computers that do only a fixed number of +operations at a time, the time required will be proportional to the +number of elementary machine operations performed. + + We say that R(n) has order of growth [theta](f(n)), written R(n) = +[theta](f(n)) (pronounced "theta of f(n)"), if there are positive +constants k_1 and k_2 independent of n such that + + k_1 f(n) <= R(n) <= k_2 f(n) + +for any sufficiently large value of n. (In other words, for large n, +the value R(n) is sandwiched between k_1f(n) and k_2f(n).) + + For instance, with the linear recursive process for computing +factorial described in section *Note 1-2-1:: the number of steps grows +proportionally to the input n. Thus, the steps required for this +process grows as [theta](n). We also saw that the space required grows +as [theta](n). For the iterative factorial, the number of steps is +still [theta](n) but the space is [theta](1)--that is, constant.(1) The +tree-recursive Fibonacci computation requires [theta]([phi]^n) steps +and space [theta](n), where [phi] is the golden ratio described in +section *Note 1-2-2::. + + Orders of growth provide only a crude description of the behavior of +a process. For example, a process requiring n^2 steps and a process +requiring 1000n^2 steps and a process requiring 3n^2 + 10n + 17 steps +all have [theta](n^2) order of growth. On the other hand, order of +growth provides a useful indication of how we may expect the behavior +of the process to change as we change the size of the problem. For a +[theta](n) (linear) process, doubling the size will roughly double the +amount of resources used. For an exponential process, each increment +in problem size will multiply the resource utilization by a constant +factor. In the remainder of section *Note 1-2:: we will examine two +algorithms whose order of growth is logarithmic, so that doubling the +problem size increases the resource requirement by a constant amount. + + *Exercise 1.14:* Draw the tree illustrating the process generated + by the `count-change' procedure of section *Note 1-2-2:: in making + change for 11 cents. What are the orders of growth of the space + and number of steps used by this process as the amount to be + changed increases? + + *Exercise 1.15:* The sine of an angle (specified in radians) can + be computed by making use of the approximation `sin' xapprox x if + x is sufficiently small, and the trigonometric identity + + x x + sin x = 3 sin --- - 4 sin^3 --- + 3 3 + + to reduce the size of the argument of `sin'. (For purposes of this + exercise an angle is considered "sufficiently small" if its + magnitude is not greater than 0.1 radians.) These ideas are + incorporated in the following procedures: + + (define (cube x) (* x x x)) + + (define (p x) (- (* 3 x) (* 4 (cube x)))) + + (define (sine angle) + (if (not (> (abs angle) 0.1)) + angle + (p (sine (/ angle 3.0))))) + + a. How many times is the procedure `p' applied when `(sine + 12.15)' is evaluated? + + b. What is the order of growth in space and number of steps (as + a function of a) used by the process generated by the `sine' + procedure when `(sine a)' is evaluated? + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) These statements mask a great deal of oversimplification. For +instance, if we count process steps as "machine operations" we are +making the assumption that the number of machine operations needed to +perform, say, a multiplication is independent of the size of the +numbers to be multiplied, which is false if the numbers are +sufficiently large. Similar remarks hold for the estimates of space. +Like the design and description of a process, the analysis of a process +can be carried out at various levels of abstraction. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2-4, Next: 1-2-5, Prev: 1-2-3, Up: 1-2 + +1.2.4 Exponentiation +-------------------- + +Consider the problem of computing the exponential of a given number. +We would like a procedure that takes as arguments a base b and a +positive integer exponent n and computes b^n. One way to do this is +via the recursive definition + + b^n = b * b^(n - 1) + b^0 = 1 + +which translates readily into the procedure + + (define (expt b n) + (if (= n 0) + 1 + (* b (expt b (- n 1))))) + + This is a linear recursive process, which requires [theta](n) steps +and [theta](n) space. Just as with factorial, we can readily formulate +an equivalent linear iteration: + + (define (expt b n) + (expt-iter b n 1)) + + (define (expt-iter b counter product) + (if (= counter 0) + product + (expt-iter b + (- counter 1) + (* b product)))) + + This version requires [theta](n) steps and [theta](1) space. + + We can compute exponentials in fewer steps by using successive +squaring. For instance, rather than computing b^8 as + + b * (b * (b * (b * (b * (b * (b * b)))))) + +we can compute it using three multiplications: + + b^2 = b * b + b^4 = b^2 * b^2 + b^8 = b^4 * b^4 + + This method works fine for exponents that are powers of 2. We can +also take advantage of successive squaring in computing exponentials in +general if we use the rule + + b^n = (b^(b/2))^2 if n is even + b^n = b * b^(n - 1) if n is odd + + We can express this method as a procedure: + + (define (fast-expt b n) + (cond ((= n 0) 1) + ((even? n) (square (fast-expt b (/ n 2)))) + (else (* b (fast-expt b (- n 1)))))) + +where the predicate to test whether an integer is even is defined in +terms of the primitive procedure `remainder' by + + (define (even? n) + (= (remainder n 2) 0)) + + The process evolved by `fast-expt' grows logarithmically with n in +both space and number of steps. To see this, observe that computing +b^(2n) using `fast-expt' requires only one more multiplication than +computing b^n. The size of the exponent we can compute therefore +doubles (approximately) with every new multiplication we are allowed. +Thus, the number of multiplications required for an exponent of n grows +about as fast as the logarithm of n to the base 2. The process has +[theta](`log' n) growth.(1) + + The difference between [theta](`log' n) growth and [theta](n) growth +becomes striking as n becomes large. For example, `fast-expt' for n = +1000 requires only 14 multiplications.(2) It is also possible to use +the idea of successive squaring to devise an iterative algorithm that +computes exponentials with a logarithmic number of steps (see *Note +Exercise 1-16::), although, as is often the case with iterative +algorithms, this is not written down so straightforwardly as the +recursive algorithm.(3) + + *Exercise 1.16:* Design a procedure that evolves an iterative + exponentiation process that uses successive squaring and uses a + logarithmic number of steps, as does `fast-expt'. (Hint: Using the + observation that (b^(n/2))^2 = (b^2)^(n/2), keep, along with the + exponent n and the base b, an additional state variable a, and + define the state transformation in such a way that the product a + b^n is unchanged from state to state. At the beginning of the + process a is taken to be 1, and the answer is given by the value + of a at the end of the process. In general, the technique of + defining an "invariant quantity" that remains unchanged from state + to state is a powerful way to think about the design of iterative + algorithms.) + + *Exercise 1.17:* The exponentiation algorithms in this section are + based on performing exponentiation by means of repeated + multiplication. In a similar way, one can perform integer + multiplication by means of repeated addition. The following + multiplication procedure (in which it is assumed that our language + can only add, not multiply) is analogous to the `expt' procedure: + + (define (* a b) + (if (= b 0) + 0 + (+ a (* a (- b 1))))) + + This algorithm takes a number of steps that is linear in `b'. Now + suppose we include, together with addition, operations `double', + which doubles an integer, and `halve', which divides an (even) + integer by 2. Using these, design a multiplication procedure + analogous to `fast-expt' that uses a logarithmic number of steps. + + *Exercise 1.18:* Using the results of *Note Exercise 1-16:: and + *Note Exercise 1-17::, devise a procedure that generates an + iterative process for multiplying two integers in terms of adding, + doubling, and halving and uses a logarithmic number of steps.(4) + + *Exercise 1.19:* There is a clever algorithm for computing the + Fibonacci numbers in a logarithmic number of steps. Recall the + transformation of the state variables a and b in the `fib-iter' + process of section *Note 1-2-2::: a <- a + b and b <- a. Call + this transformation T, and observe that applying T over and over + again n times, starting with 1 and 0, produces the pair _Fib_(n + + 1) and _Fib_(n). In other words, the Fibonacci numbers are + produced by applying T^n, the nth power of the transformation T, + starting with the pair (1,0). Now consider T to be the special + case of p = 0 and q = 1 in a family of transformations T_(pq), + where T_(pq) transforms the pair (a,b) according to a <- bq + aq + + ap and b <- bp + aq. Show that if we apply such a transformation + T_(pq) twice, the effect is the same as using a single + transformation T_(p'q') of the same form, and compute p' and q' in + terms of p and q. This gives us an explicit way to square these + transformations, and thus we can compute T^n using successive + squaring, as in the `fast-expt' procedure. Put this all together + to complete the following procedure, which runs in a logarithmic + number of steps:(5) + + (define (fib n) + (fib-iter 1 0 0 1 n)) + + (define (fib-iter a b p q count) + (cond ((= count 0) b) + ((even? count) + (fib-iter a + b + <??> ; compute p' + <??> ; compute q' + (/ count 2))) + (else (fib-iter (+ (* b q) (* a q) (* a p)) + (+ (* b p) (* a q)) + p + q + (- count 1))))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) More precisely, the number of multiplications required is equal +to 1 less than the log base 2 of n plus the number of ones in the +binary representation of n. This total is always less than twice the +log base 2 of n. The arbitrary constants k_1 and k_2 in the definition +of order notation imply that, for a logarithmic process, the base to +which logarithms are taken does not matter, so all such processes are +described as [theta](`log' n). + + (2) You may wonder why anyone would care about raising numbers to +the 1000th power. See section *Note 1-2-6::. + + (3) This iterative algorithm is ancient. It appears in the +`Chandah-sutra' by A'cha'rya Pingala, written before 200 B.C. See Knuth +1981, section 4.6.3, for a full discussion and analysis of this and +other methods of exponentiation. + + (4) This algorithm, which is sometimes known as the "Russian peasant +method" of multiplication, is ancient. Examples of its use are found +in the Rhind Papyrus, one of the two oldest mathematical documents in +existence, written about 1700 B.C. (and copied from an even older +document) by an Egyptian scribe named A'h-mose. + + (5) This exercise was suggested to us by Joe Stoy, based on an +example in Kaldewaij 1990. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2-5, Next: 1-2-6, Prev: 1-2-4, Up: 1-2 + +1.2.5 Greatest Common Divisors +------------------------------ + +The greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers a and b is defined to +be the largest integer that divides both a and b with no remainder. +For example, the GCD of 16 and 28 is 4. In *Note Chapter 2::, when we +investigate how to implement rational-number arithmetic, we will need +to be able to compute GCDs in order to reduce rational numbers to +lowest terms. (To reduce a rational number to lowest terms, we must +divide both the numerator and the denominator by their GCD. For +example, 16/28 reduces to 4/7.) One way to find the GCD of two +integers is to factor them and search for common factors, but there is +a famous algorithm that is much more efficient. + + The idea of the algorithm is based on the observation that, if r is +the remainder when a is divided by b, then the common divisors of a and +b are precisely the same as the common divisors of b and r. Thus, we +can use the equation + + GCD(a,b) = GCD(b,r) + +to successively reduce the problem of computing a GCD to the problem of +computing the GCD of smaller and smaller pairs of integers. For +example, + + GCD(206,40) = GCD(40,6) + = GCD(6,4) + = GCD(4,2) + = GCD(2,0) + = 2 + +reduces GCD(206,40) to GCD(2,0), which is 2. It is possible to show +that starting with any two positive integers and performing repeated +reductions will always eventually produce a pair where the second +number is 0. Then the GCD is the other number in the pair. This +method for computing the GCD is known as Algorithm "Euclid's +Algorithm".(1) + + It is easy to express Euclid's Algorithm as a procedure: + + (define (gcd a b) + (if (= b 0) + a + (gcd b (remainder a b)))) + + This generates an iterative process, whose number of steps grows as +the logarithm of the numbers involved. + + The fact that the number of steps required by Euclid's Algorithm has +logarithmic growth bears an interesting relation to the Fibonacci +numbers: + + *Lame''s Theorem:* If Euclid's Algorithm requires k steps to + compute the GCD of some pair, then the smaller number in the pair + must be greater than or equal to the kth Fibonacci number.(2) + + We can use this theorem to get an order-of-growth estimate for +Euclid's Algorithm. Let n be the smaller of the two inputs to the +procedure. If the process takes k steps, then we must have n>= _Fib_(k) +approx [phi]^k/[sqrt](5). Therefore the number of steps k grows as the +logarithm (to the base [phi]) of n. Hence, the order of growth is +[theta](`log' n). + + *Exercise 1.20:* The process that a procedure generates is of + course dependent on the rules used by the interpreter. As an + example, consider the iterative `gcd' procedure given above. + Suppose we were to interpret this procedure using normal-order + evaluation, as discussed in section *Note 1-1-5::. (The + normal-order-evaluation rule for `if' is described in *Note + Exercise 1-5::.) Using the substitution method (for normal + order), illustrate the process generated in evaluating `(gcd 206 + 40)' and indicate the `remainder' operations that are actually + performed. How many `remainder' operations are actually performed + in the normal-order evaluation of `(gcd 206 40)'? In the + applicative-order evaluation? + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Euclid's Algorithm is so called because it appears in Euclid's +`Elements' (Book 7, ca. 300 B.C.). According to Knuth (1973), it can +be considered the oldest known nontrivial algorithm. The ancient +Egyptian method of multiplication (*Note Exercise 1-18::) is surely +older, but, as Knuth explains, Euclid's algorithm is the oldest known +to have been presented as a general algorithm, rather than as a set of +illustrative examples. + + (2) This theorem was proved in 1845 by Gabriel Lame', a French +mathematician and engineer known chiefly for his contributions to +mathematical physics. To prove the theorem, we consider pairs (a_k +,b_k), where a_k>= b_k, for which Euclid's Algorithm terminates in k +steps. The proof is based on the claim that, if (a_(k+1), b_(k+1)) -> +(a_k, b_k) -> (a_(k-1), b_(k-1)) are three successive pairs in the +reduction process, then we must have b_(k+1)>= b_k + b_(k-1). To +verify the claim, consider that a reduction step is defined by applying +the transformation a_(k-1) = b_k, b_(k-1) = remainder of a_k divided by +b_k. The second equation means that a_k = qb_k + b_(k-1) for some +positive integer q. And since q must be at least 1 we have a_k = qb_k ++ b_(k-1) >= b_k + b_(k-1). But in the previous reduction step we have +b_(k+1) = a_k. Therefore, b_(k+1) = a_k>= b_k + b_(k-1). This verifies +the claim. Now we can prove the theorem by induction on k, the number +of steps that the algorithm requires to terminate. The result is true +for k = 1, since this merely requires that b be at least as large as +_Fib_(1) = 1. Now, assume that the result is true for all integers +less than or equal to k and establish the result for k + 1. Let +(a_(k+1), b_(k+1)) -> (a_k, b_k) -> (a_k-1), b_(k-1)) be successive +pairs in the reduction process. By our induction hypotheses, we have +b_(k-1) >= _Fib_(k - 1) and b_k >= _Fib_(k). Thus, applying the claim +we just proved together with the definition of the Fibonacci numbers +gives b_(k+1) >= b_k + b_(k-1) >= _Fib_(k) + _Fib_(k - 1) = _Fib_(k + +1), which completes the proof of Lame''s Theorem. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-2-6, Prev: 1-2-5, Up: 1-2 + +1.2.6 Example: Testing for Primality +------------------------------------ + +This section describes two methods for checking the primality of an +integer n, one with order of growth [theta](_[sqrt]_(n)), and a +"probabilistic" algorithm with order of growth [theta](`log' n). The +exercises at the end of this section suggest programming projects based +on these algorithms. + +Searching for divisors +...................... + +Since ancient times, mathematicians have been fascinated by problems +concerning prime numbers, and many people have worked on the problem of +determining ways to test if numbers are prime. One way to test if a +number is prime is to find the number's divisors. The following +program finds the smallest integral divisor (greater than 1) of a given +number n. It does this in a straightforward way, by testing n for +divisibility by successive integers starting with 2. + + (define (smallest-divisor n) + (find-divisor n 2)) + + (define (find-divisor n test-divisor) + (cond ((> (square test-divisor) n) n) + ((divides? test-divisor n) test-divisor) + (else (find-divisor n (+ test-divisor 1))))) + + (define (divides? a b) + (= (remainder b a) 0)) + + We can test whether a number is prime as follows: n is prime if and +only if n is its own smallest divisor. + + (define (prime? n) + (= n (smallest-divisor n))) + + The end test for `find-divisor' is based on the fact that if n is not +prime it must have a divisor less than or equal to _[sqrt]_(n).(1) +This means that the algorithm need only test divisors between 1 and +_[sqrt]_(n). Consequently, the number of steps required to identify n +as prime will have order of growth [theta](_[sqrt]_(n)). + +The Fermat test +............... + +The [theta](`log' n) primality test is based on a result from number +theory known as Fermat's Little Theorem.(2) + + *Fermat's Little Theorem:* If n is a prime number and a is any + positive integer less than n, then a raised to the nth power is + congruent to a modulo n. + + (Two numbers are said to be "congruent modulo" n if they both have +the same remainder when divided by n. The remainder of a number a when +divided by n is also referred to as the "remainder of" a "modulo" n, or +simply as a "modulo" n.) + + If n is not prime, then, in general, most of the numbers a< n will +not satisfy the above relation. This leads to the following algorithm +for testing primality: Given a number n, pick a random number a < n and +compute the remainder of a^n modulo n. If the result is not equal to +a, then n is certainly not prime. If it is a, then chances are good +that n is prime. Now pick another random number a and test it with the +same method. If it also satisfies the equation, then we can be even +more confident that n is prime. By trying more and more values of a, +we can increase our confidence in the result. This algorithm is known +as the Fermat test. + + To implement the Fermat test, we need a procedure that computes the +exponential of a number modulo another number: + + (define (expmod base exp m) + (cond ((= exp 0) 1) + ((even? exp) + (remainder (square (expmod base (/ exp 2) m)) + m)) + (else + (remainder (* base (expmod base (- exp 1) m)) + m)))) + + This is very similar to the `fast-expt' procedure of section *Note +1-2-4::. It uses successive squaring, so that the number of steps +grows logarithmically with the exponent.(3) + + The Fermat test is performed by choosing at random a number a +between 1 and n - 1 inclusive and checking whether the remainder modulo +n of the nth power of a is equal to a. The random number a is chosen +using the procedure `random', which we assume is included as a primitive +in Scheme. `Random' returns a nonnegative integer less than its integer +input. Hence, to obtain a random number between 1 and n - 1, we call +`random' with an input of n - 1 and add 1 to the result: + + (define (fermat-test n) + (define (try-it a) + (= (expmod a n n) a)) + (try-it (+ 1 (random (- n 1))))) + + The following procedure runs the test a given number of times, as +specified by a parameter. Its value is true if the test succeeds every +time, and false otherwise. + + (define (fast-prime? n times) + (cond ((= times 0) true) + ((fermat-test n) (fast-prime? n (- times 1))) + (else false))) + +Probabilistic methods +..................... + +The Fermat test differs in character from most familiar algorithms, in +which one computes an answer that is guaranteed to be correct. Here, +the answer obtained is only probably correct. More precisely, if n +ever fails the Fermat test, we can be certain that n is not prime. But +the fact that n passes the test, while an extremely strong indication, +is still not a guarantee that n is prime. What we would like to say is +that for any number n, if we perform the test enough times and find +that n always passes the test, then the probability of error in our +primality test can be made as small as we like. + + Unfortunately, this assertion is not quite correct. There do exist +numbers that fool the Fermat test: numbers n that are not prime and yet +have the property that a^n is congruent to a modulo n for all integers +a < n. Such numbers are extremely rare, so the Fermat test is quite +reliable in practice.(4) + + There are variations of the Fermat test that cannot be fooled. In +these tests, as with the Fermat method, one tests the primality of an +integer n by choosing a random integer a<n and checking some condition +that depends upon n and a. (See *Note Exercise 1-28:: for an example +of such a test.) On the other hand, in contrast to the Fermat test, +one can prove that, for any n, the condition does not hold for most of +the integers a<n unless n is prime. Thus, if n passes the test for +some random choice of a, the chances are better than even that n is +prime. If n passes the test for two random choices of a, the chances +are better than 3 out of 4 that n is prime. By running the test with +more and more randomly chosen values of a we can make the probability +of error as small as we like. + + The existence of tests for which one can prove that the chance of +error becomes arbitrarily small has sparked interest in algorithms of +this type, which have come to be known as "probabilistic algorithms". +There is a great deal of research activity in this area, and +probabilistic algorithms have been fruitfully applied to many fields.(5) + + *Exercise 1.21:* Use the `smallest-divisor' procedure to find the + smallest divisor of each of the following numbers: 199, 1999, + 19999. + + *Exercise 1.22:* Most Lisp implementations include a primitive + called `runtime' that returns an integer that specifies the amount + of time the system has been running (measured, for example, in + microseconds). The following `timed-prime-test' procedure, when + called with an integer n, prints n and checks to see if n is + prime. If n is prime, the procedure prints three asterisks + followed by the amount of time used in performing the test. + + (define (timed-prime-test n) + (newline) + (display n) + (start-prime-test n (runtime))) + + (define (start-prime-test n start-time) + (if (prime? n) + (report-prime (- (runtime) start-time)))) + + (define (report-prime elapsed-time) + (display " *** ") + (display elapsed-time)) + + Using this procedure, write a procedure `search-for-primes' that + checks the primality of consecutive odd integers in a specified + range. Use your procedure to find the three smallest primes + larger than 1000; larger than 10,000; larger than 100,000; larger + than 1,000,000. Note the time needed to test each prime. Since + the testing algorithm has order of growth of [theta](_[sqrt]_(n)), + you should expect that testing for primes around 10,000 should + take about _[sqrt]_(10) times as long as testing for primes around + 1000. Do your timing data bear this out? How well do the data + for 100,000 and 1,000,000 support the _[sqrt]_(n) prediction? Is + your result compatible with the notion that programs on your + machine run in time proportional to the number of steps required + for the computation? + + *Exercise 1.23:* The `smallest-divisor' procedure shown at the + start of this section does lots of needless testing: After it + checks to see if the number is divisible by 2 there is no point in + checking to see if it is divisible by any larger even numbers. + This suggests that the values used for `test-divisor' should not + be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ..., but rather 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, .... To + implement this change, define a procedure `next' that returns 3 if + its input is equal to 2 and otherwise returns its input plus 2. + Modify the `smallest-divisor' procedure to use `(next + test-divisor)' instead of `(+ test-divisor 1)'. With + `timed-prime-test' incorporating this modified version of + `smallest-divisor', run the test for each of the 12 primes found in + *Note Exercise 1-22::. Since this modification halves the number + of test steps, you should expect it to run about twice as fast. + Is this expectation confirmed? If not, what is the observed ratio + of the speeds of the two algorithms, and how do you explain the + fact that it is different from 2? + + *Exercise 1.24:* Modify the `timed-prime-test' procedure of *Note + Exercise 1-22:: to use `fast-prime?' (the Fermat method), and test + each of the 12 primes you found in that exercise. Since the + Fermat test has [theta](`log' n) growth, how would you expect the + time to test primes near 1,000,000 to compare with the time needed + to test primes near 1000? Do your data bear this out? Can you + explain any discrepancy you find? + + *Exercise 1.25:* Alyssa P. Hacker complains that we went to a lot + of extra work in writing `expmod'. After all, she says, since we + already know how to compute exponentials, we could have simply + written + + (define (expmod base exp m) + (remainder (fast-expt base exp) m)) + + Is she correct? Would this procedure serve as well for our fast + prime tester? Explain. + + *Exercise 1.26:* Louis Reasoner is having great difficulty doing + *Note Exercise 1-24::. His `fast-prime?' test seems to run more + slowly than his `prime?' test. Louis calls his friend Eva Lu Ator + over to help. When they examine Louis's code, they find that he + has rewritten the `expmod' procedure to use an explicit + multiplication, rather than calling `square': + + (define (expmod base exp m) + (cond ((= exp 0) 1) + ((even? exp) + (remainder (* (expmod base (/ exp 2) m) + (expmod base (/ exp 2) m)) + m)) + (else + (remainder (* base (expmod base (- exp 1) m)) + m)))) + + "I don't see what difference that could make," says Louis. "I + do." says Eva. "By writing the procedure like that, you have + transformed the [theta](`log' n) process into a [theta](n) + process." Explain. + + *Exercise 1.27:* Demonstrate that the Carmichael numbers listed in + *Note Footnote 1-47:: really do fool the Fermat test. That is, + write a procedure that takes an integer n and tests whether a^n is + congruent to a modulo n for every a<n, and try your procedure on + the given Carmichael numbers. + + *Exercise 1.28:* One variant of the Fermat test that cannot be + fooled is called the "Miller-Rabin test" (Miller 1976; Rabin + 1980). This starts from an alternate form of Fermat's Little + Theorem, which states that if n is a prime number and a is any + positive integer less than n, then a raised to the (n - 1)st power + is congruent to 1 modulo n. To test the primality of a number n + by the Miller-Rabin test, we pick a random number a<n and raise a + to the (n - 1)st power modulo n using the `expmod' procedure. + However, whenever we perform the squaring step in `expmod', we + check to see if we have discovered a "nontrivial square root of 1 + modulo n," that is, a number not equal to 1 or n - 1 whose square + is equal to 1 modulo n. It is possible to prove that if such a + nontrivial square root of 1 exists, then n is not prime. It is + also possible to prove that if n is an odd number that is not + prime, then, for at least half the numbers a<n, computing a^(n-1) + in this way will reveal a nontrivial square root of 1 modulo n. + (This is why the Miller-Rabin test cannot be fooled.) Modify the + `expmod' procedure to signal if it discovers a nontrivial square + root of 1, and use this to implement the Miller-Rabin test with a + procedure analogous to `fermat-test'. Check your procedure by + testing various known primes and non-primes. Hint: One convenient + way to make `expmod' signal is to have it return 0. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) If d is a divisor of n, then so is n/d. But d and n/d cannot +both be greater than _[sqrt]_(n). + + (2) Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665) is considered to be the founder of +modern number theory. He obtained many important number-theoretic +results, but he usually announced just the results, without providing +his proofs. Fermat's Little Theorem was stated in a letter he wrote in +1640. The first published proof was given by Euler in 1736 (and an +earlier, identical proof was discovered in the unpublished manuscripts +of Leibniz). The most famous of Fermat's results--known as Fermat's +Last Theorem--was jotted down in 1637 in his copy of the book +`Arithmetic' (by the third-century Greek mathematician Diophantus) with +the remark "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof, but this margin +is too small to contain it." Finding a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem +became one of the most famous challenges in number theory. A complete +solution was finally given in 1995 by Andrew Wiles of Princeton +University. + + (3) The reduction steps in the cases where the exponent e is greater +than 1 are based on the fact that, for any integers x, y, and m, we can +find the remainder of x times y modulo m by computing separately the +remainders of x modulo m and y modulo m, multiplying these, and then +taking the remainder of the result modulo m. For instance, in the case +where e is even, we compute the remainder of b^(e/2) modulo m, square +this, and take the remainder modulo m. This technique is useful +because it means we can perform our computation without ever having to +deal with numbers much larger than m. (Compare *Note Exercise 1-25::.) + + (4) [Footnote 1.47] Numbers that fool the Fermat test are called "Carmichael +numbers", and little is known about them other than that they are +extremely rare. There are 255 Carmichael numbers below 100,000,000. +The smallest few are 561, 1105, 1729, 2465, 2821, and 6601. In testing +primality of very large numbers chosen at random, the chance of +stumbling upon a value that fools the Fermat test is less than the +chance that cosmic radiation will cause the computer to make an error +in carrying out a "correct" algorithm. Considering an algorithm to be +inadequate for the first reason but not for the second illustrates the +difference between mathematics and engineering. + + (5) One of the most striking applications of probabilistic prime +testing has been to the field of cryptography. Although it is now +computationally infeasible to factor an arbitrary 200-digit number, the +primality of such a number can be checked in a few seconds with the +Fermat test. This fact forms the basis of a technique for constructing +"unbreakable codes" suggested by Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman (1977). +The resulting "RSA algorithm" has become a widely used technique for +enhancing the security of electronic communications. Because of this +and related developments, the study of prime numbers, once considered +the epitome of a topic in "pure" mathematics to be studied only for its +own sake, now turns out to have important practical applications to +cryptography, electronic funds transfer, and information retrieval. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-3, Prev: 1-2, Up: Chapter 1 + +1.3 Formulating Abstractions with Higher-Order Procedures +========================================================= + +We have seen that procedures are, in effect, abstractions that describe +compound operations on numbers independent of the particular numbers. +For example, when we + + (define (cube x) (* x x x)) + +we are not talking about the cube of a particular number, but rather +about a method for obtaining the cube of any number. Of course we +could get along without ever defining this procedure, by always writing +expressions such as + + (* 3 3 3) + (* x x x) + (* y y y) + +and never mentioning `cube' explicitly. This would place us at a +serious disadvantage, forcing us to work always at the level of the +particular operations that happen to be primitives in the language +(multiplication, in this case) rather than in terms of higher-level +operations. Our programs would be able to compute cubes, but our +language would lack the ability to express the concept of cubing. One +of the things we should demand from a powerful programming language is +the ability to build abstractions by assigning names to common patterns +and then to work in terms of the abstractions directly. Procedures +provide this ability. This is why all but the most primitive +programming languages include mechanisms for defining procedures. + + Yet even in numerical processing we will be severely limited in our +ability to create abstractions if we are restricted to procedures whose +parameters must be numbers. Often the same programming pattern will be +used with a number of different procedures. To express such patterns +as concepts, we will need to construct procedures that can accept +procedures as arguments or return procedures as values. Procedures +that manipulate procedures are called "higher-order procedures". This +section shows how higher-order procedures can serve as powerful +abstraction mechanisms, vastly increasing the expressive power of our +language. + +* Menu: + +* 1-3-1:: Procedures as Arguments +* 1-3-2:: Constructing Procedures Using `Lambda' +* 1-3-3:: Procedures as General Methods +* 1-3-4:: Procedures as Returned Values + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-3-1, Next: 1-3-2, Prev: 1-3, Up: 1-3 + +1.3.1 Procedures as Arguments +----------------------------- + +Consider the following three procedures. The first computes the sum of +the integers from `a' through `b': + + (define (sum-integers a b) + (if (> a b) + 0 + (+ a (sum-integers (+ a 1) b)))) + + The second computes the sum of the cubes of the integers in the +given range: + + (define (sum-cubes a b) + (if (> a b) + 0 + (+ (cube a) (sum-cubes (+ a 1) b)))) + + The third computes the sum of a sequence of terms in the series + + 1 1 1 + ----- + ----- + ------ + ... + 1 * 3 5 * 7 9 * 11 + +which converges to [pi]/8 (very slowly):(1) + + (define (pi-sum a b) + (if (> a b) + 0 + (+ (/ 1.0 (* a (+ a 2))) (pi-sum (+ a 4) b)))) + + These three procedures clearly share a common underlying pattern. +They are for the most part identical, differing only in the name of the +procedure, the function of `a' used to compute the term to be added, +and the function that provides the next value of `a'. We could +generate each of the procedures by filling in slots in the same +template: + + (define (<NAME> a b) + (if (> a b) + 0 + (+ (<TERM> a) + (<NAME> (<NEXT> a) b)))) + + The presence of such a common pattern is strong evidence that there +is a useful abstraction waiting to be brought to the surface. Indeed, +mathematicians long ago identified the abstraction of "summation of a +series" and invented "sigma notation," for example + + b + --- + > f(n) = f(a) + ... + f(b) + --- + n=a + +to express this concept. The power of sigma notation is that it allows +mathematicians to deal with the concept of summation itself rather than +only with particular sums--for example, to formulate general results +about sums that are independent of the particular series being summed. + + Similarly, as program designers, we would like our language to be +powerful enough so that we can write a procedure that expresses the +concept of summation itself rather than only procedures that compute +particular sums. We can do so readily in our procedural language by +taking the common template shown above and transforming the "slots" +into formal parameters: + + (define (sum term a next b) + (if (> a b) + 0 + (+ (term a) + (sum term (next a) next b)))) + + Notice that `sum' takes as its arguments the lower and upper bounds +`a' and `b' together with the procedures `term' and `next'. We can use +`sum' just as we would any procedure. For example, we can use it +(along with a procedure `inc' that increments its argument by 1) to +define `sum-cubes': + + (define (inc n) (+ n 1)) + + (define (sum-cubes a b) + (sum cube a inc b)) + + Using this, we can compute the sum of the cubes of the integers from +1 to 10: + + (sum-cubes 1 10) + 3025 + + With the aid of an identity procedure to compute the term, we can +define `sum-integers' in terms of `sum': + + (define (identity x) x) + + (define (sum-integers a b) + (sum identity a inc b)) + + Then we can add up the integers from 1 to 10: + + (sum-integers 1 10) + 55 + + We can also define `pi-sum' in the same way:(2) + + (define (pi-sum a b) + (define (pi-term x) + (/ 1.0 (* x (+ x 2)))) + (define (pi-next x) + (+ x 4)) + (sum pi-term a pi-next b)) + + Using these procedures, we can compute an approximation to [pi]: + + (* 8 (pi-sum 1 1000)) + 3.139592655589783 + + Once we have `sum', we can use it as a building block in formulating +further concepts. For instance, the definite integral of a function f +between the limits a and b can be approximated numerically using the +formula + + /b / / dx \ / dx \ / dx \ \ + | f = | f| a + -- | + f| a + dx + -- | + f| a + 2dx + -- | + ...| dx + /a \ \ 2 / \ 2 / \ 2 / / + +for small values of dx. We can express this directly as a procedure: + + (define (integral f a b dx) + (define (add-dx x) (+ x dx)) + (* (sum f (+ a (/ dx 2.0)) add-dx b) + dx)) + + (integral cube 0 1 0.01) + .24998750000000042 + + (integral cube 0 1 0.001) + .249999875000001 + +(The exact value of the integral of `cube' between 0 and 1 is 1/4.) + + *Exercise 1.29:* Simpson's Rule is a more accurate method of + numerical integration than the method illustrated above. Using + Simpson's Rule, the integral of a function f between a and b is + approximated as + + h + - (y_0 + 4y_1 + 2y_2 + 4y_3 + 2y_4 + ... + 2y_(n-2) + 4y_(n-1) + y_n) + 3 + + where h = (b - a)/n, for some even integer n, and y_k = f(a + kh). + (Increasing n increases the accuracy of the approximation.) + Define a procedure that takes as arguments f, a, b, and n and + returns the value of the integral, computed using Simpson's Rule. + Use your procedure to integrate `cube' between 0 and 1 (with n = + 100 and n = 1000), and compare the results to those of the + `integral' procedure shown above. + + *Exercise 1.30:* The `sum' procedure above generates a linear + recursion. The procedure can be rewritten so that the sum is + performed iteratively. Show how to do this by filling in the + missing expressions in the following definition: + + (define (sum term a next b) + (define (iter a result) + (if <??> + <??> + (iter <??> <??>))) + (iter <??> <??>)) + + *Exercise 1.31:* + a. The `sum' procedure is only the simplest of a vast number of + similar abstractions that can be captured as higher-order + procedures.(3) Write an analogous procedure called `product' + that returns the product of the values of a function at + points over a given range. Show how to define `factorial' in + terms of `product'. Also use `product' to compute + approximations to [pi] using the formula(4) + + pi 2 * 4 * 4 * 6 * 6 * 8 ... + -- = ------------------------- + 4 3 * 3 * 5 * 5 * 7 * 7 ... + + b. If your `product' procedure generates a recursive process, + write one that generates an iterative process. If it + generates an iterative process, write one that generates a + recursive process. + + + *Exercise 1.32:* + a. Show that `sum' and `product' (*Note Exercise 1-31::) are + both special cases of a still more general notion called + `accumulate' that combines a collection of terms, using some + general accumulation function: + + (accumulate combiner null-value term a next b) + + `Accumulate' takes as arguments the same term and range + specifications as `sum' and `product', together with a + `combiner' procedure (of two arguments) that specifies how + the current term is to be combined with the accumulation of + the preceding terms and a `null-value' that specifies what + base value to use when the terms run out. Write `accumulate' + and show how `sum' and `product' can both be defined as + simple calls to `accumulate'. + + b. If your `accumulate' procedure generates a recursive process, + write one that generates an iterative process. If it + generates an iterative process, write one that generates a + recursive process. + + + *Exercise 1.33:* You can obtain an even more general version of + `accumulate' (*Note Exercise 1-32::) by introducing the notion of + a "filter" on the terms to be combined. That is, combine only + those terms derived from values in the range that satisfy a + specified condition. The resulting `filtered-accumulate' + abstraction takes the same arguments as accumulate, together with + an additional predicate of one argument that specifies the filter. + Write `filtered-accumulate' as a procedure. Show how to express + the following using `filtered-accumulate': + + a. the sum of the squares of the prime numbers in the interval a + to b (assuming that you have a `prime?' predicate already + written) + + b. the product of all the positive integers less than n that are + relatively prime to n (i.e., all positive integers i < n such + that GCD(i,n) = 1). + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This series, usually written in the equivalent form ([pi]/4) = 1 +- (1/3) + (1/5) - (1/7) + ..., is due to Leibniz. We'll see how to use +this as the basis for some fancy numerical tricks in section *Note +3-5-3::. + + (2) Notice that we have used block structure (section *Note 1-1-8::) +to embed the definitions of `pi-next' and `pi-term' within `pi-sum', +since these procedures are unlikely to be useful for any other purpose. +We will see how to get rid of them altogether in section *Note 1-3-2::. + + (3) The intent of *Note Exercise 1-31:: through *Note Exercise +1-33:: is to demonstrate the expressive power that is attained by using +an appropriate abstraction to consolidate many seemingly disparate +operations. However, though accumulation and filtering are elegant +ideas, our hands are somewhat tied in using them at this point since we +do not yet have data structures to provide suitable means of +combination for these abstractions. We will return to these ideas in +section *Note 2-2-3:: when we show how to use "sequences" as interfaces +for combining filters and accumulators to build even more powerful +abstractions. We will see there how these methods really come into +their own as a powerful and elegant approach to designing programs. + + (4) This formula was discovered by the seventeenth-century English +mathematician John Wallis. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-3-2, Next: 1-3-3, Prev: 1-3-1, Up: 1-3 + +1.3.2 Constructing Procedures Using `Lambda' +-------------------------------------------- + +In using `sum' as in section *Note 1-3-1::, it seems terribly awkward to +have to define trivial procedures such as `pi-term' and `pi-next' just +so we can use them as arguments to our higher-order procedure. Rather +than define `pi-next' and `pi-term', it would be more convenient to +have a way to directly specify "the procedure that returns its input +incremented by 4" and "the procedure that returns the reciprocal of its +input times its input plus 2." We can do this by introducing the +special form `lambda', which creates procedures. Using `lambda' we can +describe what we want as + + (lambda (x) (+ x 4)) + +and + + (lambda (x) (/ 1.0 (* x (+ x 2)))) + + Then our `pi-sum' procedure can be expressed without defining any +auxiliary procedures as + + (define (pi-sum a b) + (sum (lambda (x) (/ 1.0 (* x (+ x 2)))) + a + (lambda (x) (+ x 4)) + b)) + + Again using `lambda', we can write the `integral' procedure without +having to define the auxiliary procedure `add-dx': + + (define (integral f a b dx) + (* (sum f + (+ a (/ dx 2.0)) + (lambda (x) (+ x dx)) + b) + dx)) + + In general, `lambda' is used to create procedures in the same way as +`define', except that no name is specified for the procedure: + + (lambda (<FORMAL-PARAMETERS>) <BODY>) + + The resulting procedure is just as much a procedure as one that is +created using `define'. The only difference is that it has not been +associated with any name in the environment. In fact, + + (define (plus4 x) (+ x 4)) + +is equivalent to + + (define plus4 (lambda (x) (+ x 4))) + + We can read a `lambda' expression as follows: + + (lambda (x) (+ x 4)) + | | | | | + the procedure of an argument x that adds x and 4 + + Like any expression that has a procedure as its value, a `lambda' +expression can be used as the operator in a combination such as + + ((lambda (x y z) (+ x y (square z))) 1 2 3) + 12 + +or, more generally, in any context where we would normally use a +procedure name.(1) + +Using `let' to create local variables +..................................... + +Another use of `lambda' is in creating local variables. We often need +local variables in our procedures other than those that have been bound +as formal parameters. For example, suppose we wish to compute the +function + + f(x,y) = x(1 + xy)^2 + y(1 - y) + (1 + xy)(1 - y) + +which we could also express as + + a = 1 + xy + b = 1 - y + f(x,y) = xa^2 + yb + ab + + In writing a procedure to compute f, we would like to include as +local variables not only x and y but also the names of intermediate +quantities like a and b. One way to accomplish this is to use an +auxiliary procedure to bind the local variables: + + (define (f x y) + (define (f-helper a b) + (+ (* x (square a)) + (* y b) + (* a b))) + (f-helper (+ 1 (* x y)) + (- 1 y))) + + Of course, we could use a `lambda' expression to specify an anonymous +procedure for binding our local variables. The body of `f' then +becomes a single call to that procedure: + + (define (f x y) + ((lambda (a b) + (+ (* x (square a)) + (* y b) + (* a b))) + (+ 1 (* x y)) + (- 1 y))) + + This construct is so useful that there is a special form called +`let' to make its use more convenient. Using `let', the `f' procedure +could be written as + + (define (f x y) + (let ((a (+ 1 (* x y))) + (b (- 1 y))) + (+ (* x (square a)) + (* y b) + (* a b)))) + + The general form of a `let' expression is + + (let ((<VAR1> <EXP1>) + (<VAR2> <EXP2>) + ... + (<VARN> <VARN>)) + <BODY>) + +which can be thought of as saying + + let <VAR_1> have the value <EXP_1> and + <VAR_2> have the value <EXP_2> and + ... + <VAR_N> have the value <EXP_N> + in <BODY> + + The first part of the `let' expression is a list of name-expression +pairs. When the `let' is evaluated, each name is associated with the +value of the corresponding expression. The body of the `let' is +evaluated with these names bound as local variables. The way this +happens is that the `let' expression is interpreted as an alternate +syntax for + + ((lambda (<VAR_1> ... <VAR_N>) + <BODY>) + <EXP_1> + ... + <EXP_N>) + + No new mechanism is required in the interpreter in order to provide +local variables. A `let' expression is simply syntactic sugar for the +underlying `lambda' application. + + We can see from this equivalence that the scope of a variable +specified by a `let' expression is the body of the `let'. This implies +that: + + * `Let' allows one to bind variables as locally as possible to where + they are to be used. For example, if the value of `x' is 5, the + value of the expression + + (+ (let ((x 3)) + (+ x (* x 10))) + x) + + is 38. Here, the `x' in the body of the `let' is 3, so the value + of the `let' expression is 33. On the other hand, the `x' that is + the second argument to the outermost `+' is still 5. + + * The variables' values are computed outside the `let'. This + matters when the expressions that provide the values for the local + variables depend upon variables having the same names as the local + variables themselves. For example, if the value of `x' is 2, the + expression + + (let ((x 3) + (y (+ x 2))) + (* x y)) + + will have the value 12 because, inside the body of the `let', `x' + will be 3 and `y' will be 4 (which is the outer `x' plus 2). + + + Sometimes we can use internal definitions to get the same effect as +with `let'. For example, we could have defined the procedure `f' above +as + + (define (f x y) + (define a (+ 1 (* x y))) + (define b (- 1 y)) + (+ (* x (square a)) + (* y b) + (* a b))) + + We prefer, however, to use `let' in situations like this and to use +internal `define' only for internal procedures.(2) + + *Exercise 1.34:* Suppose we define the procedure + + (define (f g) + (g 2)) + + Then we have + + (f square) + 4 + + (f (lambda (z) (* z (+ z 1)))) + 6 + + What happens if we (perversely) ask the interpreter to evaluate + the combination `(f f)'? Explain. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) It would be clearer and less intimidating to people learning +Lisp if a name more obvious than `lambda', such as `make-procedure', +were used. But the convention is firmly entrenched. The notation is +adopted from the [lambda] calculus, a mathematical formalism introduced +by the mathematical logician Alonzo Church (1941). Church developed +the [lambda] calculus to provide a rigorous foundation for studying the +notions of function and function application. The [lambda] calculus +has become a basic tool for mathematical investigations of the +semantics of programming languages. + + (2) Understanding internal definitions well enough to be sure a +program means what we intend it to mean requires a more elaborate model +of the evaluation process than we have presented in this chapter. The +subtleties do not arise with internal definitions of procedures, +however. We will return to this issue in section *Note 4-1-6::, after +we learn more about evaluation. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-3-3, Next: 1-3-4, Prev: 1-3-2, Up: 1-3 + +1.3.3 Procedures as General Methods +----------------------------------- + +We introduced compound procedures in section *Note 1-1-4:: as a +mechanism for abstracting patterns of numerical operations so as to +make them independent of the particular numbers involved. With +higher-order procedures, such as the `integral' procedure of section +*Note 1-3-1::, we began to see a more powerful kind of abstraction: +procedures used to express general methods of computation, independent +of the particular functions involved. In this section we discuss two +more elaborate examples--general methods for finding zeros and fixed +points of functions--and show how these methods can be expressed +directly as procedures. + +Finding roots of equations by the half-interval method +...................................................... + +The "half-interval method" is a simple but powerful technique for +finding roots of an equation f(x) = 0, where f is a continuous +function. The idea is that, if we are given points a and b such that +f(a) < 0 < f(b), then f must have at least one zero between a and b. +To locate a zero, let x be the average of a and b and compute f(x). If +f(x) > 0, then f must have a zero between a and x. If f(x) < 0, then f +must have a zero between x and b. Continuing in this way, we can +identify smaller and smaller intervals on which f must have a zero. +When we reach a point where the interval is small enough, the process +stops. Since the interval of uncertainty is reduced by half at each +step of the process, the number of steps required grows as +[theta](`log'( L/T)), where L is the length of the original interval +and T is the error tolerance (that is, the size of the interval we will +consider "small enough"). Here is a procedure that implements this +strategy: + + (define (search f neg-point pos-point) + (let ((midpoint (average neg-point pos-point))) + (if (close-enough? neg-point pos-point) + midpoint + (let ((test-value (f midpoint))) + (cond ((positive? test-value) + (search f neg-point midpoint)) + ((negative? test-value) + (search f midpoint pos-point)) + (else midpoint)))))) + + We assume that we are initially given the function f together with +points at which its values are negative and positive. We first compute +the midpoint of the two given points. Next we check to see if the +given interval is small enough, and if so we simply return the midpoint +as our answer. Otherwise, we compute as a test value the value of f at +the midpoint. If the test value is positive, then we continue the +process with a new interval running from the original negative point to +the midpoint. If the test value is negative, we continue with the +interval from the midpoint to the positive point. Finally, there is +the possibility that the test value is 0, in which case the midpoint is +itself the root we are searching for. + + To test whether the endpoints are "close enough" we can use a +procedure similar to the one used in section *Note 1-1-7:: for +computing square roots:(1) + + (define (close-enough? x y) + (< (abs (- x y)) 0.001)) + + `Search' is awkward to use directly, because we can accidentally +give it points at which f's values do not have the required sign, in +which case we get a wrong answer. Instead we will use `search' via the +following procedure, which checks to see which of the endpoints has a +negative function value and which has a positive value, and calls the +`search' procedure accordingly. If the function has the same sign on +the two given points, the half-interval method cannot be used, in which +case the procedure signals an error.(2) + + (define (half-interval-method f a b) + (let ((a-value (f a)) + (b-value (f b))) + (cond ((and (negative? a-value) (positive? b-value)) + (search f a b)) + ((and (negative? b-value) (positive? a-value)) + (search f b a)) + (else + (error "Values are not of opposite sign" a b))))) + + The following example uses the half-interval method to approximate +[pi] as the root between 2 and 4 of `sin' x = 0: + + (half-interval-method sin 2.0 4.0) + 3.14111328125 + + Here is another example, using the half-interval method to search +for a root of the equation x^3 - 2x - 3 = 0 between 1 and 2: + + (half-interval-method (lambda (x) (- (* x x x) (* 2 x) 3)) + 1.0 + 2.0) + 1.89306640625 + +Finding fixed points of functions +................................. + +A number x is called a "fixed point" of a function f if x satisfies the +equation f(x) = x. For some functions f we can locate a fixed point by +beginning with an initial guess and applying f repeatedly, + + f(x), f(f(x), (f(f(f(x)))) + +until the value does not change very much. Using this idea, we can +devise a procedure `fixed-point' that takes as inputs a function and an +initial guess and produces an approximation to a fixed point of the +function. We apply the function repeatedly until we find two +successive values whose difference is less than some prescribed +tolerance: + + (define tolerance 0.00001) + + (define (fixed-point f first-guess) + (define (close-enough? v1 v2) + (< (abs (- v1 v2)) tolerance)) + (define (try guess) + (let ((next (f guess))) + (if (close-enough? guess next) + next + (try next)))) + (try first-guess)) + + For example, we can use this method to approximate the fixed point +of the cosine function, starting with 1 as an initial approximation:(3) + + (fixed-point cos 1.0) + .7390822985224023 + + Similarly, we can find a solution to the equation y = `sin' y + +`cos' y: + + (fixed-point (lambda (y) (+ (sin y) (cos y))) + 1.0) + 1.2587315962971173 + + The fixed-point process is reminiscent of the process we used for +finding square roots in section *Note 1-1-7::. Both are based on the +idea of repeatedly improving a guess until the result satisfies some +criterion. In fact, we can readily formulate the square-root +computation as a fixed-point search. Computing the square root of some +number x requires finding a y such that y^2 = x. Putting this equation +into the equivalent form y = x/y, we recognize that we are looking for +a fixed point of the function(4) y |-> x/y, and we can therefore try to +compute square roots as + + (define (sqrt x) + (fixed-point (lambda (y) (/ x y)) + 1.0)) + + Unfortunately, this fixed-point search does not converge. Consider +an initial guess y_1. The next guess is y_2 = x/y_1 and the next guess +is y_3 = x/y_2 = x/(x/y_1) = y_1. This results in an infinite loop in +which the two guesses y_1 and y_2 repeat over and over, oscillating +about the answer. + + One way to control such oscillations is to prevent the guesses from +changing so much. Since the answer is always between our guess y and +x/y, we can make a new guess that is not as far from y as x/y by +averaging y with x/y, so that the next guess after y is (1/2)(y + x/y) +instead of x/y. The process of making such a sequence of guesses is +simply the process of looking for a fixed point of y |-> (1/2)(y + x/y): + + (define (sqrt x) + (fixed-point (lambda (y) (average y (/ x y))) + 1.0)) + + (Note that y = (1/2)(y + x/y) is a simple transformation of the +equation y = x/y; to derive it, add y to both sides of the equation and +divide by 2.) + + With this modification, the square-root procedure works. In fact, +if we unravel the definitions, we can see that the sequence of +approximations to the square root generated here is precisely the same +as the one generated by our original square-root procedure of section +*Note 1-1-7::. This approach of averaging successive approximations to +a solution, a technique we that we call "average damping", often aids +the convergence of fixed-point searches. + + *Exercise 1.35:* Show that the golden ratio [phi] (section *Note + 1-2-2::) is a fixed point of the transformation x |-> 1 + 1/x, and + use this fact to compute [phi] by means of the `fixed-point' + procedure. + + *Exercise 1.36:* Modify `fixed-point' so that it prints the + sequence of approximations it generates, using the `newline' and + `display' primitives shown in *Note Exercise 1-22::. Then find a + solution to x^x = 1000 by finding a fixed point of x |-> + `log'(1000)/`log'(x). (Use Scheme's primitive `log' procedure, + which computes natural logarithms.) Compare the number of steps + this takes with and without average damping. (Note that you + cannot start `fixed-point' with a guess of 1, as this would cause + division by `log'(1) = 0.) + + *Exercise 1.37:* + a. An infinite "continued fraction" is an expression of the form + + N_1 + f = --------------------- + N_2 + D_1 + --------------- + N_3 + D_2 + --------- + D_3 + ... + + As an example, one can show that the infinite continued + fraction expansion with the n_i and the D_i all equal to 1 + produces 1/[phi], where [phi] is the golden ratio (described + in section *Note 1-2-2::). One way to approximate an + infinite continued fraction is to truncate the expansion + after a given number of terms. Such a truncation--a + so-called finite continued fraction "k-term finite continued + fraction"--has the form + + N_1 + ----------------- + N_2 + D_1 + ----------- + ... N_K + + ----- + D_K + + Suppose that `n' and `d' are procedures of one argument (the + term index i) that return the n_i and D_i of the terms of the + continued fraction. Define a procedure `cont-frac' such that + evaluating `(cont-frac n d k)' computes the value of the + k-term finite continued fraction. Check your procedure by + approximating 1/[phi] using + + (cont-frac (lambda (i) 1.0) + (lambda (i) 1.0) + k) + + for successive values of `k'. How large must you make `k' in + order to get an approximation that is accurate to 4 decimal + places? + + b. If your `cont-frac' procedure generates a recursive process, + write one that generates an iterative process. If it + generates an iterative process, write one that generates a + recursive process. + + + *Exercise 1.38:* In 1737, the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler + published a memoir `De Fractionibus Continuis', which included a + continued fraction expansion for e - 2, where e is the base of the + natural logarithms. In this fraction, the n_i are all 1, and the + D_i are successively 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1, 8, .... Write + a program that uses your `cont-frac' procedure from *Note Exercise + 1-37:: to approximate e, based on Euler's expansion. + + *Exercise 1.39:* A continued fraction representation of the + tangent function was published in 1770 by the German mathematician + J.H. Lambert: + + x + tan x = --------------- + x^2 + 1 - ----------- + x^2 + 3 - ------- + 5 - ... + + where x is in radians. Define a procedure `(tan-cf x k)' that + computes an approximation to the tangent function based on + Lambert's formula. `K' specifies the number of terms to compute, + as in *Note Exercise 1-37::. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We have used 0.001 as a representative "small" number to +indicate a tolerance for the acceptable error in a calculation. The +appropriate tolerance for a real calculation depends upon the problem +to be solved and the limitations of the computer and the algorithm. +This is often a very subtle consideration, requiring help from a +numerical analyst or some other kind of magician. + + (2) This can be accomplished using `error', which takes as arguments +a number of items that are printed as error messages. + + (3) Try this during a boring lecture: Set your calculator to radians +mode and then repeatedly press the `cos' button until you obtain the +fixed point. + + (4) |-> (pronounced "maps to") is the mathematician's way of writing +`lambda'. y |-> x/y means `(lambda(y) (/ x y))', that is, the function +whose value at y is x/y. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 1-3-4, Prev: 1-3-3, Up: 1-3 + +1.3.4 Procedures as Returned Values +----------------------------------- + +The above examples demonstrate how the ability to pass procedures as +arguments significantly enhances the expressive power of our +programming language. We can achieve even more expressive power by +creating procedures whose returned values are themselves procedures. + + We can illustrate this idea by looking again at the fixed-point +example described at the end of section *Note 1-3-3::. We formulated a +new version of the square-root procedure as a fixed-point search, +starting with the observation that [sqrt]x is a fixed-point of the +function y |-> x/y. Then we used average damping to make the +approximations converge. Average damping is a useful general technique +in itself. Namely, given a function f, we consider the function whose +value at x is equal to the average of x and f(x). + + We can express the idea of average damping by means of the following +procedure: + + (define (average-damp f) + (lambda (x) (average x (f x)))) + + `Average-damp' is a procedure that takes as its argument a procedure +`f' and returns as its value a procedure (produced by the `lambda') +that, when applied to a number `x', produces the average of `x' and `(f +x)'. For example, applying `average-damp' to the `square' procedure +produces a procedure whose value at some number x is the average of x +and x^2. Applying this resulting procedure to 10 returns the average +of 10 and 100, or 55:(1) + + ((average-damp square) 10) + 55 + + Using `average-damp', we can reformulate the square-root procedure as +follows: + + (define (sqrt x) + (fixed-point (average-damp (lambda (y) (/ x y))) + 1.0)) + + Notice how this formulation makes explicit the three ideas in the +method: fixed-point search, average damping, and the function y |-> x/y. +It is instructive to compare this formulation of the square-root method +with the original version given in section *Note 1-1-7::. Bear in mind +that these procedures express the same process, and notice how much +clearer the idea becomes when we express the process in terms of these +abstractions. In general, there are many ways to formulate a process +as a procedure. Experienced programmers know how to choose procedural +formulations that are particularly perspicuous, and where useful +elements of the process are exposed as separate entities that can be +reused in other applications. As a simple example of reuse, notice +that the cube root of x is a fixed point of the function y |-> x/y^2, +so we can immediately generalize our square-root procedure to one that +extracts cube roots:(2) + + (define (cube-root x) + (fixed-point (average-damp (lambda (y) (/ x (square y)))) + 1.0)) + +Newton's method +............... + +When we first introduced the square-root procedure, in section *Note +1-1-7::, we mentioned that this was a special case of "Newton's +method". If x |-> g(x) is a differentiable function, then a solution +of the equation g(x) = 0 is a fixed point of the function x |-> f(x) +where + + g(x) + f(x) = x - ----- + Dg(x) + +and Dg(x) is the derivative of g evaluated at x. Newton's method is +the use of the fixed-point method we saw above to approximate a +solution of the equation by finding a fixed point of the function f.(3) + + For many functions g and for sufficiently good initial guesses for x, +Newton's method converges very rapidly to a solution of g(x) = 0.(4) + + In order to implement Newton's method as a procedure, we must first +express the idea of derivative. Note that "derivative," like average +damping, is something that transforms a function into another function. +For instance, the derivative of the function x |-> x^3 is the function +x |-> 3x^2. In general, if g is a function and dx is a small number, +then the derivative Dg of g is the function whose value at any number x +is given (in the limit of small dx) by + + g(x + dx) - g(x) + Dg(c) = ---------------- + dx + +Thus, we can express the idea of derivative (taking dx to be, say, +0.00001) as the procedure + + (define (deriv g) + (lambda (x) + (/ (- (g (+ x dx)) (g x)) + dx))) + +along with the definition + + (define dx 0.00001) + + Like `average-damp', `deriv' is a procedure that takes a procedure as +argument and returns a procedure as value. For example, to approximate +the derivative of x |-> x^3 at 5 (whose exact value is 75) we can +evaluate + + (define (cube x) (* x x x)) + + ((deriv cube) 5) + 75.00014999664018 + + With the aid of `deriv', we can express Newton's method as a +fixed-point process: + + (define (newton-transform g) + (lambda (x) + (- x (/ (g x) ((deriv g) x))))) + + (define (newtons-method g guess) + (fixed-point (newton-transform g) guess)) + + The `newton-transform' procedure expresses the formula at the +beginning of this section, and `newtons-method' is readily defined in +terms of this. It takes as arguments a procedure that computes the +function for which we want to find a zero, together with an initial +guess. For instance, to find the square root of x, we can use Newton's +method to find a zero of the function y |-> y^2 - x starting with an +initial guess of 1.(5) + + This provides yet another form of the square-root procedure: + + (define (sqrt x) + (newtons-method (lambda (y) (- (square y) x)) + 1.0)) + +Abstractions and first-class procedures +....................................... + +We've seen two ways to express the square-root computation as an +instance of a more general method, once as a fixed-point search and +once using Newton's method. Since Newton's method was itself expressed +as a fixed-point process, we actually saw two ways to compute square +roots as fixed points. Each method begins with a function and finds a +fixed point of some transformation of the function. We can express +this general idea itself as a procedure: + + (define (fixed-point-of-transform g transform guess) + (fixed-point (transform g) guess)) + + This very general procedure takes as its arguments a procedure `g' +that computes some function, a procedure that transforms `g', and an +initial guess. The returned result is a fixed point of the transformed +function. + + Using this abstraction, we can recast the first square-root +computation from this section (where we look for a fixed point of the +average-damped version of y |-> x/y) as an instance of this general +method: + + (define (sqrt x) + (fixed-point-of-transform (lambda (y) (/ x y)) + average-damp + 1.0)) + + Similarly, we can express the second square-root computation from +this section (an instance of Newton's method that finds a fixed point +of the Newton transform of y |-> y^2 - x) as + + (define (sqrt x) + (fixed-point-of-transform (lambda (y) (- (square y) x)) + newton-transform + 1.0)) + + We began section *Note 1-3:: with the observation that compound +procedures are a crucial abstraction mechanism, because they permit us +to express general methods of computing as explicit elements in our +programming language. Now we've seen how higher-order procedures +permit us to manipulate these general methods to create further +abstractions. + + As programmers, we should be alert to opportunities to identify the +underlying abstractions in our programs and to build upon them and +generalize them to create more powerful abstractions. This is not to +say that one should always write programs in the most abstract way +possible; expert programmers know how to choose the level of +abstraction appropriate to their task. But it is important to be able +to think in terms of these abstractions, so that we can be ready to +apply them in new contexts. The significance of higher-order +procedures is that they enable us to represent these abstractions +explicitly as elements in our programming language, so that they can be +handled just like other computational elements. + + In general, programming languages impose restrictions on the ways in +which computational elements can be manipulated. Elements with the +fewest restrictions are said to have "first-class" status. Some of the +"rights and privileges" of first-class elements are:(6) + + * They may be named by variables. + + * They may be passed as arguments to procedures. + + * They may be returned as the results of procedures. + + * They may be included in data structures.(7) + + + Lisp, unlike other common programming languages, awards procedures +full first-class status. This poses challenges for efficient +implementation, but the resulting gain in expressive power is +enormous.(8) + + *Exercise 1.40:* Define a procedure `cubic' that can be used + together with the `newtons-method' procedure in expressions of the + form + + (newtons-method (cubic a b c) 1) + + to approximate zeros of the cubic x^3 + ax^2 + bx + c. + + *Exercise 1.41:* Define a procedure `double' that takes a + procedure of one argument as argument and returns a procedure that + applies the original procedure twice. For example, if `inc' is a + procedure that adds 1 to its argument, then `(double inc)' should + be a procedure that adds 2. What value is returned by + + (((double (double double)) inc) 5) + + *Exercise 1.42:* Let f and g be two one-argument functions. The "composition" + f after g is defined to be the function x |-> f(g(x)). Define a + procedure `compose' that implements composition. For example, if + `inc' is a procedure that adds 1 to its argument, + + ((compose square inc) 6) + 49 + + *Exercise 1.43:* If f is a numerical function and n is a positive + integer, then we can form the nth repeated application of f, which + is defined to be the function whose value at x is + f(f(...(f(x))...)). For example, if f is the function x |-> x + + 1, then the nth repeated application of f is the function x |-> x + + n. If f is the operation of squaring a number, then the nth + repeated application of f is the function that raises its argument + to the 2^nth power. Write a procedure that takes as inputs a + procedure that computes f and a positive integer n and returns the + procedure that computes the nth repeated application of f. Your + procedure should be able to be used as follows: + + ((repeated square 2) 5) + 625 + + Hint: You may find it convenient to use `compose' from *Note + Exercise 1-42::. + + *Exercise 1.44:* The idea of "smoothing" a function is an + important concept in signal processing. If f is a function and dx + is some small number, then the smoothed version of f is the + function whose value at a point x is the average of f(x - dx), + f(x), and f(x + dx). Write a procedure `smooth' that takes as + input a procedure that computes f and returns a procedure that + computes the smoothed f. It is sometimes valuable to repeatedly + smooth a function (that is, smooth the smoothed function, and so + on) to obtained the "n-fold smoothed function". Show how to + generate the n-fold smoothed function of any given function using + `smooth' and `repeated' from *Note Exercise 1-43::. + + *Exercise 1.45:* We saw in section *Note 1-3-3:: that attempting + to compute square roots by naively finding a fixed point of y |-> + x/y does not converge, and that this can be fixed by average + damping. The same method works for finding cube roots as fixed + points of the average-damped y |-> x/y^2. Unfortunately, the + process does not work for fourth roots--a single average damp is + not enough to make a fixed-point search for y |-> x/y^3 converge. + On the other hand, if we average damp twice (i.e., use the average + damp of the average damp of y |-> x/y^3) the fixed-point search + does converge. Do some experiments to determine how many average + damps are required to compute nth roots as a fixed-point search + based upon repeated average damping of y |-> x/y^(n-1). Use this + to implement a simple procedure for computing nth roots using + `fixed-point', `average-damp', and the `repeated' procedure of + *Note Exercise 1-43::. Assume that any arithmetic operations you + need are available as primitives. + + *Exercise 1.46:* Several of the numerical methods described in + this chapter are instances of an extremely general computational + strategy known as "iterative improvement". Iterative improvement + says that, to compute something, we start with an initial guess + for the answer, test if the guess is good enough, and otherwise + improve the guess and continue the process using the improved + guess as the new guess. Write a procedure `iterative-improve' + that takes two procedures as arguments: a method for telling + whether a guess is good enough and a method for improving a guess. + `Iterative-improve' should return as its value a procedure that + takes a guess as argument and keeps improving the guess until it + is good enough. Rewrite the `sqrt' procedure of section *Note + 1-1-7:: and the `fixed-point' procedure of section *Note 1-3-3:: + in terms of `iterative-improve'. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Observe that this is a combination whose operator is itself a +combination. *Note Exercise 1-4:: already demonstrated the ability to +form such combinations, but that was only a toy example. Here we begin +to see the real need for such combinations--when applying a procedure +that is obtained as the value returned by a higher-order procedure. + + (2) See *Note Exercise 1-45:: for a further generalization. + + (3) Elementary calculus books usually describe Newton's method in +terms of the sequence of approximations x_(n+1) = x_n - g(x_n)/Dg(x_n). +Having language for talking about processes and using the idea of +fixed points simplifies the description of the method. + + (4) Newton's method does not always converge to an answer, but it can +be shown that in favorable cases each iteration doubles the +number-of-digits accuracy of the approximation to the solution. In +such cases, Newton's method will converge much more rapidly than the +half-interval method. + + (5) For finding square roots, Newton's method converges rapidly to +the correct solution from any starting point. + + (6) The notion of first-class status of programming-language +elements is due to the British computer scientist Christopher Strachey +(1916-1975). + + (7) We'll see examples of this after we introduce data structures in +*Note Chapter 2::. + + (8) The major implementation cost of first-class procedures is that +allowing procedures to be returned as values requires reserving storage +for a procedure's free variables even while the procedure is not +executing. In the Scheme implementation we will study in section *Note +4-1::, these variables are stored in the procedure's environment. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Chapter 2, Next: Chapter 3, Prev: Chapter 1, Up: Top + +2 Building Abstractions with Data +********************************* + + We now come to the decisive step of mathematical abstraction: we + forget about what the symbols stand for. ...[The mathematician] + need not be idle; there are many operations which he may carry out + with these symbols, without ever having to look at the things they + stand for. + + --Hermann Weyl, `The Mathematical Way of Thinking' + + We concentrated in *Note Chapter 1:: on computational processes and +on the role of procedures in program design. We saw how to use +primitive data (numbers) and primitive operations (arithmetic +operations), how to combine procedures to form compound procedures +through composition, conditionals, and the use of parameters, and how +to abstract procedures by using `define'. We saw that a procedure can +be regarded as a pattern for the local evolution of a process, and we +classified, reasoned about, and performed simple algorithmic analyses of +some common patterns for processes as embodied in procedures. We also +saw that higher-order procedures enhance the power of our language by +enabling us to manipulate, and thereby to reason in terms of, general +methods of computation. This is much of the essence of programming. + + In this chapter we are going to look at more complex data. All the +procedures in *Note Chapter 1:: operate on simple numerical data, and +simple data are not sufficient for many of the problems we wish to +address using computation. Programs are typically designed to model +complex phenomena, and more often than not one must construct +computational objects that have several parts in order to model +real-world phenomena that have several aspects. Thus, whereas our +focus in *Note Chapter 1:: was on building abstractions by combining +procedures to form compound procedures, we turn in this chapter to +another key aspect of any programming language: the means it provides +for building abstractions by combining data objects to form "compound +data". + + Why do we want compound data in a programming language? For the +same reasons that we want compound procedures: to elevate the +conceptual level at which we can design our programs, to increase the +modularity of our designs, and to enhance the expressive power of our +language. Just as the ability to define procedures enables us to deal +with processes at a higher conceptual level than that of the primitive +operations of the language, the ability to construct compound data +objects enables us to deal with data at a higher conceptual level than +that of the primitive data objects of the language. + + Consider the task of designing a system to perform arithmetic with +rational numbers. We could imagine an operation `add-rat' that takes +two rational numbers and produces their sum. In terms of simple data, +a rational number can be thought of as two integers: a numerator and a +denominator. Thus, we could design a program in which each rational +number would be represented by two integers (a numerator and a +denominator) and where `add-rat' would be implemented by two procedures +(one producing the numerator of the sum and one producing the +denominator). But this would be awkward, because we would then need to +explicitly keep track of which numerators corresponded to which +denominators. In a system intended to perform many operations on many +rational numbers, such bookkeeping details would clutter the programs +substantially, to say nothing of what they would do to our minds. It +would be much better if we could "glue together" a numerator and +denominator to form a pair--a "compound data object"--that our programs +could manipulate in a way that would be consistent with regarding a +rational number as a single conceptual unit. + + The use of compound data also enables us to increase the modularity +of our programs. If we can manipulate rational numbers directly as +objects in their own right, then we can separate the part of our +program that deals with rational numbers per se from the details of how +rational numbers may be represented as pairs of integers. The general +technique of isolating the parts of a program that deal with how data +objects are represented from the parts of a program that deal with how +data objects are used is a powerful design methodology called "data +abstraction". We will see how data abstraction makes programs much +easier to design, maintain, and modify. + + The use of compound data leads to a real increase in the expressive +power of our programming language. Consider the idea of forming a +"linear combination" ax + by. We might like to write a procedure that +would accept a, b, x, and y as arguments and return the value of ax + +by. This presents no difficulty if the arguments are to be numbers, +because we can readily define the procedure + + (define (linear-combination a b x y) + (+ (* a x) (* b y))) + + But suppose we are not concerned only with numbers. Suppose we +would like to express, in procedural terms, the idea that one can form +linear combinations whenever addition and multiplication are +defined--for rational numbers, complex numbers, polynomials, or +whatever. We could express this as a procedure of the form + + (define (linear-combination a b x y) + (add (mul a x) (mul b y))) + +where `add' and `mul' are not the primitive procedures `+' and `*' but +rather more complex things that will perform the appropriate operations +for whatever kinds of data we pass in as the arguments `a', `b', `x', +and `y'. The key point is that the only thing `linear-combination' +should need to know about `a', `b', `x', and `y' is that the procedures +`add' and `mul' will perform the appropriate manipulations. From the +perspective of the procedure `linear-combination', it is irrelevant +what `a', `b', `x', and `y' are and even more irrelevant how they might +happen to be represented in terms of more primitive data. This same +example shows why it is important that our programming language provide +the ability to manipulate compound objects directly: Without this, +there is no way for a procedure such as `linear-combination' to pass +its arguments along to `add' and `mul' without having to know their +detailed structure.(1) + + We begin this chapter by implementing the rational-number arithmetic +system mentioned above. This will form the background for our +discussion of compound data and data abstraction. As with compound +procedures, the main issue to be addressed is that of abstraction as a +technique for coping with complexity, and we will see how data +abstraction enables us to erect suitable "abstraction barriers" between +different parts of a program. + + We will see that the key to forming compound data is that a +programming language should provide some kind of "glue" so that data +objects can be combined to form more complex data objects. There are +many possible kinds of glue. Indeed, we will discover how to form +compound data using no special "data" operations at all, only +procedures. This will further blur the distinction between "procedure" +and "data," which was already becoming tenuous toward the end of *Note +Chapter 1::. We will also explore some conventional techniques for +representing sequences and trees. One key idea in dealing with +compound data is the notion of "closure"--that the glue we use for +combining data objects should allow us to combine not only primitive +data objects, but compound data objects as well. Another key idea is +that compound data objects can serve as "conventional interfaces" for +combining program modules in mix-and-match ways. We illustrate some of +these ideas by presenting a simple graphics language that exploits +closure. + + We will then augment the representational power of our language by +introducing "symbolic expressions"--data whose elementary parts can be +arbitrary symbols rather than only numbers. We explore various +alternatives for representing sets of objects. We will find that, just +as a given numerical function can be computed by many different +computational processes, there are many ways in which a given data +structure can be represented in terms of simpler objects, and the +choice of representation can have significant impact on the time and +space requirements of processes that manipulate the data. We will +investigate these ideas in the context of symbolic differentiation, the +representation of sets, and the encoding of information. + + Next we will take up the problem of working with data that may be +represented differently by different parts of a program. This leads to +the need to implement "generic operations", which must handle many +different types of data. Maintaining modularity in the presence of +generic operations requires more powerful abstraction barriers than can +be erected with simple data abstraction alone. In particular, we +introduce programming "data-directed programming" as a technique that +allows individual data representations to be designed in isolation and +then combined "additively" (i.e., without modification). To illustrate +the power of this approach to system design, we close the chapter by +applying what we have learned to the implementation of a package for +performing symbolic arithmetic on polynomials, in which the +coefficients of the polynomials can be integers, rational numbers, +complex numbers, and even other polynomials. + +* Menu: + +* 2-1:: Introduction to Data Abstraction +* 2-2:: Hierarchical Data and the Closure Property +* 2-3:: Symbolic Data +* 2-4:: Multiple Representations for Abstract Data +* 2-5:: Systems with Generic Operations + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The ability to directly manipulate procedures provides an +analogous increase in the expressive power of a programming language. +For example, in section *Note 1-3-1:: we introduced the `sum' +procedure, which takes a procedure `term' as an argument and computes +the sum of the values of `term' over some specified interval. In order +to define `sum', it is crucial that we be able to speak of a procedure +such as `term' as an entity in its own right, without regard for how +`term' might be expressed with more primitive operations. Indeed, if +we did not have the notion of "a procedure," it is doubtful that we +would ever even think of the possibility of defining an operation such +as `sum'. Moreover, insofar as performing the summation is concerned, +the details of how `term' may be constructed from more primitive +operations are irrelevant. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-1, Next: 2-2, Prev: Chapter 2, Up: Chapter 2 + +2.1 Introduction to Data Abstraction +==================================== + +In section *Note 1-1-8::, we noted that a procedure used as an element +in creating a more complex procedure could be regarded not only as a +collection of particular operations but also as a procedural +abstraction. That is, the details of how the procedure was implemented +could be suppressed, and the particular procedure itself could be +replaced by any other procedure with the same overall behavior. In +other words, we could make an abstraction that would separate the way +the procedure would be used from the details of how the procedure would +be implemented in terms of more primitive procedures. The analogous +notion for compound data is called "data abstraction". Data +abstraction is a methodology that enables us to isolate how a compound +data object is used from the details of how it is constructed from more +primitive data objects. + + The basic idea of data abstraction is to structure the programs that +are to use compound data objects so that they operate on "abstract +data." That is, our programs should use data in such a way as to make +no assumptions about the data that are not strictly necessary for +performing the task at hand. At the same time, a "concrete" data +representation is defined independent of the programs that use the +data. The interface between these two parts of our system will be a +set of procedures, called "selectors" and "constructors", that +implement the abstract data in terms of the concrete representation. To +illustrate this technique, we will consider how to design a set of +procedures for manipulating rational numbers. + +* Menu: + +* 2-1-1:: Example: Arithmetic Operations for Rational Numbers +* 2-1-2:: Abstraction Barriers +* 2-1-3:: What Is Meant by Data? +* 2-1-4:: Extended Exercise: Interval Arithmetic + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-1-1, Next: 2-1-2, Prev: 2-1, Up: 2-1 + +2.1.1 Example: Arithmetic Operations for Rational Numbers +--------------------------------------------------------- + +Suppose we want to do arithmetic with rational numbers. We want to be +able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide them and to test whether +two rational numbers are equal. + + Let us begin by assuming that we already have a way of constructing +a rational number from a numerator and a denominator. We also assume +that, given a rational number, we have a way of extracting (or +selecting) its numerator and its denominator. Let us further assume +that the constructor and selectors are available as procedures: + + * `(make-rat <N> <D>)' returns therational number whose numerator is + the integer `<N>' and whose denominator is the integer `<D>'. + + * `(numer <X>)' returns the numerator of the rational number `<X>'. + + * `(denom <X>)' returns the denominator of the rational number `<X>'. + + + We are using here a powerful strategy of synthesis: "wishful +thinking". We haven't yet said how a rational number is represented, +or how the procedures `numer', `denom', and `make-rat' should be +implemented. Even so, if we did have these three procedures, we could +then add, subtract, multiply, divide, and test equality by using the +following relations: + + n_1 n_2 n_1 d_2 + n_2 d_1 + --- + --- = ----------------- + d_1 d_2 d_1 d_2 + + n_1 n_2 n_1 d_2 - n_2 d_1 + --- - --- = ----------------- + d_1 d_2 d_1 d_2 + + n_1 n_2 n_1 n_2 + --- * --- = ------- + d_1 d_2 d_1 d_2 + + n_1 / d_1 n_1 d_2 + --------- = ------- + n_2 / d_2 d_1 n_2 + + n_1 n_2 + --- = --- if and only if n_1 d_2 = n_2 d_1 + d_1 d_2 + +We can express these rules as procedures: + + (define (add-rat x y) + (make-rat (+ (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (numer y) (denom x))) + (* (denom x) (denom y)))) + + (define (sub-rat x y) + (make-rat (- (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (numer y) (denom x))) + (* (denom x) (denom y)))) + + (define (mul-rat x y) + (make-rat (* (numer x) (numer y)) + (* (denom x) (denom y)))) + + (define (div-rat x y) + (make-rat (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (denom x) (numer y)))) + + (define (equal-rat? x y) + (= (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (numer y) (denom x)))) + + Now we have the operations on rational numbers defined in terms of +the selector and constructor procedures `numer', `denom', and +`make-rat'. But we haven't yet defined these. What we need is some +way to glue together a numerator and a denominator to form a rational +number. + +Pairs +..... + +To enable us to implement the concrete level of our data abstraction, +our language provides a compound structure called a "pair", which can be +constructed with the primitive procedure `cons'. This procedure takes +two arguments and returns a compound data object that contains the two +arguments as parts. Given a pair, we can extract the parts using the +primitive procedures `car' and `cdr'.(1) Thus, we can use `cons', +`car', and `cdr' as follows: + + (define x (cons 1 2)) + + (car x) + 1 + + (cdr x) + 2 + + Notice that a pair is a data object that can be given a name and +manipulated, just like a primitive data object. Moreover, `cons' can +be used to form pairs whose elements are pairs, and so on: + + (define x (cons 1 2)) + + (define y (cons 3 4)) + + (define z (cons x y)) + + (car (car z)) + 1 + + (car (cdr z)) + 3 + + In section *Note 2-2:: we will see how this ability to combine pairs +means that pairs can be used as general-purpose building blocks to +create all sorts of complex data structures. The single compound-data +primitive "pair", implemented by the procedures `cons', `car', and +`cdr', is the only glue we need. Data objects constructed from pairs +are called "list-structured" data. + +Representing rational numbers +............................. + +Pairs offer a natural way to complete the rational-number system. +Simply represent a rational number as a pair of two integers: a +numerator and a denominator. Then `make-rat', `numer', and `denom' are +readily implemented as follows:(2) + + (define (make-rat n d) (cons n d)) + + (define (numer x) (car x)) + + (define (denom x) (cdr x)) + + Also, in order to display the results of our computations, we can +print rational numbers by printing the numerator, a slash, and the +denominator:(3) + + (define (print-rat x) + (newline) + (display (numer x)) + (display "/") + (display (denom x))) + + Now we can try our rational-number procedures: + + (define one-half (make-rat 1 2)) + + (print-rat one-half) + 1/2 + + (define one-third (make-rat 1 3)) + + (print-rat (add-rat one-half one-third)) + 5/6 + + (print-rat (mul-rat one-half one-third)) + 1/6 + + (print-rat (add-rat one-third one-third)) + 6/9 + + As the final example shows, our rational-number implementation does +not reduce rational numbers to lowest terms. We can remedy this by +changing `make-rat'. If we have a `gcd' procedure like the one in +section *Note 1-2-5:: that produces the greatest common divisor of two +integers, we can use `gcd' to reduce the numerator and the denominator +to lowest terms before constructing the pair: + + (define (make-rat n d) + (let ((g (gcd n d))) + (cons (/ n g) (/ d g)))) + + Now we have + + (print-rat (add-rat one-third one-third)) + 2/3 + +as desired. This modification was accomplished by changing the +constructor `make-rat' without changing any of the procedures (such as +`add-rat' and `mul-rat') that implement the actual operations. + + *Exercise 2.1:* Define a better version of `make-rat' that handles + both positive and negative arguments. `Make-rat' should normalize + the sign so that if the rational number is positive, both the + numerator and denominator are positive, and if the rational number + is negative, only the numerator is negative. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The name `cons' stands for "construct." The names `car' and +`cdr' derive from the original implementation of Lisp on the IBM 704. +That machine had an addressing scheme that allowed one to reference the +"address" and "decrement" parts of a memory location. `Car' stands for +"Contents of Address part of Register" and `cdr' (pronounced +"could-er") stands for "Contents of Decrement part of Register." + + (2) Another way to define the selectors and constructor is + + (define make-rat cons) + (define numer car) + (define denom cdr) + + The first definition associates the name `make-rat' with the value +of the expression `cons', which is the primitive procedure that +constructs pairs. Thus `make-rat' and `cons' are names for the same +primitive constructor. + + Defining selectors and constructors in this way is efficient: +Instead of `make-rat' _calling_ `cons', `make-rat' _is_ `cons', so +there is only one procedure called, not two, when `make-rat' is called. +On the other hand, doing this defeats debugging aids that trace +procedure calls or put breakpoints on procedure calls: You may want to +watch `make-rat' being called, but you certainly don't want to watch +every call to `cons'. + + We have chosen not to use this style of definition in this book. + + (3) `Display' is the Scheme primitive for printing data. The Scheme +primitive `newline' starts a new line for printing. Neither of these +procedures returns a useful value, so in the uses of `print-rat' below, +we show only what `print-rat' prints, not what the interpreter prints +as the value returned by `print-rat'. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-1-2, Next: 2-1-3, Prev: 2-1-1, Up: 2-1 + +2.1.2 Abstraction Barriers +-------------------------- + +Before continuing with more examples of compound data and data +abstraction, let us consider some of the issues raised by the +rational-number example. We defined the rational-number operations in +terms of a constructor `make-rat' and selectors `numer' and `denom'. +In general, the underlying idea of data abstraction is to identify for +each type of data object a basic set of operations in terms of which +all manipulations of data objects of that type will be expressed, and +then to use only those operations in manipulating the data. + + We can envision the structure of the rational-number system as shown +in figure *Note Figure 2-1::. The horizontal lines represent barriers +"abstraction barriers" that isolate different "levels" of the system. +At each level, the barrier separates the programs (above) that use the +data abstraction from the programs (below) that implement the data +abstraction. Programs that use rational numbers manipulate them solely +in terms of the procedures supplied "for public use" by the +rational-number package: `add-rat', `sub-rat', `mul-rat', `div-rat', +and `equal-rat?'. These, in turn, are implemented solely in terms of +the constructor and selectors `make-rat', `numer', and `denom', which +themselves are implemented in terms of pairs. The details of how pairs +are implemented are irrelevant to the rest of the rational-number +package so long as pairs can be manipulated by the use of `cons', +`car', and `cdr'. In effect, procedures at each level are the +interfaces that define the abstraction barriers and connect the +different levels. + + *Figure 2.1:* Data-abstraction barriers in the rational-number + package. + + +------------------------------------+ + --------| Programs that use rational numbers |-------- + +------------------------------------+ + Rational numbers in promblem domain + +---------------------------+ + ------------| add-rat sub-rat ... |------------- + +---------------------------+ + Rational numbers as numerators and denominators + +------------------------+ + --------------| make-rat numer denom |-------------- + +------------------------+ + Rational numbers as pairs + +----------------+ + ------------------| cons car cdr |------------------ + +----------------+ + However pairs are implemented + + This simple idea has many advantages. One advantage is that it +makes programs much easier to maintain and to modify. Any complex data +structure can be represented in a variety of ways with the primitive +data structures provided by a programming language. Of course, the +choice of representation influences the programs that operate on it; +thus, if the representation were to be changed at some later time, all +such programs might have to be modified accordingly. This task could +be time-consuming and expensive in the case of large programs unless +the dependence on the representation were to be confined by design to a +very few program modules. + + For example, an alternate way to address the problem of reducing +rational numbers to lowest terms is to perform the reduction whenever +we access the parts of a rational number, rather than when we construct +it. This leads to different constructor and selector procedures: + + (define (make-rat n d) + (cons n d)) + + (define (numer x) + (let ((g (gcd (car x) (cdr x)))) + (/ (car x) g))) + + (define (denom x) + (let ((g (gcd (car x) (cdr x)))) + (/ (cdr x) g))) + + The difference between this implementation and the previous one lies +in when we compute the `gcd'. If in our typical use of rational +numbers we access the numerators and denominators of the same rational +numbers many times, it would be preferable to compute the `gcd' when +the rational numbers are constructed. If not, we may be better off +waiting until access time to compute the `gcd'. In any case, when we +change from one representation to the other, the procedures `add-rat', +`sub-rat', and so on do not have to be modified at all. + + Constraining the dependence on the representation to a few interface +procedures helps us design programs as well as modify them, because it +allows us to maintain the flexibility to consider alternate +implementations. To continue with our simple example, suppose we are +designing a rational-number package and we can't decide initially +whether to perform the `gcd' at construction time or at selection time. +The data-abstraction methodology gives us a way to defer that decision +without losing the ability to make progress on the rest of the system. + + *Exercise 2.2:* Consider the problem of representing line segments + in a plane. Each segment is represented as a pair of points: a + starting point and an ending point. Define a constructor + `make-segment' and selectors `start-segment' and `end-segment' + that define the representation of segments in terms of points. + Furthermore, a point can be represented as a pair of numbers: the + x coordinate and the y coordinate. Accordingly, specify a + constructor `make-point' and selectors `x-point' and `y-point' + that define this representation. Finally, using your selectors + and constructors, define a procedure `midpoint-segment' that takes + a line segment as argument and returns its midpoint (the point + whose coordinates are the average of the coordinates of the + endpoints). To try your procedures, you'll need a way to print + points: + + (define (print-point p) + (newline) + (display "(") + (display (x-point p)) + (display ",") + (display (y-point p)) + (display ")")) + + *Exercise 2.3:* Implement a representation for rectangles in a + plane. (Hint: You may want to make use of *Note Exercise 2-2::.) + In terms of your constructors and selectors, create procedures + that compute the perimeter and the area of a given rectangle. Now + implement a different representation for rectangles. Can you + design your system with suitable abstraction barriers, so that the + same perimeter and area procedures will work using either + representation? + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-1-3, Next: 2-1-4, Prev: 2-1-2, Up: 2-1 + +2.1.3 What Is Meant by Data? +---------------------------- + +We began the rational-number implementation in section *Note 2-1-1:: by +implementing the rational-number operations `add-rat', `sub-rat', and +so on in terms of three unspecified procedures: `make-rat', `numer', +and `denom'. At that point, we could think of the operations as being +defined in terms of data objects--numerators, denominators, and rational +numbers--whose behavior was specified by the latter three procedures. + + But exactly what is meant by "data"? It is not enough to say +"whatever is implemented by the given selectors and constructors." +Clearly, not every arbitrary set of three procedures can serve as an +appropriate basis for the rational-number implementation. We need to +guarantee that, if we construct a rational number `x' from a pair of +integers `n' and `d', then extracting the `numer' and the `denom' of +`x' and dividing them should yield the same result as dividing `n' by +`d'. In other words, `make-rat', `numer', and `denom' must satisfy the +condition that, for any integer `n' and any non-zero integer `d', if +`x' is (`make-rat n d'), then + + (numer x) n + --------- = --- + (denom x) d + + In fact, this is the only condition `make-rat', `numer', and `denom' +must fulfill in order to form a suitable basis for a rational-number +representation. In general, we can think of data as defined by some +collection of selectors and constructors, together with specified +conditions that these procedures must fulfill in order to be a valid +representation.(1) + + This point of view can serve to define not only "high-level" data +objects, such as rational numbers, but lower-level objects as well. +Consider the notion of a pair, which we used in order to define our +rational numbers. We never actually said what a pair was, only that +the language supplied procedures `cons', `car', and `cdr' for operating +on pairs. But the only thing we need to know about these three +operations is that if we glue two objects together using `cons' we can +retrieve the objects using `car' and `cdr'. That is, the operations +satisfy the condition that, for any objects `x' and `y', if `z' is +`(cons x y)' then `(car z)' is `x' and `(cdr z)' is `y'. Indeed, we +mentioned that these three procedures are included as primitives in our +language. However, any triple of procedures that satisfies the above +condition can be used as the basis for implementing pairs. This point +is illustrated strikingly by the fact that we could implement `cons', +`car', and `cdr' without using any data structures at all but only +using procedures. Here are the definitions: + + (define (cons x y) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((= m 0) x) + ((= m 1) y) + (else (error "Argument not 0 or 1 -- CONS" m)))) + dispatch) + + (define (car z) (z 0)) + + (define (cdr z) (z 1)) + + This use of procedures corresponds to nothing like our intuitive +notion of what data should be. Nevertheless, all we need to do to show +that this is a valid way to represent pairs is to verify that these +procedures satisfy the condition given above. + + The subtle point to notice is that the value returned by `(cons x +y)' is a procedure--namely the internally defined procedure `dispatch', +which takes one argument and returns either `x' or `y' depending on +whether the argument is 0 or 1. Correspondingly, `(car z)' is defined +to apply `z' to 0. Hence, if `z' is the procedure formed by `(cons x +y)', then `z' applied to 0 will yield `x'. Thus, we have shown that +`(car (cons x y))' yields `x', as desired. Similarly, `(cdr (cons x +y))' applies the procedure returned by `(cons x y)' to 1, which returns +`y'. Therefore, this procedural implementation of pairs is a valid +implementation, and if we access pairs using only `cons', `car', and +`cdr' we cannot distinguish this implementation from one that uses +"real" data structures. + + The point of exhibiting the procedural representation of pairs is +not that our language works this way (Scheme, and Lisp systems in +general, implement pairs directly, for efficiency reasons) but that it +could work this way. The procedural representation, although obscure, +is a perfectly adequate way to represent pairs, since it fulfills the +only conditions that pairs need to fulfill. This example also +demonstrates that the ability to manipulate procedures as objects +automatically provides the ability to represent compound data. This +may seem a curiosity now, but procedural representations of data will +play a central role in our programming repertoire. This style of +programming is often called "message passing", and we will be using it +as a basic tool in *Note Chapter 3:: when we address the issues of +modeling and simulation. + + *Exercise 2.4:* Here is an alternative procedural representation + of pairs. For this representation, verify that `(car (cons x y))' + yields `x' for any objects `x' and `y'. + + (define (cons x y) + (lambda (m) (m x y))) + + (define (car z) + (z (lambda (p q) p))) + + What is the corresponding definition of `cdr'? (Hint: To verify + that this works, make use of the substitution model of section + *Note 1-1-5::.) + + *Exercise 2.5:* Show that we can represent pairs of nonnegative + integers using only numbers and arithmetic operations if we + represent the pair a and b as the integer that is the product 2^a + 3^b. Give the corresponding definitions of the procedures `cons', + `car', and `cdr'. + + *Exercise 2.6:* In case representing pairs as procedures wasn't + mind-boggling enough, consider that, in a language that can + manipulate procedures, we can get by without numbers (at least + insofar as nonnegative integers are concerned) by implementing 0 + and the operation of adding 1 as + + (define zero (lambda (f) (lambda (x) x))) + + (define (add-1 n) + (lambda (f) (lambda (x) (f ((n f) x))))) + + This representation is known as "Church numerals", after its + inventor, Alonzo Church, the logician who invented the [lambda] + calculus. + + Define `one' and `two' directly (not in terms of `zero' and + `add-1'). (Hint: Use substitution to evaluate `(add-1 zero)'). + Give a direct definition of the addition procedure `+' (not in + terms of repeated application of `add-1'). + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Surprisingly, this idea is very difficult to formulate +rigorously. There are two approaches to giving such a formulation. One, +pioneered by C. A. R. Hoare (1972), is known as the method of models +"abstract models". It formalizes the "procedures plus conditions" +specification as outlined in the rational-number example above. Note +that the condition on the rational-number representation was stated in +terms of facts about integers (equality and division). In general, +abstract models define new kinds of data objects in terms of previously +defined types of data objects. Assertions about data objects can +therefore be checked by reducing them to assertions about previously +defined data objects. Another approach, introduced by Zilles at MIT, +by Goguen, Thatcher, Wagner, and Wright at IBM (see Thatcher, Wagner, +and Wright 1978), and by Guttag at Toronto (see Guttag 1977), is called "algebraic +specification". It regards the "procedures" as elements of an abstract +algebraic system whose behavior is specified by axioms that correspond +to our "conditions," and uses the techniques of abstract algebra to +check assertions about data objects. Both methods are surveyed in the +paper by Liskov and Zilles (1975). + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-1-4, Prev: 2-1-3, Up: 2-1 + +2.1.4 Extended Exercise: Interval Arithmetic +-------------------------------------------- + +Alyssa P. Hacker is designing a system to help people solve engineering +problems. One feature she wants to provide in her system is the +ability to manipulate inexact quantities (such as measured parameters +of physical devices) with known precision, so that when computations +are done with such approximate quantities the results will be numbers +of known precision. + + Electrical engineers will be using Alyssa's system to compute +electrical quantities. It is sometimes necessary for them to compute +the value of a parallel equivalent resistance R_p of two resistors R_1 +and R_2 using the formula + + 1 + R_p = ------------- + 1/R_1 + 1/R_2 + + Resistance values are usually known only up to some tolerance +guaranteed by the manufacturer of the resistor. For example, if you +buy a resistor labeled "6.8 ohms with 10% tolerance" you can only be +sure that the resistor has a resistance between 6.8 - 0.68 = 6.12 and +6.8 + 0.68 = 7.48 ohms. Thus, if you have a 6.8-ohm 10% resistor in +parallel with a 4.7-ohm 5% resistor, the resistance of the combination +can range from about 2.58 ohms (if the two resistors are at the lower +bounds) to about 2.97 ohms (if the two resistors are at the upper +bounds). + + Alyssa's idea is to implement "interval arithmetic" as a set of +arithmetic operations for combining "intervals" (objects that represent +the range of possible values of an inexact quantity). The result of +adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing two intervals is itself +an interval, representing the range of the result. + + Alyssa postulates the existence of an abstract object called an +"interval" that has two endpoints: a lower bound and an upper bound. +She also presumes that, given the endpoints of an interval, she can +construct the interval using the data constructor `make-interval'. +Alyssa first writes a procedure for adding two intervals. She reasons +that the minimum value the sum could be is the sum of the two lower +bounds and the maximum value it could be is the sum of the two upper +bounds: + + (define (add-interval x y) + (make-interval (+ (lower-bound x) (lower-bound y)) + (+ (upper-bound x) (upper-bound y)))) + + Alyssa also works out the product of two intervals by finding the +minimum and the maximum of the products of the bounds and using them as +the bounds of the resulting interval. (`Min' and `max' are primitives +that find the minimum or maximum of any number of arguments.) + + (define (mul-interval x y) + (let ((p1 (* (lower-bound x) (lower-bound y))) + (p2 (* (lower-bound x) (upper-bound y))) + (p3 (* (upper-bound x) (lower-bound y))) + (p4 (* (upper-bound x) (upper-bound y)))) + (make-interval (min p1 p2 p3 p4) + (max p1 p2 p3 p4)))) + + To divide two intervals, Alyssa multiplies the first by the +reciprocal of the second. Note that the bounds of the reciprocal +interval are the reciprocal of the upper bound and the reciprocal of +the lower bound, in that order. + + (define (div-interval x y) + (mul-interval x + (make-interval (/ 1.0 (upper-bound y)) + (/ 1.0 (lower-bound y))))) + + *Exercise 2.7:* Alyssa's program is incomplete because she has not + specified the implementation of the interval abstraction. Here is + a definition of the interval constructor: + + (define (make-interval a b) (cons a b)) + + Define selectors `upper-bound' and `lower-bound' to complete the + implementation. + + *Exercise 2.8:* Using reasoning analogous to Alyssa's, describe + how the difference of two intervals may be computed. Define a + corresponding subtraction procedure, called `sub-interval'. + + *Exercise 2.9:* The "width" of an interval is half of the + difference between its upper and lower bounds. The width is a + measure of the uncertainty of the number specified by the + interval. For some arithmetic operations the width of the result + of combining two intervals is a function only of the widths of the + argument intervals, whereas for others the width of the + combination is not a function of the widths of the argument + intervals. Show that the width of the sum (or difference) of two + intervals is a function only of the widths of the intervals being + added (or subtracted). Give examples to show that this is not + true for multiplication or division. + + *Exercise 2.10:* Ben Bitdiddle, an expert systems programmer, + looks over Alyssa's shoulder and comments that it is not clear what + it means to divide by an interval that spans zero. Modify + Alyssa's code to check for this condition and to signal an error + if it occurs. + + *Exercise 2.11:* In passing, Ben also cryptically comments: "By + testing the signs of the endpoints of the intervals, it is + possible to break `mul-interval' into nine cases, only one of which + requires more than two multiplications." Rewrite this procedure + using Ben's suggestion. + + After debugging her program, Alyssa shows it to a potential user, + who complains that her program solves the wrong problem. He wants + a program that can deal with numbers represented as a center value + and an additive tolerance; for example, he wants to work with + intervals such as 3.5 +/- 0.15 rather than [3.35, 3.65]. Alyssa + returns to her desk and fixes this problem by supplying an + alternate constructor and alternate selectors: + + (define (make-center-width c w) + (make-interval (- c w) (+ c w))) + + (define (center i) + (/ (+ (lower-bound i) (upper-bound i)) 2)) + + (define (width i) + (/ (- (upper-bound i) (lower-bound i)) 2)) + + Unfortunately, most of Alyssa's users are engineers. Real + engineering situations usually involve measurements with only a + small uncertainty, measured as the ratio of the width of the + interval to the midpoint of the interval. Engineers usually + specify percentage tolerances on the parameters of devices, as in + the resistor specifications given earlier. + + *Exercise 2.12:* Define a constructor `make-center-percent' that + takes a center and a percentage tolerance and produces the desired + interval. You must also define a selector `percent' that produces + the percentage tolerance for a given interval. The `center' + selector is the same as the one shown above. + + *Exercise 2.13:* Show that under the assumption of small + percentage tolerances there is a simple formula for the approximate + percentage tolerance of the product of two intervals in terms of + the tolerances of the factors. You may simplify the problem by + assuming that all numbers are positive. + + After considerable work, Alyssa P. Hacker delivers her finished + system. Several years later, after she has forgotten all about + it, she gets a frenzied call from an irate user, Lem E. Tweakit. + It seems that Lem has noticed that the formula for parallel + resistors can be written in two algebraically equivalent ways: + + R_1 R_2 + --------- + R_1 + R_2 + + and + + 1 + ------------- + 1/R_1 + 1/R_2 + + He has written the following two programs, each of which computes + the parallel-resistors formula differently: + + (define (par1 r1 r2) + (div-interval (mul-interval r1 r2) + (add-interval r1 r2))) + + (define (par2 r1 r2) + (let ((one (make-interval 1 1))) + (div-interval one + (add-interval (div-interval one r1) + (div-interval one r2))))) + + Lem complains that Alyssa's program gives different answers for + the two ways of computing. This is a serious complaint. + + *Exercise 2.14:* Demonstrate that Lem is right. Investigate the + behavior of the system on a variety of arithmetic expressions. + Make some intervals A and B, and use them in computing the + expressions A/A and A/B. You will get the most insight by using + intervals whose width is a small percentage of the center value. + Examine the results of the computation in center-percent form (see + *Note Exercise 2-12::). + + *Exercise 2.15:* Eva Lu Ator, another user, has also noticed the + different intervals computed by different but algebraically + equivalent expressions. She says that a formula to compute with + intervals using Alyssa's system will produce tighter error bounds + if it can be written in such a form that no variable that + represents an uncertain number is repeated. Thus, she says, + `par2' is a "better" program for parallel resistances than `par1'. + Is she right? Why? + + *Exercise 2.16:* Explain, in general, why equivalent algebraic + expressions may lead to different answers. Can you devise an + interval-arithmetic package that does not have this shortcoming, + or is this task impossible? (Warning: This problem is very + difficult.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-2, Next: 2-3, Prev: 2-1, Up: Chapter 2 + +2.2 Hierarchical Data and the Closure Property +============================================== + +As we have seen, pairs provide a primitive "glue" that we can use to +construct compound data objects. *Note Figure 2-2:: shows a standard +way to visualize a pair--in this case, the pair formed by `(cons 1 2)'. +In this representation, which is called "box-and-pointer notation", +each object is shown as a "pointer" to a box. The box for a primitive +object contains a representation of the object. For example, the box +for a number contains a numeral. The box for a pair is actually a +double box, the left part containing (a pointer to) the `car' of the +pair and the right part containing the `cdr'. + + *Figure 2.2:* Box-and-pointer representation of `(cons 1 2)'. + + +---+---+ +---+ + ---->| * | *-+---->| 2 | + +-|-+---+ +---+ + | + V + +---+ + | 1 | + +---+ + + We have already seen that `cons' can be used to combine not only +numbers but pairs as well. (You made use of this fact, or should have, +in doing *Note Exercise 2-2:: and *Note Exercise 2-3::.) As a +consequence, pairs provide a universal building block from which we can +construct all sorts of data structures. *Note Figure 2-3:: shows two +ways to use pairs to combine the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. + + *Figure 2.3:* Two ways to combine 1, 2, 3, and 4 using pairs. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+ + ---->| * | *-+---->| * | * | ---->| * | *-+---->| 4 | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+---+ +---+ + | | | | + V V V V + +---+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | * | | 3 | | 4 | | * | *-+---->| * | * | + +-|-+-|-+ +---+ +---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+-|-+ + | | | | | + V V V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | 1 | | 2 | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + + (cons (cons 1 2) (cons (cons 1 + (cons 3 4)) (cons 2 3)) + 4) + + The ability to create pairs whose elements are pairs is the essence +of list structure's importance as a representational tool. We refer to +this ability as the "closure property" of `cons'. In general, an +operation for combining data objects satisfies the closure property if +the results of combining things with that operation can themselves be +combined using the same operation.(1) Closure is the key to power in +any means of combination because it permits us to create "hierarchical" +structures--structures made up of parts, which themselves are made up +of parts, and so on. + + From the outset of *Note Chapter 1::, we've made essential use of +closure in dealing with procedures, because all but the very simplest +programs rely on the fact that the elements of a combination can +themselves be combinations. In this section, we take up the +consequences of closure for compound data. We describe some +conventional techniques for using pairs to represent sequences and +trees, and we exhibit a graphics language that illustrates closure in a +vivid way.(2) + +* Menu: + +* 2-2-1:: Representing Sequences +* 2-2-2:: Hierarchical Structures +* 2-2-3:: Sequences as Conventional Interfaces +* 2-2-4:: Example: A Picture Language + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The use of the word "closure" here comes from abstract algebra, +where a set of elements is said to be closed under an operation if +applying the operation to elements in the set produces an element that +is again an element of the set. The Lisp community also +(unfortunately) uses the word "closure" to describe a totally unrelated +concept: A closure is an implementation technique for representing +procedures with free variables. We do not use the word "closure" in +this second sense in this book. + + (2) The notion that a means of combination should satisfy closure is +a straightforward idea. Unfortunately, the data combiners provided in +many popular programming languages do not satisfy closure, or make +closure cumbersome to exploit. In Fortran or Basic, one typically +combines data elements by assembling them into arrays--but one cannot +form arrays whose elements are themselves arrays. Pascal and C admit +structures whose elements are structures. However, this requires that +the programmer manipulate pointers explicitly, and adhere to the +restriction that each field of a structure can contain only elements of +a prespecified form. Unlike Lisp with its pairs, these languages have +no built-in general-purpose glue that makes it easy to manipulate +compound data in a uniform way. This limitation lies behind Alan +Perlis's comment in his foreword to this book: "In Pascal the plethora +of declarable data structures induces a specialization within functions +that inhibits and penalizes casual cooperation. It is better to have +100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions +operate on 10 data structures." + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-2-1, Next: 2-2-2, Prev: 2-2, Up: 2-2 + +2.2.1 Representing Sequences +---------------------------- + + *Figure 2.4:* The sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 represented as a chain of + pairs. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + ---->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | | | | + V V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 | + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + +One of the useful structures we can build with pairs is a "sequence"--an +ordered collection of data objects. There are, of course, many ways to +represent sequences in terms of pairs. One particularly +straightforward representation is illustrated in *Note Figure 2-4::, +where the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 is represented as a chain of pairs. The +`car' of each pair is the corresponding item in the chain, and the +`cdr' of the pair is the next pair in the chain. The `cdr' of the +final pair signals the end of the sequence by pointing to a +distinguished value that is not a pair, represented in box-and-pointer +diagrams as a diagonal line and in programs as the value of the +variable `nil'. The entire sequence is constructed by nested `cons' +operations: + + (cons 1 + (cons 2 + (cons 3 + (cons 4 nil)))) + + Such a sequence of pairs, formed by nested `cons'es, is called a "list", +and Scheme provides a primitive called `list' to help in constructing +lists.(1) The above sequence could be produced by `(list 1 2 3 4)'. +In general, + + (list <A_1> <A_2> ... <A_N>) + +is equivalent to + + (cons <A_1> + (cons <A_2> + (cons ... + (cons <A_N> + nil) + ...))) + + Lisp systems conventionally print lists by printing the sequence of +elements, enclosed in parentheses. Thus, the data object in *Note +Figure 2-4:: is printed as `(1 2 3 4)': + + (define one-through-four (list 1 2 3 4)) + + one-through-four + (1 2 3 4) + + Be careful not to confuse the expression `(list 1 2 3 4)' with the +list `(1 2 3 4)', which is the result obtained when the expression is +evaluated. Attempting to evaluate the expression `(1 2 3 4)' will +signal an error when the interpreter tries to apply the procedure `1' to +arguments `2', `3', and `4'. + + We can think of `car' as selecting the first item in the list, and of +`cdr' as selecting the sublist consisting of all but the first item. +Nested applications of `car' and `cdr' can be used to extract the +second, third, and subsequent items in the list.(2) The constructor +`cons' makes a list like the original one, but with an additional item +at the beginning. + + (car one-through-four) + 1 + + (cdr one-through-four) + (2 3 4) + + (car (cdr one-through-four)) + 2 + + (cons 10 one-through-four) + (10 1 2 3 4) + + (cons 5 one-through-four) + (5 1 2 3 4) + + The value of `nil', used to terminate the chain of pairs, can be +thought of as a sequence of no elements, the "empty list". The word "nil" +is a contraction of the Latin word _nihil_, which means "nothing."(3) + +List operations +............... + +The use of pairs to represent sequences of elements as lists is +accompanied by conventional programming techniques for manipulating +lists by successively "`cdr'ing down" the lists. For example, the +procedure `list-ref' takes as arguments a list and a number n and +returns the nth item of the list. It is customary to number the +elements of the list beginning with 0. The method for computing +`list-ref' is the following: + + * For n = 0, `list-ref' should return the `car' of the list. + + * Otherwise, `list-ref' should return the (n - 1)st item of the + `cdr' of the list. + + + (define (list-ref items n) + (if (= n 0) + (car items) + (list-ref (cdr items) (- n 1)))) + + (define squares (list 1 4 9 16 25)) + + (list-ref squares 3) + 16 + + Often we `cdr' down the whole list. To aid in this, Scheme includes +a primitive predicate `null?', which tests whether its argument is the +empty list. The procedure `length', which returns the number of items +in a list, illustrates this typical pattern of use: + + (define (length items) + (if (null? items) + 0 + (+ 1 (length (cdr items))))) + + (define odds (list 1 3 5 7)) + + (length odds) + 4 + + The `length' procedure implements a simple recursive plan. The +reduction step is: + + * The `length' of any list is 1 plus the `length' of the `cdr' of + the list. + + + This is applied successively until we reach the base case: + + * The `length' of the empty list is 0. + + + We could also compute `length' in an iterative style: + + (define (length items) + (define (length-iter a count) + (if (null? a) + count + (length-iter (cdr a) (+ 1 count)))) + (length-iter items 0)) + + Another conventional programming technique is to "`cons' up" an +answer list while `cdr'ing down a list, as in the procedure `append', +which takes two lists as arguments and combines their elements to make +a new list: + + (append squares odds) + (1 4 9 16 25 1 3 5 7) + + (append odds squares) + (1 3 5 7 1 4 9 16 25) + + `Append' is also implemented using a recursive plan. To `append' +lists `list1' and `list2', do the following: + + * If `list1' is the empty list, then the result is just `list2'. + + * Otherwise, `append' the `cdr' of `list1' and `list2', and `cons' + the `car' of `list1' onto the result: + + + (define (append list1 list2) + (if (null? list1) + list2 + (cons (car list1) (append (cdr list1) list2)))) + + *Exercise 2.17:* Define a procedure `last-pair' that returns the + list that contains only the last element of a given (nonempty) + list: + + (last-pair (list 23 72 149 34)) + (34) + + *Exercise 2.18:* Define a procedure `reverse' that takes a list as + argument and returns a list of the same elements in reverse order: + + (reverse (list 1 4 9 16 25)) + (25 16 9 4 1) + + *Exercise 2.19:* Consider the change-counting program of section + *Note 1-2-2::. It would be nice to be able to easily change the + currency used by the program, so that we could compute the number + of ways to change a British pound, for example. As the program is + written, the knowledge of the currency is distributed partly into + the procedure `first-denomination' and partly into the procedure + `count-change' (which knows that there are five kinds of U.S. + coins). It would be nicer to be able to supply a list of coins to + be used for making change. + + We want to rewrite the procedure `cc' so that its second argument + is a list of the values of the coins to use rather than an integer + specifying which coins to use. We could then have lists that + defined each kind of currency: + + (define us-coins (list 50 25 10 5 1)) + + (define uk-coins (list 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5)) + + We could then call `cc' as follows: + + (cc 100 us-coins) + 292 + + To do this will require changing the program `cc' somewhat. It + will still have the same form, but it will access its second + argument differently, as follows: + + (define (cc amount coin-values) + (cond ((= amount 0) 1) + ((or (< amount 0) (no-more? coin-values)) 0) + (else + (+ (cc amount + (except-first-denomination coin-values)) + (cc (- amount + (first-denomination coin-values)) + coin-values))))) + + Define the procedures `first-denomination', + `except-first-denomination', and `no-more?' in terms of primitive + operations on list structures. Does the order of the list + `coin-values' affect the answer produced by `cc'? Why or why not? + + *Exercise 2.20:* The procedures `+', `*', and `list' take + arbitrary numbers of arguments. One way to define such procedures + is to use `define' with notation "dotted-tail notation". In a + procedure definition, a parameter list that has a dot before the + last parameter name indicates that, when the procedure is called, + the initial parameters (if any) will have as values the initial + arguments, as usual, but the final parameter's value will be a "list" + of any remaining arguments. For instance, given the definition + + (define (f x y . z) <BODY>) + + the procedure `f' can be called with two or more arguments. If we + evaluate + + (f 1 2 3 4 5 6) + + then in the body of `f', `x' will be 1, `y' will be 2, and `z' + will be the list `(3 4 5 6)'. Given the definition + + (define (g . w) <BODY>) + + the procedure `g' can be called with zero or more arguments. If we + evaluate + + (g 1 2 3 4 5 6) + + then in the body of `g', `w' will be the list `(1 2 3 4 5 6)'.(4) + + Use this notation to write a procedure `same-parity' that takes + one or more integers and returns a list of all the arguments that + have the same even-odd parity as the first argument. For example, + + (same-parity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7) + (1 3 5 7) + + (same-parity 2 3 4 5 6 7) + (2 4 6) + +Mapping over lists +.................. + +One extremely useful operation is to apply some transformation to each +element in a list and generate the list of results. For instance, the +following procedure scales each number in a list by a given factor: + + (define (scale-list items factor) + (if (null? items) + nil + (cons (* (car items) factor) + (scale-list (cdr items) factor)))) + + (scale-list (list 1 2 3 4 5) 10) + (10 20 30 40 50) + + We can abstract this general idea and capture it as a common pattern +expressed as a higher-order procedure, just as in section *Note 1-3::. +The higher-order procedure here is called `map'. `Map' takes as +arguments a procedure of one argument and a list, and returns a list of +the results produced by applying the procedure to each element in the +list:(5) + + (define (map proc items) + (if (null? items) + nil + (cons (proc (car items)) + (map proc (cdr items))))) + + (map abs (list -10 2.5 -11.6 17)) + (10 2.5 11.6 17) + + (map (lambda (x) (* x x)) + (list 1 2 3 4)) + (1 4 9 16) + + Now we can give a new definition of `scale-list' in terms of `map': + + (define (scale-list items factor) + (map (lambda (x) (* x factor)) + items)) + + `Map' is an important construct, not only because it captures a +common pattern, but because it establishes a higher level of +abstraction in dealing with lists. In the original definition of +`scale-list', the recursive structure of the program draws attention to +the element-by-element processing of the list. Defining `scale-list' +in terms of `map' suppresses that level of detail and emphasizes that +scaling transforms a list of elements to a list of results. The +difference between the two definitions is not that the computer is +performing a different process (it isn't) but that we think about the +process differently. In effect, `map' helps establish an abstraction +barrier that isolates the implementation of procedures that transform +lists from the details of how the elements of the list are extracted +and combined. Like the barriers shown in *Note Figure 2-1::, this +abstraction gives us the flexibility to change the low-level details of +how sequences are implemented, while preserving the conceptual +framework of operations that transform sequences to sequences. Section +*Note 2-2-3:: expands on this use of sequences as a framework for +organizing programs. + + *Exercise 2.21:* The procedure `square-list' takes a list of + numbers as argument and returns a list of the squares of those + numbers. + + (square-list (list 1 2 3 4)) + (1 4 9 16) + + Here are two different definitions of `square-list'. Complete + both of them by filling in the missing expressions: + + (define (square-list items) + (if (null? items) + nil + (cons <??> <??>))) + + (define (square-list items) + (map <??> <??>)) + + *Exercise 2.22:* Louis Reasoner tries to rewrite the first + `square-list' procedure of *Note Exercise 2-21:: so that it + evolves an iterative process: + + (define (square-list items) + (define (iter things answer) + (if (null? things) + answer + (iter (cdr things) + (cons (square (car things)) + answer)))) + (iter items nil)) + + Unfortunately, defining `square-list' this way produces the answer + list in the reverse order of the one desired. Why? + + Louis then tries to fix his bug by interchanging the arguments to + `cons': + + (define (square-list items) + (define (iter things answer) + (if (null? things) + answer + (iter (cdr things) + (cons answer + (square (car things)))))) + (iter items nil)) + + This doesn't work either. Explain. + + *Exercise 2.23:* The procedure `for-each' is similar to `map'. It + takes as arguments a procedure and a list of elements. However, + rather than forming a list of the results, `for-each' just applies + the procedure to each of the elements in turn, from left to right. + The values returned by applying the procedure to the elements are + not used at all--`for-each' is used with procedures that perform + an action, such as printing. For example, + + (for-each (lambda (x) (newline) (display x)) + (list 57 321 88)) + 57 + 321 + 88 + + The value returned by the call to `for-each' (not illustrated + above) can be something arbitrary, such as true. Give an + implementation of `for-each'. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) In this book, we use "list" to mean a chain of pairs terminated +by the end-of-list marker. In contrast, the term "list structure" +refers to any data structure made out of pairs, not just to lists. + + (2) Since nested applications of `car' and `cdr' are cumbersome to +write, Lisp dialects provide abbreviations for them--for instance, + + (cadr (ARG)) = (car (cdr (ARG))) + + The names of all such procedures start with `c' and end with `r'. +Each `a' between them stands for a `car' operation and each `d' for a +`cdr' operation, to be applied in the same order in which they appear +in the name. The names `car' and `cdr' persist because simple +combinations like `cadr' are pronounceable. + + (3) It's remarkable how much energy in the standardization of Lisp +dialects has been dissipated in arguments that are literally over +nothing: Should `nil' be an ordinary name? Should the value of `nil' +be a symbol? Should it be a list? Should it be a pair? In Scheme, +`nil' is an ordinary name, which we use in this section as a variable +whose value is the end-of-list marker (just as `true' is an ordinary +variable that has a true value). Other dialects of Lisp, including +Common Lisp, treat `nil' as a special symbol. The authors of this +book, who have endured too many language standardization brawls, would +like to avoid the entire issue. Once we have introduced quotation in +section *Note 2-3::, we will denote the empty list as `'()' and +dispense with the variable `nil' entirely. + + (4) To define `f' and `g' using `lambda' we would write + + (define f (lambda (x y . z) <BODY>)) + (define g (lambda w <BODY>)) + + (5) [Footnote 12] Scheme standardly provides a `map' procedure that +is more general than the one described here. This more general `map' +takes a procedure of n arguments, together with n lists, and applies +the procedure to all the first elements of the lists, all the second +elements of the lists, and so on, returning a list of the results. For +example: + + (map + (list 1 2 3) (list 40 50 60) (list 700 800 900)) + (741 852 963) + + (map (lambda (x y) (+ x (* 2 y))) + (list 1 2 3) + (list 4 5 6)) + (9 12 15) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-2-2, Next: 2-2-3, Prev: 2-2-1, Up: 2-2 + +2.2.2 Hierarchical Structures +----------------------------- + +The representation of sequences in terms of lists generalizes naturally +to represent sequences whose elements may themselves be sequences. For +example, we can regard the object `((1 2) 3 4)' constructed by + + (cons (list 1 2) (list 3 4)) + +as a list of three items, the first of which is itself a list, `(1 2)'. +Indeed, this is suggested by the form in which the result is printed by +the interpreter. *Note Figure 2-5:: shows the representation of this +structure in terms of pairs. + + *Figure 2.5:* Structure formed by `(cons (list 1 2) (list 3 4))'. + + (3 4) + | + V + ((1 2) 3 4) +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + ---->| * | *-+----------------->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | | | + V V V + (1 2) +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+ +---+ + ---->| * | *-+---->| * | / | | 3 | | 4 | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +---+ +---+ + | | + V V + +---+ +---+ + | 1 | | 2 | + +---+ +---+ + + Another way to think of sequences whose elements are sequences is as "trees". +The elements of the sequence are the branches of the tree, and +elements that are themselves sequences are subtrees. *Note Figure 2-6:: +shows the structure in *Note Figure 2-5:: viewed as a tree. + + *Figure 2.6:* The list structure in *Note Figure 2-5:: viewed as a + tree. + + ((1 2) 3 4) + /\\ + / | \ + (1 2) 3 4 + / \ + 1 2 + + Recursion is a natural tool for dealing with tree structures, since +we can often reduce operations on trees to operations on their +branches, which reduce in turn to operations on the branches of the +branches, and so on, until we reach the leaves of the tree. As an +example, compare the `length' procedure of section *Note 2-2-1:: with +the `count-leaves' procedure, which returns the total number of leaves +of a tree: + + (define x (cons (list 1 2) (list 3 4))) + + (length x) + 3 + + (count-leaves x) + 4 + + (list x x) + (((1 2) 3 4) ((1 2) 3 4)) + + (length (list x x)) + 2 + + (count-leaves (list x x)) + 8 + + To implement `count-leaves', recall the recursive plan for computing +`length': + + * `Length' of a list `x' is 1 plus `length' of the `cdr' of `x'. + + * `Length' of the empty list is 0. + + + `Count-leaves' is similar. The value for the empty list is the same: + + * `Count-leaves' of the empty list is 0. + + + But in the reduction step, where we strip off the `car' of the list, +we must take into account that the `car' may itself be a tree whose +leaves we need to count. Thus, the appropriate reduction step is + + * `Count-leaves' of a tree `x' is `count-leaves' of the `car' of `x' + plus `count-leaves' of the `cdr' of `x'. + + + Finally, by taking `car's we reach actual leaves, so we need another +base case: + + * `Count-leaves' of a leaf is 1. + + + To aid in writing recursive procedures on trees, Scheme provides the +primitive predicate `pair?', which tests whether its argument is a +pair. Here is the complete procedure:(1) + + (define (count-leaves x) + (cond ((null? x) 0) + ((not (pair? x)) 1) + (else (+ (count-leaves (car x)) + (count-leaves (cdr x)))))) + + *Exercise 2.24:* Suppose we evaluate the expression `(list 1 (list + 2 (list 3 4)))'. Give the result printed by the interpreter, the + corresponding box-and-pointer structure, and the interpretation of + this as a tree (as in *Note Figure 2-6::). + + *Exercise 2.25:* Give combinations of `car's and `cdr's that will + pick 7 from each of the following lists: + + (1 3 (5 7) 9) + + ((7)) + + (1 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 7)))))) + + *Exercise 2.26:* Suppose we define `x' and `y' to be two lists: + + (define x (list 1 2 3)) + + (define y (list 4 5 6)) + + What result is printed by the interpreter in response to + evaluating each of the following expressions: + + (append x y) + + (cons x y) + + (list x y) + + *Exercise 2.27:* Modify your `reverse' procedure of *Note Exercise + 2-18:: to produce a `deep-reverse' procedure that takes a list as + argument and returns as its value the list with its elements + reversed and with all sublists deep-reversed as well. For example, + + (define x (list (list 1 2) (list 3 4))) + + x + ((1 2) (3 4)) + + (reverse x) + ((3 4) (1 2)) + + (deep-reverse x) + ((4 3) (2 1)) + + *Exercise 2.28:* Write a procedure `fringe' that takes as argument + a tree (represented as a list) and returns a list whose elements + are all the leaves of the tree arranged in left-to-right order. + For example, + + (define x (list (list 1 2) (list 3 4))) + + (fringe x) + (1 2 3 4) + + (fringe (list x x)) + (1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4) + + *Exercise 2.29:* A binary mobile consists of two branches, a left + branch and a right branch. Each branch is a rod of a certain + length, from which hangs either a weight or another binary mobile. + We can represent a binary mobile using compound data by + constructing it from two branches (for example, using `list'): + + (define (make-mobile left right) + (list left right)) + + A branch is constructed from a `length' (which must be a number) + together with a `structure', which may be either a number + (representing a simple weight) or another mobile: + + (define (make-branch length structure) + (list length structure)) + + a. Write the corresponding selectors `left-branch' and + `right-branch', which return the branches of a mobile, and + `branch-length' and `branch-structure', which return the + components of a branch. + + b. Using your selectors, define a procedure `total-weight' that + returns the total weight of a mobile. + + c. A mobile is said to be "balanced" if the torque applied by + its top-left branch is equal to that applied by its top-right + branch (that is, if the length of the left rod multiplied by + the weight hanging from that rod is equal to the + corresponding product for the right side) and if each of the + submobiles hanging off its branches is balanced. Design a + predicate that tests whether a binary mobile is balanced. + + d. Suppose we change the representation of mobiles so that the + constructors are + + (define (make-mobile left right) + (cons left right)) + + (define (make-branch length structure) + (cons length structure)) + + How much do you need to change your programs to convert to + the new representation? + + +Mapping over trees +.................. + +Just as `map' is a powerful abstraction for dealing with sequences, +`map' together with recursion is a powerful abstraction for dealing with +trees. For instance, the `scale-tree' procedure, analogous to +`scale-list' of section *Note 2-2-1::, takes as arguments a numeric +factor and a tree whose leaves are numbers. It returns a tree of the +same shape, where each number is multiplied by the factor. The +recursive plan for `scale-tree' is similar to the one for +`count-leaves': + + (define (scale-tree tree factor) + (cond ((null? tree) nil) + ((not (pair? tree)) (* tree factor)) + (else (cons (scale-tree (car tree) factor) + (scale-tree (cdr tree) factor))))) + + (scale-tree (list 1 (list 2 (list 3 4) 5) (list 6 7)) + 10) + (10 (20 (30 40) 50) (60 70)) + + Another way to implement `scale-tree' is to regard the tree as a +sequence of sub-trees and use `map'. We map over the sequence, scaling +each sub-tree in turn, and return the list of results. In the base +case, where the tree is a leaf, we simply multiply by the factor: + + (define (scale-tree tree factor) + (map (lambda (sub-tree) + (if (pair? sub-tree) + (scale-tree sub-tree factor) + (* sub-tree factor))) + tree)) + + Many tree operations can be implemented by similar combinations of +sequence operations and recursion. + + *Exercise 2.30:* Define a procedure `square-tree' analogous to the + `square-list' procedure of *Note Exercise 2-21::. That is, + `square-list' should behave as follows: + + (square-tree + (list 1 + (list 2 (list 3 4) 5) + (list 6 7))) + (1 (4 (9 16) 25) (36 49)) + + Define `square-tree' both directly (i.e., without using any + higher-order procedures) and also by using `map' and recursion. + + *Exercise 2.31:* Abstract your answer to *Note Exercise 2-30:: to + produce a procedure `tree-map' with the property that + `square-tree' could be defined as + + (define (square-tree tree) (tree-map square tree)) + + *Exercise 2.32:* We can represent a set as a list of distinct + elements, and we can represent the set of all subsets of the set as + a list of lists. For example, if the set is `(1 2 3)', then the + set of all subsets is `(() (3) (2) (2 3) (1) (1 3) (1 2) (1 2 + 3))'. Complete the following definition of a procedure that + generates the set of subsets of a set and give a clear explanation + of why it works: + + (define (subsets s) + (if (null? s) + (list nil) + (let ((rest (subsets (cdr s)))) + (append rest (map <??> rest))))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The order of the first two clauses in the `cond' matters, since +the empty list satisfies `null?' and also is not a pair. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-2-3, Next: 2-2-4, Prev: 2-2-2, Up: 2-2 + +2.2.3 Sequences as Conventional Interfaces +------------------------------------------ + +In working with compound data, we've stressed how data abstraction +permits us to design programs without becoming enmeshed in the details +of data representations, and how abstraction preserves for us the +flexibility to experiment with alternative representations. In this +section, we introduce another powerful design principle for working +with data structures--the use of "conventional interfaces". + + In section *Note 1-3:: we saw how program abstractions, implemented +as higher-order procedures, can capture common patterns in programs +that deal with numerical data. Our ability to formulate analogous +operations for working with compound data depends crucially on the +style in which we manipulate our data structures. Consider, for +example, the following procedure, analogous to the `count-leaves' +procedure of section *Note 2-2-2::, which takes a tree as argument and +computes the sum of the squares of the leaves that are odd: + + (define (sum-odd-squares tree) + (cond ((null? tree) 0) + ((not (pair? tree)) + (if (odd? tree) (square tree) 0)) + (else (+ (sum-odd-squares (car tree)) + (sum-odd-squares (cdr tree)))))) + + On the surface, this procedure is very different from the following +one, which constructs a list of all the even Fibonacci numbers +_Fib_(k), where k is less than or equal to a given integer n: + + (define (even-fibs n) + (define (next k) + (if (> k n) + nil + (let ((f (fib k))) + (if (even? f) + (cons f (next (+ k 1))) + (next (+ k 1)))))) + (next 0)) + + Despite the fact that these two procedures are structurally very +different, a more abstract description of the two computations reveals +a great deal of similarity. The first program + + * enumerates the leaves of a tree; + + * filters them, selecting the odd ones; + + * squares each of the selected ones; and + + * accumulates the results using `+', starting with 0. + + + The second program + + * enumerates the integers from 0 to n; + + * computes the Fibonacci number for each integer; + + * filters them, selecting the even ones; and + + * accumulates the results using `cons', starting with the empty + list. + + + A signal-processing engineer would find it natural to conceptualize +these processes in terms of signals flowing through a cascade of +stages, each of which implements part of the program plan, as shown in +*Note Figure 2-7::. In `sum-odd-squares', we begin with an "enumerator", +which generates a "signal" consisting of the leaves of a given tree. +This signal is passed through a "filter", which eliminates all but the +odd elements. The resulting signal is in turn passed through a "map", +which is a "transducer" that applies the `square' procedure to each +element. The output of the map is then fed to an "accumulator", which +combines the elements using `+', starting from an initial 0. The plan +for `even-fibs' is analogous. + + *Figure 2.7:* The signal-flow plans for the procedures + `sum-odd-squares' (top) and `even-fibs' (bottom) reveal the + commonality between the two programs. + + +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ + | enumerate: |-->| filter: |-->| map: |-->| accumulate: | + | tree leaves | | odd? | | square | | +, 0 | + +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ + + +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ + | enumerate: |-->| map: |-->| filter: |-->| accumulate: | + | integers | | fib | | even? | | cons, () | + +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ + + Unfortunately, the two procedure definitions above fail to exhibit +this signal-flow structure. For instance, if we examine the +`sum-odd-squares' procedure, we find that the enumeration is +implemented partly by the `null?' and `pair?' tests and partly by the +tree-recursive structure of the procedure. Similarly, the accumulation +is found partly in the tests and partly in the addition used in the +recursion. In general, there are no distinct parts of either procedure +that correspond to the elements in the signal-flow description. Our +two procedures decompose the computations in a different way, spreading +the enumeration over the program and mingling it with the map, the +filter, and the accumulation. If we could organize our programs to +make the signal-flow structure manifest in the procedures we write, this +would increase the conceptual clarity of the resulting code. + +Sequence Operations +................... + +The key to organizing programs so as to more clearly reflect the +signal-flow structure is to concentrate on the "signals" that flow from +one stage in the process to the next. If we represent these signals as +lists, then we can use list operations to implement the processing at +each of the stages. For instance, we can implement the mapping stages +of the signal-flow diagrams using the `map' procedure from section +*Note 2-2-1::: + + (map square (list 1 2 3 4 5)) + (1 4 9 16 25) + + Filtering a sequence to select only those elements that satisfy a +given predicate is accomplished by + + (define (filter predicate sequence) + (cond ((null? sequence) nil) + ((predicate (car sequence)) + (cons (car sequence) + (filter predicate (cdr sequence)))) + (else (filter predicate (cdr sequence))))) + + For example, + + (filter odd? (list 1 2 3 4 5)) + (1 3 5) + + Accumulations can be implemented by + + (define (accumulate op initial sequence) + (if (null? sequence) + initial + (op (car sequence) + (accumulate op initial (cdr sequence))))) + + (accumulate + 0 (list 1 2 3 4 5)) + 15 + + (accumulate * 1 (list 1 2 3 4 5)) + 120 + + (accumulate cons nil (list 1 2 3 4 5)) + (1 2 3 4 5) + + All that remains to implement signal-flow diagrams is to enumerate +the sequence of elements to be processed. For `even-fibs', we need to +generate the sequence of integers in a given range, which we can do as +follows: + + (define (enumerate-interval low high) + (if (> low high) + nil + (cons low (enumerate-interval (+ low 1) high)))) + + (enumerate-interval 2 7) + (2 3 4 5 6 7) + + To enumerate the leaves of a tree, we can use(1) + + (define (enumerate-tree tree) + (cond ((null? tree) nil) + ((not (pair? tree)) (list tree)) + (else (append (enumerate-tree (car tree)) + (enumerate-tree (cdr tree)))))) + + (enumerate-tree (list 1 (list 2 (list 3 4)) 5)) + (1 2 3 4 5) + + Now we can reformulate `sum-odd-squares' and `even-fibs' as in the +signal-flow diagrams. For `sum-odd-squares', we enumerate the sequence +of leaves of the tree, filter this to keep only the odd numbers in the +sequence, square each element, and sum the results: + + (define (sum-odd-squares tree) + (accumulate + + 0 + (map square + (filter odd? + (enumerate-tree tree))))) + + For `even-fibs', we enumerate the integers from 0 to n, generate the +Fibonacci number for each of these integers, filter the resulting +sequence to keep only the even elements, and accumulate the results +into a list: + + (define (even-fibs n) + (accumulate cons + nil + (filter even? + (map fib + (enumerate-interval 0 n))))) + + The value of expressing programs as sequence operations is that this +helps us make program designs that are modular, that is, designs that +are constructed by combining relatively independent pieces. We can +encourage modular design by providing a library of standard components +together with a conventional interface for connecting the components in +flexible ways. + + Modular construction is a powerful strategy for controlling +complexity in engineering design. In real signal-processing +applications, for example, designers regularly build systems by +cascading elements selected from standardized families of filters and +transducers. Similarly, sequence operations provide a library of +standard program elements that we can mix and match. For instance, we +can reuse pieces from the `sum-odd-squares' and `even-fibs' procedures +in a program that constructs a list of the squares of the first n + 1 +Fibonacci numbers: + + (define (list-fib-squares n) + (accumulate cons + nil + (map square + (map fib + (enumerate-interval 0 n))))) + + (list-fib-squares 10) + (0 1 1 4 9 25 64 169 441 1156 3025) + + We can rearrange the pieces and use them in computing the product of +the odd integers in a sequence: + + (define (product-of-squares-of-odd-elements sequence) + (accumulate * + 1 + (map square + (filter odd? sequence)))) + + (product-of-squares-of-odd-elements (list 1 2 3 4 5)) + 225 + + We can also formulate conventional data-processing applications in +terms of sequence operations. Suppose we have a sequence of personnel +records and we want to find the salary of the highest-paid programmer. +Assume that we have a selector `salary' that returns the salary of a +record, and a predicate `programmer?' that tests if a record is for a +programmer. Then we can write + + (define (salary-of-highest-paid-programmer records) + (accumulate max + 0 + (map salary + (filter programmer? records)))) + + These examples give just a hint of the vast range of operations that +can be expressed as sequence operations.(2) + + Sequences, implemented here as lists, serve as a conventional +interface that permits us to combine processing modules. Additionally, +when we uniformly represent structures as sequences, we have localized +the data-structure dependencies in our programs to a small number of +sequence operations. By changing these, we can experiment with +alternative representations of sequences, while leaving the overall +design of our programs intact. We will exploit this capability in +section *Note 3-5::, when we generalize the sequence-processing +paradigm to admit infinite sequences. + + *Exercise 2.33:* Fill in the missing expressions to complete the + following definitions of some basic list-manipulation operations + as accumulations: + + (define (map p sequence) + (accumulate (lambda (x y) <??>) nil sequence)) + + (define (append seq1 seq2) + (accumulate cons <??> <??>)) + + (define (length sequence) + (accumulate <??> 0 sequence)) + + *Exercise 2.34:* Evaluating a polynomial in x at a given value of + x can be formulated as an accumulation. We evaluate the polynomial + + a_n r^n | a_(n-1) r^(n-1) + ... + a_1 r + a_0 + + using a well-known algorithm called "Horner's rule", which + structures the computation as + + (... (a_n r + a_(n-1)) r + ... + a_1) r + a_0 + + In other words, we start with a_n, multiply by x, add a_(n-1), + multiply by x, and so on, until we reach a_0.(3) + + Fill in the following template to produce a procedure that + evaluates a polynomial using Horner's rule. Assume that the + coefficients of the polynomial are arranged in a sequence, from + a_0 through a_n. + + (define (horner-eval x coefficient-sequence) + (accumulate (lambda (this-coeff higher-terms) <??>) + 0 + coefficient-sequence)) + + For example, to compute 1 + 3x + 5x^3 + x^(5) at x = 2 you would + evaluate + + (horner-eval 2 (list 1 3 0 5 0 1)) + + *Exercise 2.35:* Redefine `count-leaves' from section *Note + 2-2-2:: as an accumulation: + + (define (count-leaves t) + (accumulate <??> <??> (map <??> <??>))) + + *Exercise 2.36:* The procedure `accumulate-n' is similar to + `accumulate' except that it takes as its third argument a sequence + of sequences, which are all assumed to have the same number of + elements. It applies the designated accumulation procedure to + combine all the first elements of the sequences, all the second + elements of the sequences, and so on, and returns a sequence of + the results. For instance, if `s' is a sequence containing four + sequences, `((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9) (10 11 12)),' then the value + of `(accumulate-n + 0 s)' should be the sequence `(22 26 30)'. + Fill in the missing expressions in the following definition of + `accumulate-n': + + (define (accumulate-n op init seqs) + (if (null? (car seqs)) + nil + (cons (accumulate op init <??>) + (accumulate-n op init <??>)))) + +Exercise 2.37 +............. + +Suppose we represent vectors v = (v_i) as sequences of numbers, and +matrices m = (m_(ij)) as sequences of vectors (the rows of the matrix). +For example, the matrix + + +- -+ + | 1 2 3 4 | + | 4 5 6 6 | + | 6 7 8 9 | + +- -+ + +is represented as the sequence `((1 2 3 4) (4 5 6 6) (6 7 8 9))'. With +this representation, we can use sequence operations to concisely +express the basic matrix and vector operations. These operations +(which are described in any book on matrix algebra) are the following: + + __ + (dot-product v w) returns the sum >_i v_i w_i + + (matrix-*-vector m v) returns the vector t, + __ + where t_i = >_j m_(ij) v_j + + (matrix-*-matrix m n) returns the matrix p, + __ + where p_(ij) = >_k m_(ik) n_(kj) + + (transpose m) returns the matrix n, + where n_(ij) = m_(ji) + + We can define the dot product as(4) + + (define (dot-product v w) + (accumulate + 0 (map * v w))) + + Fill in the missing expressions in the following procedures for +computing the other matrix operations. (The procedure `accumulate-n' +is defined in *Note Exercise 2-36::.) + + (define (matrix-*-vector m v) + (map <??> m)) + + (define (transpose mat) + (accumulate-n <??> <??> mat)) + + (define (matrix-*-matrix m n) + (let ((cols (transpose n))) + (map <??> m))) + + *Exercise 2.38:* The `accumulate' procedure is also known as + `fold-right', because it combines the first element of the + sequence with the result of combining all the elements to the + right. There is also a `fold-left', which is similar to + `fold-right', except that it combines elements working in the + opposite direction: + + (define (fold-left op initial sequence) + (define (iter result rest) + (if (null? rest) + result + (iter (op result (car rest)) + (cdr rest)))) + (iter initial sequence)) + + What are the values of + + (fold-right / 1 (list 1 2 3)) + + (fold-left / 1 (list 1 2 3)) + + (fold-right list nil (list 1 2 3)) + + (fold-left list nil (list 1 2 3)) + + Give a property that `op' should satisfy to guarantee that + `fold-right' and `fold-left' will produce the same values for any + sequence. + + *Exercise 2.39:* Complete the following definitions of `reverse' + (*Note Exercise 2-18::) in terms of `fold-right' and `fold-left' + from *Note Exercise 2-38::: + + (define (reverse sequence) + (fold-right (lambda (x y) <??>) nil sequence)) + + (define (reverse sequence) + (fold-left (lambda (x y) <??>) nil sequence)) + +Nested Mappings +............... + +We can extend the sequence paradigm to include many computations that +are commonly expressed using nested loops.(5) Consider this problem: +Given a positive integer n, find all ordered pairs of distinct positive +integers i and j, where 1 <= j< i<= n, such that i + j is prime. For +example, if n is 6, then the pairs are the following: + + i | 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 + j | 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 + ------+--------------- + i + j | 3 5 5 7 7 7 11 + + A natural way to organize this computation is to generate the +sequence of all ordered pairs of positive integers less than or equal +to n, filter to select those pairs whose sum is prime, and then, for +each pair (i, j) that passes through the filter, produce the triple +(i,j,i + j). + + Here is a way to generate the sequence of pairs: For each integer i +<= n, enumerate the integers j<i, and for each such i and j generate +the pair (i,j). In terms of sequence operations, we map along the +sequence `(enumerate-interval 1 n)'. For each i in this sequence, we +map along the sequence `(enumerate-interval 1 (- i 1))'. For each j in +this latter sequence, we generate the pair `(list i j)'. This gives us +a sequence of pairs for each i. Combining all the sequences for all +the i (by accumulating with `append') produces the required sequence of +pairs:(6) + + (accumulate append + nil + (map (lambda (i) + (map (lambda (j) (list i j)) + (enumerate-interval 1 (- i 1)))) + (enumerate-interval 1 n))) + + The combination of mapping and accumulating with `append' is so +common in this sort of program that we will isolate it as a separate +procedure: + + (define (flatmap proc seq) + (accumulate append nil (map proc seq))) + + Now filter this sequence of pairs to find those whose sum is prime. +The filter predicate is called for each element of the sequence; its +argument is a pair and it must extract the integers from the pair. +Thus, the predicate to apply to each element in the sequence is + + (define (prime-sum? pair) + (prime? (+ (car pair) (cadr pair)))) + + Finally, generate the sequence of results by mapping over the +filtered pairs using the following procedure, which constructs a triple +consisting of the two elements of the pair along with their sum: + + (define (make-pair-sum pair) + (list (car pair) (cadr pair) (+ (car pair) (cadr pair)))) + + Combining all these steps yields the complete procedure: + + (define (prime-sum-pairs n) + (map make-pair-sum + (filter prime-sum? + (flatmap + (lambda (i) + (map (lambda (j) (list i j)) + (enumerate-interval 1 (- i 1)))) + (enumerate-interval 1 n))))) + + Nested mappings are also useful for sequences other than those that +enumerate intervals. Suppose we wish to generate all the permutations +of a set S; that is, all the ways of ordering the items in the set. +For instance, the permutations of {1,2,3} are {1,2,3}, {1,3,2}, +{2,1,3}, {2,3,1}, {3,1,2}, and {3,2,1}. Here is a plan for generating +the permutations of S: For each item x in S, recursively generate the +sequence of permutations of S - x,(7) and adjoin x to the front of each +one. This yields, for each x in S, the sequence of permutations of S +that begin with x. Combining these sequences for all x gives all the +permutations of S:(8) + + (define (permutations s) + (if (null? s) ; empty set? + (list nil) ; sequence containing empty set + (flatmap (lambda (x) + (map (lambda (p) (cons x p)) + (permutations (remove x s)))) + s))) + + Notice how this strategy reduces the problem of generating +permutations of S to the problem of generating the permutations of sets +with fewer elements than S. In the terminal case, we work our way down +to the empty list, which represents a set of no elements. For this, we +generate `(list nil)', which is a sequence with one item, namely the +set with no elements. The `remove' procedure used in `permutations' +returns all the items in a given sequence except for a given item. +This can be expressed as a simple filter: + + (define (remove item sequence) + (filter (lambda (x) (not (= x item))) + sequence)) + + *Exercise 2.40:* Define a procedure `unique-pairs' that, given an + integer n, generates the sequence of pairs (i,j) with 1 <= j< i <= + n. Use `unique-pairs' to simplify the definition of + `prime-sum-pairs' given above. + + *Exercise 2.41:* Write a procedure to find all ordered triples of + distinct positive integers i, j, and k less than or equal to a + given integer n that sum to a given integer s. + + *Figure 2.8:* A solution to the eight-queens puzzle. + + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | | | | | Q | | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | | Q | | | | | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | Q | | | | | | | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | | | | | | Q | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | | | | Q | | | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | | | | | | | Q | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | Q | | | | | | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + | | | | Q | | | | | + +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ + + *Exercise 2.42:* The "eight-queens puzzle" asks how to place eight + queens on a chessboard so that no queen is in check from any other + (i.e., no two queens are in the same row, column, or diagonal). + One possible solution is shown in *Note Figure 2-8::. One way to + solve the puzzle is to work across the board, placing a queen in + each column. Once we have placed k - 1 queens, we must place the + kth queen in a position where it does not check any of the queens + already on the board. We can formulate this approach recursively: + Assume that we have already generated the sequence of all possible + ways to place k - 1 queens in the first k - 1 columns of the + board. For each of these ways, generate an extended set of + positions by placing a queen in each row of the kth column. Now + filter these, keeping only the positions for which the queen in + the kth column is safe with respect to the other queens. This + produces the sequence of all ways to place k queens in the first k + columns. By continuing this process, we will produce not only one + solution, but all solutions to the puzzle. + + We implement this solution as a procedure `queens', which returns a + sequence of all solutions to the problem of placing n queens on an + n*n chessboard. `Queens' has an internal procedure `queen-cols' + that returns the sequence of all ways to place queens in the first + k columns of the board. + + (define (queens board-size) + (define (queen-cols k) + (if (= k 0) + (list empty-board) + (filter + (lambda (positions) (safe? k positions)) + (flatmap + (lambda (rest-of-queens) + (map (lambda (new-row) + (adjoin-position new-row k rest-of-queens)) + (enumerate-interval 1 board-size))) + (queen-cols (- k 1)))))) + (queen-cols board-size)) + + In this procedure `rest-of-queens' is a way to place k - 1 queens + in the first k - 1 columns, and `new-row' is a proposed row in + which to place the queen for the kth column. Complete the program + by implementing the representation for sets of board positions, + including the procedure `adjoin-position', which adjoins a new + row-column position to a set of positions, and `empty-board', + which represents an empty set of positions. You must also write + the procedure `safe?', which determines for a set of positions, + whether the queen in the kth column is safe with respect to the + others. (Note that we need only check whether the new queen is + safe--the other queens are already guaranteed safe with respect to + each other.) + + *Exercise 2.43:* Louis Reasoner is having a terrible time doing + *Note Exercise 2-42::. His `queens' procedure seems to work, but + it runs extremely slowly. (Louis never does manage to wait long + enough for it to solve even the 6*6 case.) When Louis asks Eva Lu + Ator for help, she points out that he has interchanged the order + of the nested mappings in the `flatmap', writing it as + + (flatmap + (lambda (new-row) + (map (lambda (rest-of-queens) + (adjoin-position new-row k rest-of-queens)) + (queen-cols (- k 1)))) + (enumerate-interval 1 board-size)) + + Explain why this interchange makes the program run slowly. + Estimate how long it will take Louis's program to solve the + eight-queens puzzle, assuming that the program in *Note Exercise + 2-42:: solves the puzzle in time T. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This is, in fact, precisely the `fringe' procedure from *Note +Exercise 2-28::. Here we've renamed it to emphasize that it is part of +a family of general sequence-manipulation procedures. + + (2) Richard Waters (1979) developed a program that automatically +analyzes traditional Fortran programs, viewing them in terms of maps, +filters, and accumulations. He found that fully 90 percent of the code +in the Fortran Scientific Subroutine Package fits neatly into this +paradigm. One of the reasons for the success of Lisp as a programming +language is that lists provide a standard medium for expressing ordered +collections so that they can be manipulated using higher-order +operations. The programming language APL owes much of its power and +appeal to a similar choice. In APL all data are represented as arrays, +and there is a universal and convenient set of generic operators for +all sorts of array operations. + + (3) According to Knuth (1981), this rule was formulated by W. G. +Horner early in the nineteenth century, but the method was actually used +by Newton over a hundred years earlier. Horner's rule evaluates the +polynomial using fewer additions and multiplications than does the +straightforward method of first computing a_n x^n, then adding +a_(n-1)x^(n-1), and so on. In fact, it is possible to prove that any +algorithm for evaluating arbitrary polynomials must use at least as +many additions and multiplications as does Horner's rule, and thus +Horner's rule is an optimal algorithm for polynomial evaluation. This +was proved (for the number of additions) by A. M. Ostrowski in a 1954 +paper that essentially founded the modern study of optimal algorithms. +The analogous statement for multiplications was proved by V. Y. Pan in +1966. The book by Borodin and Munro (1975) provides an overview of +these and other results about optimal algorithms. + + (4) This definition uses the extended version of `map' described in +*Note Footnote 12::. + + (5) This approach to nested mappings was shown to us by David +Turner, whose languages KRC and Miranda provide elegant formalisms for +dealing with these constructs. The examples in this section (see also +*Note Exercise 2-42::) are adapted from Turner 1981. In section *Note +3-5-3::, we'll see how this approach generalizes to infinite sequences. + + (6) We're representing a pair here as a list of two elements rather +than as a Lisp pair. Thus, the "pair" (i,j) is represented as `(list i +j)', not `(cons i j)'. + + (7) The set S - x is the set of all elements of S, excluding x. + + (8) Semicolons in Scheme code are used to introduce "comments". +Everything from the semicolon to the end of the line is ignored by the +interpreter. In this book we don't use many comments; we try to make +our programs self-documenting by using descriptive names. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-2-4, Prev: 2-2-3, Up: 2-2 + +2.2.4 Example: A Picture Language +--------------------------------- + +This section presents a simple language for drawing pictures that +illustrates the power of data abstraction and closure, and also +exploits higher-order procedures in an essential way. The language is +designed to make it easy to experiment with patterns such as the ones +in *Note Figure 2-9::, which are composed of repeated elements that are +shifted and scaled.(1) In this language, the data objects being +combined are represented as procedures rather than as list structure. +Just as `cons', which satisfies the closure property, allowed us to +easily build arbitrarily complicated list structure, the operations in +this language, which also satisfy the closure property, allow us to +easily build arbitrarily complicated patterns. + + *Figure 2.9:* Designs generated with the picture language. + + [two graphic images not included] + +The picture language +.................... + +When we began our study of programming in section *Note 1-1::, we +emphasized the importance of describing a language by focusing on the +language's primitives, its means of combination, and its means of +abstraction. We'll follow that framework here. + + Part of the elegance of this picture language is that there is only +one kind of element, called a "painter". A painter draws an image that +is shifted and scaled to fit within a designated parallelogram-shaped +frame. For example, there's a primitive painter we'll call `wave' that +makes a crude line drawing, as shown in *Note Figure 2-10::. The +actual shape of the drawing depends on the frame--all four images in +*Note Figure 2-10:: are produced by the same `wave' painter, but with +respect to four different frames. Painters can be more elaborate than +this: The primitive painter called `rogers' paints a picture of MIT's +founder, William Barton Rogers, as shown in *Note Figure 2-11::.(2) The +four images in *Note Figure 2-11:: are drawn with respect to the same +four frames as the `wave' images in *Note Figure 2-10::. + + To combine images, we use various operations that construct new +painters from given painters. For example, the `beside' operation +takes two painters and produces a new, compound painter that draws the +first painter's image in the left half of the frame and the second +painter's image in the right half of the frame. Similarly, `below' +takes two painters and produces a compound painter that draws the first +painter's image below the second painter's image. Some operations +transform a single painter to produce a new painter. For example, +`flip-vert' takes a painter and produces a painter that draws its image +upside-down, and `flip-horiz' produces a painter that draws the +original painter's image left-to-right reversed. + + *Figure 2.10:* Images produced by the `wave' painter, with respect + to four different frames. The frames, shown with dotted lines, + are not part of the images. + + [four graphic images not included] + + *Figure 2.11:* Images of William Barton Rogers, founder and first + president of MIT, painted with respect to the same four frames as + in *Note Figure 2-10:: (original image reprinted with the + permission of the MIT Museum). + + [four graphic images not included] + + *Note Figure 2-12:: shows the drawing of a painter called `wave4' +that is built up in two stages starting from `wave': + + (define wave2 (beside wave (flip-vert wave))) + (define wave4 (below wave2 wave2)) + + *Figure 2.12:* Creating a complex figure, starting from the `wave' + painter of *Note Figure 2-10::. + + [two graphic images not included] + + (define wave2 (define wave4 + (beside wave (flip-vert wave))) (below wave2 wave2)) + + In building up a complex image in this manner we are exploiting the +fact that painters are closed under the language's means of +combination. The `beside' or `below' of two painters is itself a +painter; therefore, we can use it as an element in making more complex +painters. As with building up list structure using `cons', the closure +of our data under the means of combination is crucial to the ability to +create complex structures while using only a few operations. + + Once we can combine painters, we would like to be able to abstract +typical patterns of combining painters. We will implement the painter +operations as Scheme procedures. This means that we don't need a +special abstraction mechanism in the picture language: Since the means +of combination are ordinary Scheme procedures, we automatically have +the capability to do anything with painter operations that we can do +with procedures. For example, we can abstract the pattern in `wave4' as + + (define (flipped-pairs painter) + (let ((painter2 (beside painter (flip-vert painter)))) + (below painter2 painter2))) + +and define `wave4' as an instance of this pattern: + + (define wave4 (flipped-pairs wave)) + + We can also define recursive operations. Here's one that makes +painters split and branch towards the right as shown in figures *Note +Figure 2-13:: and *Note Figure 2-14::: + + (define (right-split painter n) + (if (= n 0) + painter + (let ((smaller (right-split painter (- n 1)))) + (beside painter (below smaller smaller))))) + + *Figure 2.13:* Recursive plans for `right-split' and + `corner-split'. + + +-------------+-------------+ +------+------+-------------+ + | | | | up- | up- | | + | | right-split | | split| split| corner-split| + | | | | | | | + | | n-1 | | n-1 | n-1 | n-1 | + | | | | | | | + | identity +-------------+ +------+------+-------------+ + | | | | | right-split | + | | right-split | | | n-1 | + | | | | identity +-------------+ + | | n-1 | | | right-split | + | | | | | n-1 | + +-------------+-------------+ +-------------+-------------+ + + right-split n corner-split n + + We can produce balanced patterns by branching upwards as well as +towards the right (see *Note Exercise 2-44:: and figures *Note Figure +2-13:: and *Note Figure 2-14::): + + (define (corner-split painter n) + (if (= n 0) + painter + (let ((up (up-split painter (- n 1))) + (right (right-split painter (- n 1)))) + (let ((top-left (beside up up)) + (bottom-right (below right right)) + (corner (corner-split painter (- n 1)))) + (beside (below painter top-left) + (below bottom-right corner)))))) + + *Figure 2.14:* The recursive operations `right-split' and + `corner-split' applied to the painters `wave' and `rogers'. + Combining four `corner-split' figures produces symmetric + `square-limit' designs as shown in *Note Figure 2-9::. + + [two graphic images not included] + + (right-split wave 4) (right-split rogers 4) + + [two graphic images not included] + + (corner-split wave 4) (corner-split rogers 4) + + By placing four copies of a `corner-split' appropriately, we obtain a +pattern called `square-limit', whose application to `wave' and `rogers' +is shown in *Note Figure 2-9::: + + (define (square-limit painter n) + (let ((quarter (corner-split painter n))) + (let ((half (beside (flip-horiz quarter) quarter))) + (below (flip-vert half) half)))) + + *Exercise 2.44:* Define the procedure `up-split' used by + `corner-split'. It is similar to `right-split', except that it + switches the roles of `below' and `beside'. + +Higher-order operations +....................... + +In addition to abstracting patterns of combining painters, we can work +at a higher level, abstracting patterns of combining painter +operations. That is, we can view the painter operations as elements to +manipulate and can write means of combination for these +elements--procedures that take painter operations as arguments and +create new painter operations. + + For example, `flipped-pairs' and `square-limit' each arrange four +copies of a painter's image in a square pattern; they differ only in +how they orient the copies. One way to abstract this pattern of +painter combination is with the following procedure, which takes four +one-argument painter operations and produces a painter operation that +transforms a given painter with those four operations and arranges the +results in a square. `Tl', `tr', `bl', and `br' are the +transformations to apply to the top left copy, the top right copy, the +bottom left copy, and the bottom right copy, respectively. + + (define (square-of-four tl tr bl br) + (lambda (painter) + (let ((top (beside (tl painter) (tr painter))) + (bottom (beside (bl painter) (br painter)))) + (below bottom top)))) + + Then `flipped-pairs' can be defined in terms of `square-of-four' as +follows:(3) + + (define (flipped-pairs painter) + (let ((combine4 (square-of-four identity flip-vert + identity flip-vert))) + (combine4 painter))) + +and `square-limit' can be expressed as(4) + + (define (square-limit painter n) + (let ((combine4 (square-of-four flip-horiz identity + rotate180 flip-vert))) + (combine4 (corner-split painter n)))) + + *Exercise 2.45:* `Right-split' and `up-split' can be expressed as + instances of a general splitting operation. Define a procedure + `split' with the property that evaluating + + (define right-split (split beside below)) + (define up-split (split below beside)) + + produces procedures `right-split' and `up-split' with the same + behaviors as the ones already defined. + +Frames +...... + +Before we can show how to implement painters and their means of +combination, we must first consider frames. A frame can be described +by three vectors--an origin vector and two edge vectors. The origin +vector specifies the offset of the frame's origin from some absolute +origin in the plane, and the edge vectors specify the offsets of the +frame's corners from its origin. If the edges are perpendicular, the +frame will be rectangular. Otherwise the frame will be a more general +parallelogram. + + *Note Figure 2-15:: shows a frame and its associated vectors. In +accordance with data abstraction, we need not be specific yet about how +frames are represented, other than to say that there is a constructor +`make-frame', which takes three vectors and produces a frame, and three +corresponding selectors `origin-frame', `edge1-frame', and +`edge2-frame' (see *Note Exercise 2-47::). + + *Figure 2.15:* A frame is described by three vectors - an origin + and two edges. + + __ + __-- \ + __-- \ + __ __-- \ __ + |\ __-- \__-| + \- __-- + frame \ __-- + edge2 \ __-- frame + vector \ __-- edge1 + \_-- vector + - <--+ + frame | + origin +-- (0,0) point + vector on display screen + + We will use coordinates in the unit square (0<= x,y<= 1) to specify +images. With each frame, we associate a "frame coordinate map", which +will be used to shift and scale images to fit the frame. The map +transforms the unit square into the frame by mapping the vector v = +(x,y) to the vector sum + + Origin(Frame) + r * Edge_1(Frame) + y * Edge_2(Frame) + +For example, (0,0) is mapped to the origin of the frame, (1,1) to the +vertex diagonally opposite the origin, and (0.5,0.5) to the center of +the frame. We can create a frame's coordinate map with the following +procedure:(5) + + (define (frame-coord-map frame) + (lambda (v) + (add-vect + (origin-frame frame) + (add-vect (scale-vect (xcor-vect v) + (edge1-frame frame)) + (scale-vect (ycor-vect v) + (edge2-frame frame)))))) + + Observe that applying `frame-coord-map' to a frame returns a +procedure that, given a vector, returns a vector. If the argument +vector is in the unit square, the result vector will be in the frame. +For example, + + ((frame-coord-map a-frame) (make-vect 0 0)) + +returns the same vector as + + (origin-frame a-frame) + + *Exercise 2.46:* A two-dimensional vector v running from the + origin to a point can be represented as a pair consisting of an + x-coordinate and a y-coordinate. Implement a data abstraction for + vectors by giving a constructor `make-vect' and corresponding + selectors `xcor-vect' and `ycor-vect'. In terms of your selectors + and constructor, implement procedures `add-vect', `sub-vect', and + `scale-vect' that perform the operations vector addition, vector + subtraction, and multiplying a vector by a scalar: + + (x_1, y_1) + (x_2, y_2) = (x_1 + x_2, y_1 + y_2) + (x_1, y_1) - (x_2, y_2) = (x_1 - x_2, y_1 - y_2) + s * (x, y) = (sx, sy) + + *Exercise 2.47:* Here are two possible constructors for frames: + + (define (make-frame origin edge1 edge2) + (list origin edge1 edge2)) + + (define (make-frame origin edge1 edge2) + (cons origin (cons edge1 edge2))) + + For each constructor supply the appropriate selectors to produce an + implementation for frames. + +Painters +........ + +A painter is represented as a procedure that, given a frame as +argument, draws a particular image shifted and scaled to fit the frame. +That is to say, if `p' is a painter and `f' is a frame, then we +produce `p''s image in `f' by calling `p' with `f' as argument. + + The details of how primitive painters are implemented depend on the +particular characteristics of the graphics system and the type of image +to be drawn. For instance, suppose we have a procedure `draw-line' +that draws a line on the screen between two specified points. Then we +can create painters for line drawings, such as the `wave' painter in +*Note Figure 2-10::, from lists of line segments as follows:(6) + + (define (segments->painter segment-list) + (lambda (frame) + (for-each + (lambda (segment) + (draw-line + ((frame-coord-map frame) (start-segment segment)) + ((frame-coord-map frame) (end-segment segment)))) + segment-list))) + + The segments are given using coordinates with respect to the unit +square. For each segment in the list, the painter transforms the +segment endpoints with the frame coordinate map and draws a line +between the transformed points. + + Representing painters as procedures erects a powerful abstraction +barrier in the picture language. We can create and intermix all sorts +of primitive painters, based on a variety of graphics capabilities. The +details of their implementation do not matter. Any procedure can serve +as a painter, provided that it takes a frame as argument and draws +something scaled to fit the frame.(7) + + *Exercise 2.48:* A directed line segment in the plane can be + represented as a pair of vectors--the vector running from the + origin to the start-point of the segment, and the vector running + from the origin to the end-point of the segment. Use your vector + representation from *Note Exercise 2-46:: to define a + representation for segments with a constructor `make-segment' and + selectors `start-segment' and `end-segment'. + + *Exercise 2.49:* Use `segments->painter' to define the following + primitive painters: + + a. The painter that draws the outline of the designated frame. + + b. The painter that draws an "X" by connecting opposite corners + of the frame. + + c. The painter that draws a diamond shape by connecting the + midpoints of the sides of the frame. + + d. The `wave' painter. + + +Transforming and combining painters +................................... + +An operation on painters (such as `flip-vert' or `beside') works by +creating a painter that invokes the original painters with respect to +frames derived from the argument frame. Thus, for example, `flip-vert' +doesn't have to know how a painter works in order to flip it--it just +has to know how to turn a frame upside down: The flipped painter just +uses the original painter, but in the inverted frame. + + Painter operations are based on the procedure `transform-painter', +which takes as arguments a painter and information on how to transform +a frame and produces a new painter. The transformed painter, when +called on a frame, transforms the frame and calls the original painter +on the transformed frame. The arguments to `transform-painter' are +points (represented as vectors) that specify the corners of the new +frame: When mapped into the frame, the first point specifies the new +frame's origin and the other two specify the ends of its edge vectors. +Thus, arguments within the unit square specify a frame contained within +the original frame. + + (define (transform-painter painter origin corner1 corner2) + (lambda (frame) + (let ((m (frame-coord-map frame))) + (let ((new-origin (m origin))) + (painter + (make-frame new-origin + (sub-vect (m corner1) new-origin) + (sub-vect (m corner2) new-origin))))))) + + Here's how to flip painter images vertically: + + (define (flip-vert painter) + (transform-painter painter + (make-vect 0.0 1.0) ; new `origin' + (make-vect 1.0 1.0) ; new end of `edge1' + (make-vect 0.0 0.0))) ; new end of `edge2' + + Using `transform-painter', we can easily define new transformations. +For example, we can define a painter that shrinks its image to the +upper-right quarter of the frame it is given: + + (define (shrink-to-upper-right painter) + (transform-painter painter + (make-vect 0.5 0.5) + (make-vect 1.0 0.5) + (make-vect 0.5 1.0))) + + Other transformations rotate images counterclockwise by 90 degrees(8) + + (define (rotate90 painter) + (transform-painter painter + (make-vect 1.0 0.0) + (make-vect 1.0 1.0) + (make-vect 0.0 0.0))) + +or squash images towards the center of the frame:(9) + + (define (squash-inwards painter) + (transform-painter painter + (make-vect 0.0 0.0) + (make-vect 0.65 0.35) + (make-vect 0.35 0.65))) + + Frame transformation is also the key to defining means of combining +two or more painters. The `beside' procedure, for example, takes two +painters, transforms them to paint in the left and right halves of an +argument frame respectively, and produces a new, compound painter. +When the compound painter is given a frame, it calls the first +transformed painter to paint in the left half of the frame and calls +the second transformed painter to paint in the right half of the frame: + + (define (beside painter1 painter2) + (let ((split-point (make-vect 0.5 0.0))) + (let ((paint-left + (transform-painter painter1 + (make-vect 0.0 0.0) + split-point + (make-vect 0.0 1.0))) + (paint-right + (transform-painter painter2 + split-point + (make-vect 1.0 0.0) + (make-vect 0.5 1.0)))) + (lambda (frame) + (paint-left frame) + (paint-right frame))))) + + Observe how the painter data abstraction, and in particular the +representation of painters as procedures, makes `beside' easy to +implement. The `beside' procedure need not know anything about the +details of the component painters other than that each painter will +draw something in its designated frame. + + *Exercise 2.50:* Define the transformation `flip-horiz', which + flips painters horizontally, and transformations that rotate + painters counterclockwise by 180 degrees and 270 degrees. + + *Exercise 2.51:* Define the `below' operation for painters. + `Below' takes two painters as arguments. The resulting painter, + given a frame, draws with the first painter in the bottom of the + frame and with the second painter in the top. Define `below' in + two different ways--first by writing a procedure that is analogous + to the `beside' procedure given above, and again in terms of + `beside' and suitable rotation operations (from *Note Exercise + 2-50::). + +Levels of language for robust design +.................................... + +The picture language exercises some of the critical ideas we've +introduced about abstraction with procedures and data. The fundamental +data abstractions, painters, are implemented using procedural +representations, which enables the language to handle different basic +drawing capabilities in a uniform way. The means of combination +satisfy the closure property, which permits us to easily build up +complex designs. Finally, all the tools for abstracting procedures are +available to us for abstracting means of combination for painters. + + We have also obtained a glimpse of another crucial idea about +languages and program design. This is the approach of "stratified +design", the notion that a complex system should be structured as a +sequence of levels that are described using a sequence of languages. +Each level is constructed by combining parts that are regarded as +primitive at that level, and the parts constructed at each level are +used as primitives at the next level. The language used at each level +of a stratified design has primitives, means of combination, and means +of abstraction appropriate to that level of detail. + + Stratified design pervades the engineering of complex systems. For +example, in computer engineering, resistors and transistors are +combined (and described using a language of analog circuits) to produce +parts such as and-gates and or-gates, which form the primitives of a +language for digital-circuit design.(10) These parts are combined to +build processors, bus structures, and memory systems, which are in turn +combined to form computers, using languages appropriate to computer +architecture. Computers are combined to form distributed systems, using +languages appropriate for describing network interconnections, and so +on. + + As a tiny example of stratification, our picture language uses +primitive elements (primitive painters) that are created using a +language that specifies points and lines to provide the lists of line +segments for `segments->painter', or the shading details for a painter +like `rogers'. The bulk of our description of the picture language +focused on combining these primitives, using geometric combiners such +as `beside' and `below'. We also worked at a higher level, regarding +`beside' and `below' as primitives to be manipulated in a language +whose operations, such as `square-of-four', capture common patterns of +combining geometric combiners. + + Stratified design helps make programs "robust", that is, it makes it +likely that small changes in a specification will require +correspondingly small changes in the program. For instance, suppose we +wanted to change the image based on `wave' shown in *Note Figure 2-9::. +We could work at the lowest level to change the detailed appearance of +the `wave' element; we could work at the middle level to change the way +`corner-split' replicates the `wave'; we could work at the highest +level to change how `square-limit' arranges the four copies of the +corner. In general, each level of a stratified design provides a +different vocabulary for expressing the characteristics of the system, +and a different kind of ability to change it. + + *Exercise 2.52:* Make changes to the square limit of `wave' shown + in *Note Figure 2-9:: by working at each of the levels described + above. In particular: + + a. Add some segments to the primitive `wave' painter of *Note + Exercise 2-49:: (to add a smile, for example). + + b. Change the pattern constructed by `corner-split' (for + example, by using only one copy of the `up-split' and + `right-split' images instead of two). + + c. Modify the version of `square-limit' that uses + `square-of-four' so as to assemble the corners in a different + pattern. (For example, you might make the big Mr. Rogers + look outward from each corner of the square.) + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The picture language is based on the language Peter Henderson +created to construct images like M.C. Escher's "Square Limit" woodcut +(see Henderson 1982). The woodcut incorporates a repeated scaled +pattern, similar to the arrangements drawn using the `square-limit' +procedure in this section. + + (2) William Barton Rogers (1804-1882) was the founder and first +president of MIT. A geologist and talented teacher, he taught at +William and Mary College and at the University of Virginia. In 1859 he +moved to Boston, where he had more time for research, worked on a plan +for establishing a "polytechnic institute," and served as +Massachusetts's first State Inspector of Gas Meters. + + When MIT was established in 1861, Rogers was elected its first +president. Rogers espoused an ideal of "useful learning" that was +different from the university education of the time, with its +overemphasis on the classics, which, as he wrote, "stand in the way of +the broader, higher and more practical instruction and discipline of +the natural and social sciences." This education was likewise to be +different from narrow trade-school education. In Rogers's words: + + The world-enforced distinction between the practical and the + scientific worker is utterly futile, and the whole experience of + modern times has demonstrated its utter worthlessness. + + Rogers served as president of MIT until 1870, when he resigned due to +ill health. In 1878 the second president of MIT, John Runkle, resigned +under the pressure of a financial crisis brought on by the Panic of +1873 and strain of fighting off attempts by Harvard to take over MIT. +Rogers returned to hold the office of president until 1881. + + Rogers collapsed and died while addressing MIT's graduating class at +the commencement exercises of 1882. Runkle quoted Rogers's last words +in a memorial address delivered that same year: + + "As I stand here today and see what the Institute is, ... I call + to mind the beginnings of science. I remember one hundred and + fifty years ago Stephen Hales published a pamphlet on the subject + of illuminating gas, in which he stated that his researches had + demonstrated that 128 grains of bituminous coal - " "Bituminous + coal," these were his last words on earth. Here he bent forward, + as if consulting some notes on the table before him, then slowly + regaining an erect position, threw up his hands, and was + translated from the scene of his earthly labors and triumphs to + "the tomorrow of death," where the mysteries of life are solved, + and the disembodied spirit finds unending satisfaction in + contemplating the new and still unfathomable mysteries of the + infinite future. + + In the words of Francis A. Walker (MIT's third president): + + All his life he had borne himself most faithfully and heroically, + and he died as so good a knight would surely have wished, in + harness, at his post, and in the very part and act of public duty. + + (3) Equivalently, we could write + + (define flipped-pairs + (square-of-four identity flip-vert identity flip-vert)) + + (4) `Rotate180' rotates a painter by 180 degrees (see *Note Exercise +2-50::). Instead of `rotate180' we could say `(compose flip-vert +flip-horiz)', using the `compose' procedure from *Note Exercise 1-42::. + + (5) `Frame-coord-map' uses the vector operations described in *Note +Exercise 2-46:: below, which we assume have been implemented using some +representation for vectors. Because of data abstraction, it doesn't +matter what this vector representation is, so long as the vector +operations behave correctly. + + (6) `Segments->painter' uses the representation for line segments +described in *Note Exercise 2-48:: below. It also uses the `for-each' +procedure described in *Note Exercise 2-23::. + + (7) For example, the `rogers' painter of *Note Figure 2-11:: was +constructed from a gray-level image. For each point in a given frame, +the `rogers' painter determines the point in the image that is mapped +to it under the frame coordinate map, and shades it accordingly. By +allowing different types of painters, we are capitalizing on the +abstract data idea discussed in section *Note 2-1-3::, where we argued +that a rational-number representation could be anything at all that +satisfies an appropriate condition. Here we're using the fact that a +painter can be implemented in any way at all, so long as it draws +something in the designated frame. Section *Note 2-1-3:: also showed +how pairs could be implemented as procedures. Painters are our second +example of a procedural representation for data. + + (8) `Rotate90' is a pure rotation only for square frames, because it +also stretches and shrinks the image to fit into the rotated frame. + + (9) The diamond-shaped images in figures *Note Figure 2-10:: and +*Note Figure 2-11:: were created with `squash-inwards' applied to +`wave' and `rogers'. + + (10) Section *Note 3-3-4:: describes one such language. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-3, Next: 2-4, Prev: 2-2, Up: Chapter 2 + +2.3 Symbolic Data +================= + +All the compound data objects we have used so far were constructed +ultimately from numbers. In this section we extend the +representational capability of our language by introducing the ability +to work with arbitrary symbols as data. + +* Menu: + +* 2-3-1:: Quotation +* 2-3-2:: Example: Symbolic Differentiation +* 2-3-3:: Example: Representing Sets +* 2-3-4:: Example: Huffman Encoding Trees + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-3-1, Next: 2-3-2, Prev: 2-3, Up: 2-3 + +2.3.1 Quotation +--------------- + +If we can form compound data using symbols, we can have lists such as + + (a b c d) + (23 45 17) + ((Norah 12) (Molly 9) (Anna 7) (Lauren 6) (Charlotte 4)) + + Lists containing symbols can look just like the expressions of our +language: + + (* (+ 23 45) (+ x 9)) + + (define (fact n) (if (= n 1) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1))))) + + In order to manipulate symbols we need a new element in our +language: the ability to "quote" a data object. Suppose we want to +construct the list `(a b)'. We can't accomplish this with `(list a +b)', because this expression constructs a list of the "values" of `a' +and `b' rather than the symbols themselves. This issue is well known +in the context of natural languages, where words and sentences may be +regarded either as semantic entities or as character strings (syntactic +entities). The common practice in natural languages is to use +quotation marks to indicate that a word or a sentence is to be treated +literally as a string of characters. For instance, the first letter of +"John" is clearly "J." If we tell somebody "say your name aloud," we +expect to hear that person's name. However, if we tell somebody "say +`your name' aloud," we expect to hear the words "your name." Note that +we are forced to nest quotation marks to describe what somebody else +might say.(1) + + We can follow this same practice to identify lists and symbols that +are to be treated as data objects rather than as expressions to be +evaluated. However, our format for quoting differs from that of +natural languages in that we place a quotation mark (traditionally, the +single quote symbol `'') only at the beginning of the object to be +quoted. We can get away with this in Scheme syntax because we rely on +blanks and parentheses to delimit objects. Thus, the meaning of the +single quote character is to quote the next object.(2) + + Now we can distinguish between symbols and their values: + + (define a 1) + + (define b 2) + + (list a b) + (1 2) + + (list 'a 'b) + (a b) + + (list 'a b) + (a 2) + + Quotation also allows us to type in compound objects, using the +conventional printed representation for lists:(3) + + (car '(a b c)) + a + + (cdr '(a b c)) + (b c) + + In keeping with this, we can obtain the empty list by evaluating +`'()', and thus dispense with the variable `nil'. + + One additional primitive used in manipulating symbols is `eq?', which +takes two symbols as arguments and tests whether they are the same.(4) +Using `eq?', we can implement a useful procedure called `memq'. This +takes two arguments, a symbol and a list. If the symbol is not +contained in the list (i.e., is not `eq?' to any item in the list), +then `memq' returns false. Otherwise, it returns the sublist of the +list beginning with the first occurrence of the symbol: + + (define (memq item x) + (cond ((null? x) false) + ((eq? item (car x)) x) + (else (memq item (cdr x))))) + + For example, the value of + + (memq 'apple '(pear banana prune)) + +is false, whereas the value of + + (memq 'apple '(x (apple sauce) y apple pear)) + +is `(apple pear)'. + + *Exercise 2.53:* What would the interpreter print in response to + evaluating each of the following expressions? + + (list 'a 'b 'c) + + (list (list 'george)) + + (cdr '((x1 x2) (y1 y2))) + + (cadr '((x1 x2) (y1 y2))) + + (pair? (car '(a short list))) + + (memq 'red '((red shoes) (blue socks))) + + (memq 'red '(red shoes blue socks)) + + *Exercise 2.54:* Two lists are said to be `equal?' if they contain + equal elements arranged in the same order. For example, + + (equal? '(this is a list) '(this is a list)) + + is true, but + + (equal? '(this is a list) '(this (is a) list)) + + is false. To be more precise, we can define `equal?' recursively + in terms of the basic `eq?' equality of symbols by saying that `a' + and `b' are `equal?' if they are both symbols and the symbols are + `eq?', or if they are both lists such that `(car a)' is `equal?' + to `(car b)' and `(cdr a)' is `equal?' to `(cdr b)'. Using this + idea, implement `equal?' as a procedure.(5) + + *Exercise 2.55:* Eva Lu Ator types to the interpreter the + expression + + (car ''abracadabra) + + To her surprise, the interpreter prints back `quote'. Explain. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Allowing quotation in a language wreaks havoc with the ability +to reason about the language in simple terms, because it destroys the +notion that equals can be substituted for equals. For example, three +is one plus two, but the word "three" is not the phrase "one plus two." +Quotation is powerful because it gives us a way to build expressions +that manipulate other expressions (as we will see when we write an +interpreter in *Note Chapter 4::). But allowing statements in a +language that talk about other statements in that language makes it +very difficult to maintain any coherent principle of what "equals can +be substituted for equals" should mean. For example, if we know that +the evening star is the morning star, then from the statement "the +evening star is Venus" we can deduce "the morning star is Venus." +However, given that "John knows that the evening star is Venus" we +cannot infer that "John knows that the morning star is Venus." + + (2) The single quote is different from the double quote we have been +using to enclose character strings to be printed. Whereas the single +quote can be used to denote lists or symbols, the double quote is used +only with character strings. In this book, the only use for character +strings is as items to be printed. + + (3) Strictly, our use of the quotation mark violates the general +rule that all compound expressions in our language should be delimited +by parentheses and look like lists. We can recover this consistency by +introducing a special form `quote', which serves the same purpose as +the quotation mark. Thus, we would type `(quote a)' instead of `'a', +and we would type `(quote (a b c))' instead of `'(a b c)'. This is +precisely how the interpreter works. The quotation mark is just a +single-character abbreviation for wrapping the next complete expression +with `quote' to form `(quote <EXPRESSION>)'. This is important because +it maintains the principle that any expression seen by the interpreter +can be manipulated as a data object. For instance, we could construct +the expression `(car '(a b c))', which is the same as `(car (quote (a b +c)))', by evaluating `(list 'car (list 'quote '(a b c)))'. + + (4) We can consider two symbols to be "the same" if they consist of +the same characters in the same order. Such a definition skirts a deep +issue that we are not yet ready to address: the meaning of "sameness" +in a programming language. We will return to this in *Note Chapter 3:: +(section *Note 3-1-3::). + + (5) In practice, programmers use `equal?' to compare lists that +contain numbers as well as symbols. Numbers are not considered to be +symbols. The question of whether two numerically equal numbers (as +tested by `=') are also `eq?' is highly implementation-dependent. A +better definition of `equal?' (such as the one that comes as a +primitive in Scheme) would also stipulate that if `a' and `b' are both +numbers, then `a' and `b' are `equal?' if they are numerically equal. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-3-2, Next: 2-3-3, Prev: 2-3-1, Up: 2-3 + +2.3.2 Example: Symbolic Differentiation +--------------------------------------- + +As an illustration of symbol manipulation and a further illustration of +data abstraction, consider the design of a procedure that performs +symbolic differentiation of algebraic expressions. We would like the +procedure to take as arguments an algebraic expression and a variable +and to return the derivative of the expression with respect to the +variable. For example, if the arguments to the procedure are ax^2 + bx ++ c and x, the procedure should return 2ax + b. Symbolic +differentiation is of special historical significance in Lisp. It was +one of the motivating examples behind the development of a computer +language for symbol manipulation. Furthermore, it marked the beginning +of the line of research that led to the development of powerful systems +for symbolic mathematical work, which are currently being used by a +growing number of applied mathematicians and physicists. + + In developing the symbolic-differentiation program, we will follow +the same strategy of data abstraction that we followed in developing +the rational-number system of section *Note 2-1-1::. That is, we will +first define a differentiation algorithm that operates on abstract +objects such as "sums," "products," and "variables" without worrying +about how these are to be represented. Only afterward will we address +the representation problem. + +The differentiation program with abstract data +.............................................. + +In order to keep things simple, we will consider a very simple +symbolic-differentiation program that handles expressions that are +built up using only the operations of addition and multiplication with +two arguments. Differentiation of any such expression can be carried +out by applying the following reduction rules: + + dc + -- = 0 for c a constant, or a variable different from x + dx + + dx + -- = 1 + dx + + d(u + v) du dv + -------- = -- + -- + dx dx dx + + d(uv) / dv \ / du \ + ----- = u | -- | + v | -- | + dx \ dx / \ dx / + + Observe that the latter two rules are recursive in nature. That is, +to obtain the derivative of a sum we first find the derivatives of the +terms and add them. Each of the terms may in turn be an expression +that needs to be decomposed. Decomposing into smaller and smaller +pieces will eventually produce pieces that are either constants or +variables, whose derivatives will be either 0 or 1. + + To embody these rules in a procedure we indulge in a little wishful +thinking, as we did in designing the rational-number implementation. +If we had a means for representing algebraic expressions, we should be +able to tell whether an expression is a sum, a product, a constant, or +a variable. We should be able to extract the parts of an expression. +For a sum, for example we want to be able to extract the addend (first +term) and the augend (second term). We should also be able to +construct expressions from parts. Let us assume that we already have +procedures to implement the following selectors, constructors, and +predicates: + + (variable? e) Is `e' a variable? + (same-variable? v1 v2) Are `v1' and `v2' the same variable? + (sum? e) Is `e' a sum? + (addend e) Addend of the sum `e'. + (augend e) Augend of the sum `e'. + (make-sum a1 a2) Construct the sum of `a1' and `a2'. + (product? e) Is `e' a product? + (multiplier e) Multiplier of the product `e'. + (multiplicand e) Multiplicand of the product `e'. + (make-product m1 m2) Construct the product of `m1' and `m2'. + + Using these, and the primitive predicate `number?', which identifies +numbers, we can express the differentiation rules as the following +procedure: + + (define (deriv exp var) + (cond ((number? exp) 0) + ((variable? exp) + (if (same-variable? exp var) 1 0)) + ((sum? exp) + (make-sum (deriv (addend exp) var) + (deriv (augend exp) var))) + ((product? exp) + (make-sum + (make-product (multiplier exp) + (deriv (multiplicand exp) var)) + (make-product (deriv (multiplier exp) var) + (multiplicand exp)))) + (else + (error "unknown expression type -- DERIV" exp)))) + + This `deriv' procedure incorporates the complete differentiation +algorithm. Since it is expressed in terms of abstract data, it will +work no matter how we choose to represent algebraic expressions, as +long as we design a proper set of selectors and constructors. This is +the issue we must address next. + +Representing algebraic expressions +.................................. + +We can imagine many ways to use list structure to represent algebraic +expressions. For example, we could use lists of symbols that mirror +the usual algebraic notation, representing ax + b as the list `(a * x + +b)' . However, one especially straightforward choice is to use the same +parenthesized prefix notation that Lisp uses for combinations; that is, +to represent ax + b as `(+ (* a x) b)'. Then our data representation +for the differentiation problem is as follows: + + * The variables are symbols. They are identified by the primitive + predicate `symbol?': + + (define (variable? x) (symbol? x)) + + * Two variables are the same if the symbols representing them are + `eq?': + + (define (same-variable? v1 v2) + (and (variable? v1) (variable? v2) (eq? v1 v2))) + + * Sums and products are constructed as lists: + + (define (make-sum a1 a2) (list '+ a1 a2)) + + (define (make-product m1 m2) (list '* m1 m2)) + + * A sum is a list whose first element is the symbol `+': + + (define (sum? x) + (and (pair? x) (eq? (car x) '+))) + + * The addend is the second item of the sum list: + + (define (addend s) (cadr s)) + + * The augend is the third item of the sum list: + + (define (augend s) (caddr s)) + + * A product is a list whose first element is the symbol `*': + + (define (product? x) + (and (pair? x) (eq? (car x) '*))) + + * The multiplier is the second item of the product list: + + (define (multiplier p) (cadr p)) + + * The multiplicand is the third item of the product list: + + (define (multiplicand p) (caddr p)) + + + Thus, we need only combine these with the algorithm as embodied by +`deriv' in order to have a working symbolic-differentiation program. +Let us look at some examples of its behavior: + + (deriv '(+ x 3) 'x) + (+ 1 0) + + (deriv '(* x y) 'x) + (+ (* x 0) (* 1 y)) + + (deriv '(* (* x y) (+ x 3)) 'x) + (+ (* (* x y) (+ 1 0)) + (* (+ (* x 0) (* 1 y)) + (+ x 3))) + + The program produces answers that are correct; however, they are +unsimplified. It is true that + + d(xy) + ----- = x * 0 + 1 * y + dx + +but we would like the program to know that x * 0 = 0, 1 * y = y, and 0 ++ y = y. The answer for the second example should have been simply +`y'. As the third example shows, this becomes a serious issue when the +expressions are complex. + + Our difficulty is much like the one we encountered with the +rational-number implementation: we haven't reduced answers to simplest +form. To accomplish the rational-number reduction, we needed to change +only the constructors and the selectors of the implementation. We can +adopt a similar strategy here. We won't change `deriv' at all. +Instead, we will change `make-sum' so that if both summands are +numbers, `make-sum' will add them and return their sum. Also, if one +of the summands is 0, then `make-sum' will return the other summand. + + (define (make-sum a1 a2) + (cond ((=number? a1 0) a2) + ((=number? a2 0) a1) + ((and (number? a1) (number? a2)) (+ a1 a2)) + (else (list '+ a1 a2)))) + + This uses the procedure `=number?', which checks whether an +expression is equal to a given number: + + (define (=number? exp num) + (and (number? exp) (= exp num))) + + Similarly, we will change `make-product' to build in the rules that 0 +times anything is 0 and 1 times anything is the thing itself: + + (define (make-product m1 m2) + (cond ((or (=number? m1 0) (=number? m2 0)) 0) + ((=number? m1 1) m2) + ((=number? m2 1) m1) + ((and (number? m1) (number? m2)) (* m1 m2)) + (else (list '* m1 m2)))) + + Here is how this version works on our three examples: + + (deriv '(+ x 3) 'x) + 1 + + (deriv '(* x y) 'x) + y + + (deriv '(* (* x y) (+ x 3)) 'x) + (+ (* x y) (* y (+ x 3))) + + Although this is quite an improvement, the third example shows that +there is still a long way to go before we get a program that puts +expressions into a form that we might agree is "simplest." The problem +of algebraic simplification is complex because, among other reasons, a +form that may be simplest for one purpose may not be for another. + + *Exercise 2.56:* Show how to extend the basic differentiator to + handle more kinds of expressions. For instance, implement the + differentiation rule + + n_1 n_2 + --- = --- if and only if n_1 d_2 = n_2 d_1 + d_1 d_2 + + by adding a new clause to the `deriv' program and defining + appropriate procedures `exponentiation?', `base', `exponent', and + `make-exponentiation'. (You may use the symbol `**' to denote + exponentiation.) Build in the rules that anything raised to the + power 0 is 1 and anything raised to the power 1 is the thing + itself. + + *Exercise 2.57:* Extend the differentiation program to handle sums + and products of arbitrary numbers of (two or more) terms. Then + the last example above could be expressed as + + (deriv '(* x y (+ x 3)) 'x) + + Try to do this by changing only the representation for sums and + products, without changing the `deriv' procedure at all. For + example, the `addend' of a sum would be the first term, and the + `augend' would be the sum of the rest of the terms. + + *Exercise 2.58:* Suppose we want to modify the differentiation + program so that it works with ordinary mathematical notation, in + which `+' and `*' are infix rather than prefix operators. Since + the differentiation program is defined in terms of abstract data, + we can modify it to work with different representations of + expressions solely by changing the predicates, selectors, and + constructors that define the representation of the algebraic + expressions on which the differentiator is to operate. + + a. Show how to do this in order to differentiate algebraic + expressions presented in infix form, such as `(x + (3 * (x + + (y + 2))))'. To simplify the task, assume that `+' and `*' + always take two arguments and that expressions are fully + parenthesized. + + b. The problem becomes substantially harder if we allow standard + algebraic notation, such as `(x + 3 * (x + y + 2))', which + drops unnecessary parentheses and assumes that multiplication + is done before addition. Can you design appropriate + predicates, selectors, and constructors for this notation + such that our derivative program still works? + + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-3-3, Next: 2-3-4, Prev: 2-3-2, Up: 2-3 + +2.3.3 Example: Representing Sets +-------------------------------- + +In the previous examples we built representations for two kinds of +compound data objects: rational numbers and algebraic expressions. In +one of these examples we had the choice of simplifying (reducing) the +expressions at either construction time or selection time, but other +than that the choice of a representation for these structures in terms +of lists was straightforward. When we turn to the representation of +sets, the choice of a representation is not so obvious. Indeed, there +are a number of possible representations, and they differ significantly +from one another in several ways. + + Informally, a set is simply a collection of distinct objects. To +give a more precise definition we can employ the method of data +abstraction. That is, we define "set" by specifying the operations +that are to be used on sets. These are `union-set', +`intersection-set', `element-of-set?', and `adjoin-set'. +`Element-of-set?' is a predicate that determines whether a given +element is a member of a set. `Adjoin-set' takes an object and a set +as arguments and returns a set that contains the elements of the +original set and also the adjoined element. `Union-set' computes the +union of two sets, which is the set containing each element that +appears in either argument. `Intersection-set' computes the +intersection of two sets, which is the set containing only elements +that appear in both arguments. From the viewpoint of data abstraction, +we are free to design any representation that implements these +operations in a way consistent with the interpretations given above.(1) + +Sets as unordered lists +....................... + +One way to represent a set is as a list of its elements in which no +element appears more than once. The empty set is represented by the +empty list. In this representation, `element-of-set?' is similar to +the procedure `memq' of section *Note 2-3-1::. It uses `equal?' +instead of `eq?' so that the set elements need not be symbols: + + (define (element-of-set? x set) + (cond ((null? set) false) + ((equal? x (car set)) true) + (else (element-of-set? x (cdr set))))) + + Using this, we can write `adjoin-set'. If the object to be adjoined +is already in the set, we just return the set. Otherwise, we use +`cons' to add the object to the list that represents the set: + + (define (adjoin-set x set) + (if (element-of-set? x set) + set + (cons x set))) + + For `intersection-set' we can use a recursive strategy. If we know +how to form the intersection of `set2' and the `cdr' of `set1', we only +need to decide whether to include the `car' of `set1' in this. But +this depends on whether `(car set1)' is also in `set2'. Here is the +resulting procedure: + + (define (intersection-set set1 set2) + (cond ((or (null? set1) (null? set2)) '()) + ((element-of-set? (car set1) set2) + (cons (car set1) + (intersection-set (cdr set1) set2))) + (else (intersection-set (cdr set1) set2)))) + + In designing a representation, one of the issues we should be +concerned with is efficiency. Consider the number of steps required by +our set operations. Since they all use `element-of-set?', the speed of +this operation has a major impact on the efficiency of the set +implementation as a whole. Now, in order to check whether an object is +a member of a set, `element-of-set?' may have to scan the entire set. +(In the worst case, the object turns out not to be in the set.) Hence, +if the set has n elements, `element-of-set?' might take up to n steps. +Thus, the number of steps required grows as [theta](n). The number of +steps required by `adjoin-set', which uses this operation, also grows +as [theta](n). For `intersection-set', which does an `element-of-set?' +check for each element of `set1', the number of steps required grows as +the product of the sizes of the sets involved, or [theta](n^2) for two +sets of size n. The same will be true of `union-set'. + + *Exercise 2.59:* Implement the `union-set' operation for the + unordered-list representation of sets. + + *Exercise 2.60:* We specified that a set would be represented as a + list with no duplicates. Now suppose we allow duplicates. For + instance, the set {1,2,3} could be represented as the list `(2 3 2 + 1 3 2 2)'. Design procedures `element-of-set?', `adjoin-set', + `union-set', and `intersection-set' that operate on this + representation. How does the efficiency of each compare with the + corresponding procedure for the non-duplicate representation? Are + there applications for which you would use this representation in + preference to the non-duplicate one? + +Sets as ordered lists +..................... + +One way to speed up our set operations is to change the representation +so that the set elements are listed in increasing order. To do this, +we need some way to compare two objects so that we can say which is +bigger. For example, we could compare symbols lexicographically, or we +could agree on some method for assigning a unique number to an object +and then compare the elements by comparing the corresponding numbers. +To keep our discussion simple, we will consider only the case where the +set elements are numbers, so that we can compare elements using `>' and +`<'. We will represent a set of numbers by listing its elements in +increasing order. Whereas our first representation above allowed us to +represent the set {1,3,6,10} by listing the elements in any order, our +new representation allows only the list `(1 3 6 10)'. + + One advantage of ordering shows up in `element-of-set?': In checking +for the presence of an item, we no longer have to scan the entire set. +If we reach a set element that is larger than the item we are looking +for, then we know that the item is not in the set: + + (define (element-of-set? x set) + (cond ((null? set) false) + ((= x (car set)) true) + ((< x (car set)) false) + (else (element-of-set? x (cdr set))))) + + How many steps does this save? In the worst case, the item we are +looking for may be the largest one in the set, so the number of steps +is the same as for the unordered representation. On the other hand, if +we search for items of many different sizes we can expect that +sometimes we will be able to stop searching at a point near the +beginning of the list and that other times we will still need to +examine most of the list. On the average we should expect to have to +examine about half of the items in the set. Thus, the average number +of steps required will be about n/2. This is still [theta](n) growth, +but it does save us, on the average, a factor of 2 in number of steps +over the previous implementation. + + We obtain a more impressive speedup with `intersection-set'. In the +unordered representation this operation required [theta](n^2) steps, +because we performed a complete scan of `set2' for each element of +`set1'. But with the ordered representation, we can use a more clever +method. Begin by comparing the initial elements, `x1' and `x2', of the +two sets. If `x1' equals `x2', then that gives an element of the +intersection, and the rest of the intersection is the intersection of +the `cdr's of the two sets. Suppose, however, that `x1' is less than +`x2'. Since `x2' is the smallest element in `set2', we can immediately +conclude that `x1' cannot appear anywhere in `set2' and hence is not in +the intersection. Hence, the intersection is equal to the intersection +of `set2' with the `cdr' of `set1'. Similarly, if `x2' is less than +`x1', then the intersection is given by the intersection of `set1' with +the `cdr' of `set2'. Here is the procedure: + + (define (intersection-set set1 set2) + (if (or (null? set1) (null? set2)) + '() + (let ((x1 (car set1)) (x2 (car set2))) + (cond ((= x1 x2) + (cons x1 + (intersection-set (cdr set1) + (cdr set2)))) + ((< x1 x2) + (intersection-set (cdr set1) set2)) + ((< x2 x1) + (intersection-set set1 (cdr set2))))))) + + To estimate the number of steps required by this process, observe +that at each step we reduce the intersection problem to computing +intersections of smaller sets--removing the first element from `set1' +or `set2' or both. Thus, the number of steps required is at most the +sum of the sizes of `set1' and `set2', rather than the product of the +sizes as with the unordered representation. This is [theta](n) growth +rather than [theta](n^2)--a considerable speedup, even for sets of +moderate size. + + *Exercise 2.61:* Give an implementation of `adjoin-set' using the + ordered representation. By analogy with `element-of-set?' show + how to take advantage of the ordering to produce a procedure that + requires on the average about half as many steps as with the + unordered representation. + + *Exercise 2.62:* Give a [theta](n) implementation of `union-set' + for sets represented as ordered lists. + +Sets as binary trees +.................... + +We can do better than the ordered-list representation by arranging the +set elements in the form of a tree. Each node of the tree holds one +element of the set, called the "entry" at that node, and a link to each +of two other (possibly empty) nodes. The "left" link points to +elements smaller than the one at the node, and the "right" link to +elements greater than the one at the node. *Note Figure 2-16:: shows +some trees that represent the set {1,3,5,7,9,11}. The same set may be +represented by a tree in a number of different ways. The only thing we +require for a valid representation is that all elements in the left +subtree be smaller than the node entry and that all elements in the +right subtree be larger. + + *Figure 2.16:* Various binary trees that represent the set + {1,3,5,7,9,11}. + + 7 3 5 + /\ /\ /\ + 3 9 1 7 3 9 + /\ \ /\ / /\ + 1 5 11 5 9 1 7 11 + \ + 11 + + The advantage of the tree representation is this: Suppose we want to +check whether a number x is contained in a set. We begin by comparing +x with the entry in the top node. If x is less than this, we know that +we need only search the left subtree; if x is greater, we need only +search the right subtree. Now, if the tree is "balanced," each of +these subtrees will be about half the size of the original. Thus, in +one step we have reduced the problem of searching a tree of size n to +searching a tree of size n/2. Since the size of the tree is halved at +each step, we should expect that the number of steps needed to search a +tree of size n grows as [theta](`log' n).(2) For large sets, this will +be a significant speedup over the previous representations. + + We can represent trees by using lists. Each node will be a list of +three items: the entry at the node, the left subtree, and the right +subtree. A left or a right subtree of the empty list will indicate +that there is no subtree connected there. We can describe this +representation by the following procedures:(3) + + (define (entry tree) (car tree)) + + (define (left-branch tree) (cadr tree)) + + (define (right-branch tree) (caddr tree)) + + (define (make-tree entry left right) + (list entry left right)) + + Now we can write the `element-of-set?' procedure using the strategy +described above: + + (define (element-of-set? x set) + (cond ((null? set) false) + ((= x (entry set)) true) + ((< x (entry set)) + (element-of-set? x (left-branch set))) + ((> x (entry set)) + (element-of-set? x (right-branch set))))) + + Adjoining an item to a set is implemented similarly and also requires +[theta](`log' n) steps. To adjoin an item `x', we compare `x' with the +node entry to determine whether `x' should be added to the right or to +the left branch, and having adjoined `x' to the appropriate branch we +piece this newly constructed branch together with the original entry +and the other branch. If `x' is equal to the entry, we just return the +node. If we are asked to adjoin `x' to an empty tree, we generate a +tree that has `x' as the entry and empty right and left branches. Here +is the procedure: + + (define (adjoin-set x set) + (cond ((null? set) (make-tree x '() '())) + ((= x (entry set)) set) + ((< x (entry set)) + (make-tree (entry set) + (adjoin-set x (left-branch set)) + (right-branch set))) + ((> x (entry set)) + (make-tree (entry set) + (left-branch set) + (adjoin-set x (right-branch set)))))) + + The above claim that searching the tree can be performed in a +logarithmic number of steps rests on the assumption that the tree is +"balanced," i.e., that the left and the right subtree of every tree +have approximately the same number of elements, so that each subtree +contains about half the elements of its parent. But how can we be +certain that the trees we construct will be balanced? Even if we start +with a balanced tree, adding elements with `adjoin-set' may produce an +unbalanced result. Since the position of a newly adjoined element +depends on how the element compares with the items already in the set, +we can expect that if we add elements "randomly" the tree will tend to +be balanced on the average. But this is not a guarantee. For example, +if we start with an empty set and adjoin the numbers 1 through 7 in +sequence we end up with the highly unbalanced tree shown in *Note +Figure 2-17::. In this tree all the left subtrees are empty, so it has +no advantage over a simple ordered list. One way to solve this problem +is to define an operation that transforms an arbitrary tree into a +balanced tree with the same elements. Then we can perform this +transformation after every few `adjoin-set' operations to keep our set +in balance. There are also other ways to solve this problem, most of +which involve designing new data structures for which searching and +insertion both can be done in [theta](`log' n) steps.(4) + + *Figure 2.17:* Unbalanced tree produced by adjoining 1 through 7 + in sequence. + + 1 + \ + 2 + \ + 4 + \ + 5 + \ + 6 + \ + 7 + + *Exercise 2.63:* Each of the following two procedures converts a + binary tree to a list. + + (define (tree->list-1 tree) + (if (null? tree) + '() + (append (tree->list-1 (left-branch tree)) + (cons (entry tree) + (tree->list-1 (right-branch tree)))))) + + (define (tree->list-2 tree) + (define (copy-to-list tree result-list) + (if (null? tree) + result-list + (copy-to-list (left-branch tree) + (cons (entry tree) + (copy-to-list (right-branch tree) + result-list))))) + (copy-to-list tree '())) + + a. Do the two procedures produce the same result for every tree? + If not, how do the results differ? What lists do the two + procedures produce for the trees in *Note Figure 2-16::? + + b. Do the two procedures have the same order of growth in the + number of steps required to convert a balanced tree with n + elements to a list? If not, which one grows more slowly? + + + *Exercise 2.64:* The following procedure `list->tree' converts an + ordered list to a balanced binary tree. The helper procedure + `partial-tree' takes as arguments an integer n and list of at + least n elements and constructs a balanced tree containing the + first n elements of the list. The result returned by + `partial-tree' is a pair (formed with `cons') whose `car' is the + constructed tree and whose `cdr' is the list of elements not + included in the tree. + + (define (list->tree elements) + (car (partial-tree elements (length elements)))) + + (define (partial-tree elts n) + (if (= n 0) + (cons '() elts) + (let ((left-size (quotient (- n 1) 2))) + (let ((left-result (partial-tree elts left-size))) + (let ((left-tree (car left-result)) + (non-left-elts (cdr left-result)) + (right-size (- n (+ left-size 1)))) + (let ((this-entry (car non-left-elts)) + (right-result (partial-tree (cdr non-left-elts) + right-size))) + (let ((right-tree (car right-result)) + (remaining-elts (cdr right-result))) + (cons (make-tree this-entry left-tree right-tree) + remaining-elts)))))))) + + a. Write a short paragraph explaining as clearly as you can how + `partial-tree' works. Draw the tree produced by `list->tree' + for the list `(1 3 5 7 9 11)'. + + b. What is the order of growth in the number of steps required by + `list->tree' to convert a list of n elements? + + + *Exercise 2.65:* Use the results of *Note Exercise 2-63:: and + *Note Exercise 2-64:: to give [theta](n) implementations of + `union-set' and `intersection-set' for sets implemented as + (balanced) binary trees.(5) + +Sets and information retrieval +.............................. + +We have examined options for using lists to represent sets and have +seen how the choice of representation for a data object can have a +large impact on the performance of the programs that use the data. +Another reason for concentrating on sets is that the techniques +discussed here appear again and again in applications involving +information retrieval. + + Consider a data base containing a large number of individual +records, such as the personnel files for a company or the transactions +in an accounting system. A typical data-management system spends a +large amount of time accessing or modifying the data in the records and +therefore requires an efficient method for accessing records. This is +done by identifying a part of each record to serve as an identifying "key". +A key can be anything that uniquely identifies the record. For a +personnel file, it might be an employee's ID number. For an accounting +system, it might be a transaction number. Whatever the key is, when we +define the record as a data structure we should include a `key' +selector procedure that retrieves the key associated with a given +record. + + Now we represent the data base as a set of records. To locate the +record with a given key we use a procedure `lookup', which takes as +arguments a key and a data base and which returns the record that has +that key, or false if there is no such record. `Lookup' is implemented +in almost the same way as `element-of-set?'. For example, if the set +of records is implemented as an unordered list, we could use + + (define (lookup given-key set-of-records) + (cond ((null? set-of-records) false) + ((equal? given-key (key (car set-of-records))) + (car set-of-records)) + (else (lookup given-key (cdr set-of-records))))) + + Of course, there are better ways to represent large sets than as +unordered lists. Information-retrieval systems in which records have +to be "randomly accessed" are typically implemented by a tree-based +method, such as the binary-tree representation discussed previously. +In designing such a system the methodology of data abstraction can be a +great help. The designer can create an initial implementation using a +simple, straightforward representation such as unordered lists. This +will be unsuitable for the eventual system, but it can be useful in +providing a "quick and dirty" data base with which to test the rest of +the system. Later on, the data representation can be modified to be +more sophisticated. If the data base is accessed in terms of abstract +selectors and constructors, this change in representation will not +require any changes to the rest of the system. + + *Exercise 2.66:* Implement the `lookup' procedure for the case + where the set of records is structured as a binary tree, ordered + by the numerical values of the keys. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) If we want to be more formal, we can specify "consistent with +the interpretations given above" to mean that the operations satisfy a +collection of rules such as these: + + * For any set `S' and any object `x', `(element-of-set? x + (adjoin-set x S))' is true (informally: "Adjoining an object to a + set produces a set that contains the object"). + + * For any sets `S' and `T' and any object `x', `(element-of-set? x + (union-set S T))' is equal to `(or (element-of-set? x S) + (element-of-set? x T))' (informally: "The elements of `(union S + T)' are the elements that are in `S' or in `T'"). + + * For any object `x', `(element-of-set? x '())' is false + (informally: "No object is an element of the empty set"). + + + (2) Halving the size of the problem at each step is the +distinguishing characteristic of logarithmic growth, as we saw with the +fast-exponentiation algorithm of section *Note 1-2-4:: and the +half-interval search method of section *Note 1-3-3::. + + (3) We are representing sets in terms of trees, and trees in terms +of lists--in effect, a data abstraction built upon a data abstraction. +We can regard the procedures `entry', `left-branch', `right-branch', +and `make-tree' as a way of isolating the abstraction of a "binary +tree" from the particular way we might wish to represent such a tree in +terms of list structure. + + (4) Examples of such structures include "B-trees" and "red-black +trees". There is a large literature on data structures devoted to this +problem. See Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest 1990. + + (5) *Note Exercise 2-63:: through *Note Exercise 2-65:: are due to +Paul Hilfinger. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-3-4, Prev: 2-3-3, Up: 2-3 + +2.3.4 Example: Huffman Encoding Trees +------------------------------------- + +This section provides practice in the use of list structure and data +abstraction to manipulate sets and trees. The application is to +methods for representing data as sequences of ones and zeros (bits). +For example, the ASCII standard code used to represent text in +computers encodes each character as a sequence of seven bits. Using +seven bits allows us to distinguish 2^(7), or 128, possible different +characters. In general, if we want to distinguish n different symbols, +we will need to use `log'_2 n bits per symbol. If all our messages are +made up of the eight symbols A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, we can choose +a code with three bits per character, for example + + A 000 C 010 E 100 G 110 + B 001 D 011 F 101 H 111 + +With this code, the message + + BACADAEAFABBAAAGAH + +is encoded as the string of 54 bits + + 001000010000011000100000101000001001000000000110000111 + + Codes such as ASCII and the A-through-H code above are known as "fixed-length" +codes, because they represent each symbol in the message with the same +number of bits. It is sometimes advantageous to use "variable-length" +codes, in which different symbols may be represented by different +numbers of bits. For example, Morse code does not use the same number +of dots and dashes for each letter of the alphabet. In particular, E, +the most frequent letter, is represented by a single dot. In general, +if our messages are such that some symbols appear very frequently and +some very rarely, we can encode data more efficiently (i.e., using +fewer bits per message) if we assign shorter codes to the frequent +symbols. Consider the following alternative code for the letters A +through H: + + A 0 C 1010 E 1100 G 1110 + B 100 D 1011 F 1101 H 1111 + +With this code, the same message as above is encoded as the string + + 100010100101101100011010100100000111001111 + + This string contains 42 bits, so it saves more than 20% in space in +comparison with the fixed-length code shown above. + + One of the difficulties of using a variable-length code is knowing +when you have reached the end of a symbol in reading a sequence of +zeros and ones. Morse code solves this problem by using a special "separator +code" (in this case, a pause) after the sequence of dots and dashes for +each letter. Another solution is to design the code in such a way that +no complete code for any symbol is the beginning (or "prefix") of the +code for another symbol. Such a code is called a "prefix code". In +the example above, A is encoded by 0 and B is encoded by 100, so no +other symbol can have a code that begins with 0 or with 100. + + In general, we can attain significant savings if we use +variable-length prefix codes that take advantage of the relative +frequencies of the symbols in the messages to be encoded. One +particular scheme for doing this is called the Huffman encoding method, +after its discoverer, David Huffman. A Huffman code can be represented +as a binary tree whose leaves are the symbols that are encoded. At +each non-leaf node of the tree there is a set containing all the +symbols in the leaves that lie below the node. In addition, each +symbol at a leaf is assigned a weight (which is its relative +frequency), and each non-leaf node contains a weight that is the sum of +all the weights of the leaves lying below it. The weights are not used +in the encoding or the decoding process. We will see below how they +are used to help construct the tree. + + *Figure 2.18:* A Huffman encoding tree. + + {A B C D E F G H} 17 + * + / \ + / \ + A 8 * {B C D E F G H} 9 + __________/ \_____________ + / \ + {B C D} 5 * * {E F G H} 4 + / \ ___/ \___ + / \ / \ + B 3 * {C D} 2 {E F} 2 * * {G H} 2 + / \ / \ / \ + / \ / \ / \ + C 1 D 1 E 1 F 1 G 1 H 1 + + *Note Figure 2-18:: shows the Huffman tree for the A-through-H code +given above. The weights at the leaves indicate that the tree was +designed for messages in which A appears with relative frequency 8, B +with relative frequency 3, and the other letters each with relative +frequency 1. + + Given a Huffman tree, we can find the encoding of any symbol by +starting at the root and moving down until we reach the leaf that holds +the symbol. Each time we move down a left branch we add a 0 to the +code, and each time we move down a right branch we add a 1. (We decide +which branch to follow by testing to see which branch either is the +leaf node for the symbol or contains the symbol in its set.) For +example, starting from the root of the tree in *Note Figure 2-18::, we +arrive at the leaf for D by following a right branch, then a left +branch, then a right branch, then a right branch; hence, the code for D +is 1011. + + To decode a bit sequence using a Huffman tree, we begin at the root +and use the successive zeros and ones of the bit sequence to determine +whether to move down the left or the right branch. Each time we come +to a leaf, we have generated a new symbol in the message, at which +point we start over from the root of the tree to find the next symbol. +For example, suppose we are given the tree above and the sequence +10001010. Starting at the root, we move down the right branch, (since +the first bit of the string is 1), then down the left branch (since the +second bit is 0), then down the left branch (since the third bit is +also 0). This brings us to the leaf for B, so the first symbol of the +decoded message is B. Now we start again at the root, and we make a +left move because the next bit in the string is 0. This brings us to +the leaf for A. Then we start again at the root with the rest of the +string 1010, so we move right, left, right, left and reach C. Thus, +the entire message is BAC. + +Generating Huffman trees +........................ + +Given an "alphabet" of symbols and their relative frequencies, how do we +construct the "best" code? (In other words, which tree will encode +messages with the fewest bits?) Huffman gave an algorithm for doing +this and showed that the resulting code is indeed the best +variable-length code for messages where the relative frequency of the +symbols matches the frequencies with which the code was constructed. +We will not prove this optimality of Huffman codes here, but we will +show how Huffman trees are constructed.(1) + + The algorithm for generating a Huffman tree is very simple. The idea +is to arrange the tree so that the symbols with the lowest frequency +appear farthest away from the root. Begin with the set of leaf nodes, +containing symbols and their frequencies, as determined by the initial +data from which the code is to be constructed. Now find two leaves with +the lowest weights and merge them to produce a node that has these two +nodes as its left and right branches. The weight of the new node is the +sum of the two weights. Remove the two leaves from the original set and +replace them by this new node. Now continue this process. At each step, +merge two nodes with the smallest weights, removing them from the set +and replacing them with a node that has these two as its left and right +branches. The process stops when there is only one node left, which is +the root of the entire tree. Here is how the Huffman tree of *Note +Figure 2-18:: was generated: + + Initial leaves {(A 8) (B 3) (C 1) (D 1) (E 1) (F 1) (G 1) (H 1)} + Merge {(A 8) (B 3) ({C D} 2) (E 1) (F 1) (G 1) (H 1)} + Merge {(A 8) (B 3) ({C D} 2) ({E F} 2) (G 1) (H 1)} + Merge {(A 8) (B 3) ({C D} 2) ({E F} 2) ({G H} 2)} + Merge {(A 8) (B 3) ({C D} 2) ({E F G H} 4)} + Merge {(A 8) ({B C D} 5) ({E F G H} 4)} + Merge {(A 8) ({B C D E F G H} 9)} + Final merge {({A B C D E F G H} 17)} + + The algorithm does not always specify a unique tree, because there +may not be unique smallest-weight nodes at each step. Also, the choice +of the order in which the two nodes are merged (i.e., which will be the +right branch and which will be the left branch) is arbitrary. + +Representing Huffman trees +.......................... + +In the exercises below we will work with a system that uses Huffman +trees to encode and decode messages and generates Huffman trees +according to the algorithm outlined above. We will begin by discussing +how trees are represented. + + Leaves of the tree are represented by a list consisting of the symbol +`leaf', the symbol at the leaf, and the weight: + + (define (make-leaf symbol weight) + (list 'leaf symbol weight)) + + (define (leaf? object) + (eq? (car object) 'leaf)) + + (define (symbol-leaf x) (cadr x)) + + (define (weight-leaf x) (caddr x)) + + A general tree will be a list of a left branch, a right branch, a +set of symbols, and a weight. The set of symbols will be simply a list +of the symbols, rather than some more sophisticated set representation. +When we make a tree by merging two nodes, we obtain the weight of the +tree as the sum of the weights of the nodes, and the set of symbols as +the union of the sets of symbols for the nodes. Since our symbol sets +are represented as lists, we can form the union by using the `append' +procedure we defined in section *Note 2-2-1::: + + (define (make-code-tree left right) + (list left + right + (append (symbols left) (symbols right)) + (+ (weight left) (weight right)))) + + If we make a tree in this way, we have the following selectors: + + (define (left-branch tree) (car tree)) + + (define (right-branch tree) (cadr tree)) + + (define (symbols tree) + (if (leaf? tree) + (list (symbol-leaf tree)) + (caddr tree))) + + (define (weight tree) + (if (leaf? tree) + (weight-leaf tree) + (cadddr tree))) + + The procedures `symbols' and `weight' must do something slightly +different depending on whether they are called with a leaf or a general +tree. These are simple examples of "generic procedures" (procedures +that can handle more than one kind of data), which we will have much +more to say about in sections *Note 2-4:: and *Note 2-5::. + +The decoding procedure +...................... + +The following procedure implements the decoding algorithm. It takes as +arguments a list of zeros and ones, together with a Huffman tree. + + (define (decode bits tree) + (define (decode-1 bits current-branch) + (if (null? bits) + '() + (let ((next-branch + (choose-branch (car bits) current-branch))) + (if (leaf? next-branch) + (cons (symbol-leaf next-branch) + (decode-1 (cdr bits) tree)) + (decode-1 (cdr bits) next-branch))))) + (decode-1 bits tree)) + + (define (choose-branch bit branch) + (cond ((= bit 0) (left-branch branch)) + ((= bit 1) (right-branch branch)) + (else (error "bad bit -- CHOOSE-BRANCH" bit)))) + + The procedure `decode-1' takes two arguments: the list of remaining +bits and the current position in the tree. It keeps moving "down" the +tree, choosing a left or a right branch according to whether the next +bit in the list is a zero or a one. (This is done with the procedure +`choose-branch'.) When it reaches a leaf, it returns the symbol at +that leaf as the next symbol in the message by `cons'ing it onto the +result of decoding the rest of the message, starting at the root of the +tree. Note the error check in the final clause of `choose-branch', +which complains if the procedure finds something other than a zero or a +one in the input data. + +Sets of weighted elements +......................... + +In our representation of trees, each non-leaf node contains a set of +symbols, which we have represented as a simple list. However, the +tree-generating algorithm discussed above requires that we also work +with sets of leaves and trees, successively merging the two smallest +items. Since we will be required to repeatedly find the smallest item +in a set, it is convenient to use an ordered representation for this +kind of set. + + We will represent a set of leaves and trees as a list of elements, +arranged in increasing order of weight. The following `adjoin-set' +procedure for constructing sets is similar to the one described in +*Note Exercise 2-61::; however, items are compared by their weights, +and the element being added to the set is never already in it. + + (define (adjoin-set x set) + (cond ((null? set) (list x)) + ((< (weight x) (weight (car set))) (cons x set)) + (else (cons (car set) + (adjoin-set x (cdr set)))))) + + The following procedure takes a list of symbol-frequency pairs such +as `((A 4) (B 2) (C 1) (D 1))' and constructs an initial ordered set of +leaves, ready to be merged according to the Huffman algorithm: + + (define (make-leaf-set pairs) + (if (null? pairs) + '() + (let ((pair (car pairs))) + (adjoin-set (make-leaf (car pair) ; symbol + (cadr pair)) ; frequency + (make-leaf-set (cdr pairs)))))) + + *Exercise 2.67:* Define an encoding tree and a sample message: + + (define sample-tree + (make-code-tree (make-leaf 'A 4) + (make-code-tree + (make-leaf 'B 2) + (make-code-tree (make-leaf 'D 1) + (make-leaf 'C 1))))) + + (define sample-message '(0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0)) + + Use the `decode' procedure to decode the message, and give the + result. + + *Exercise 2.68:* The `encode' procedure takes as arguments a + message and a tree and produces the list of bits that gives the + encoded message. + + (define (encode message tree) + (if (null? message) + '() + (append (encode-symbol (car message) tree) + (encode (cdr message) tree)))) + + `Encode-symbol' is a procedure, which you must write, that returns + the list of bits that encodes a given symbol according to a given + tree. You should design `encode-symbol' so that it signals an + error if the symbol is not in the tree at all. Test your + procedure by encoding the result you obtained in *Note Exercise + 2-67:: with the sample tree and seeing whether it is the same as + the original sample message. + + *Exercise 2.69:* The following procedure takes as its argument a + list of symbol-frequency pairs (where no symbol appears in more + than one pair) and generates a Huffman encoding tree according to + the Huffman algorithm. + + (define (generate-huffman-tree pairs) + (successive-merge (make-leaf-set pairs))) + + `Make-leaf-set' is the procedure given above that transforms the + list of pairs into an ordered set of leaves. `Successive-merge' + is the procedure you must write, using `make-code-tree' to + successively merge the smallest-weight elements of the set until + there is only one element left, which is the desired Huffman tree. + (This procedure is slightly tricky, but not really complicated. + If you find yourself designing a complex procedure, then you are + almost certainly doing something wrong. You can take significant + advantage of the fact that we are using an ordered set + representation.) + + *Exercise 2.70:* The following eight-symbol alphabet with + associated relative frequencies was designed to efficiently encode + the lyrics of 1950s rock songs. (Note that the "symbols" of an + "alphabet" need not be individual letters.) + + A 2 NA 16 + BOOM 1 SHA 3 + GET 2 YIP 9 + JOB 2 WAH 1 + + Use `generate-huffman-tree' (*Note Exercise 2-69::) to generate a + corresponding Huffman tree, and use `encode' (*Note Exercise + 2-68::) to encode the following message: + + Get a job + + Sha na na na na na na na na + + Get a job + + Sha na na na na na na na na + + Wah yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip + + Sha boom + + How many bits are required for the encoding? What is the smallest + number of bits that would be needed to encode this song if we used + a fixed-length code for the eight-symbol alphabet? + + *Exercise 2.71:* Suppose we have a Huffman tree for an alphabet of + n symbols, and that the relative frequencies of the symbols are 1, + 2, 4, ..., 2^(n-1). Sketch the tree for n=5; for n=10. In such a + tree (for general n) how may bits are required to encode the most + frequent symbol? the least frequent symbol? + + *Exercise 2.72:* Consider the encoding procedure that you designed + in *Note Exercise 2-68::. What is the order of growth in the + number of steps needed to encode a symbol? Be sure to include the + number of steps needed to search the symbol list at each node + encountered. To answer this question in general is difficult. + Consider the special case where the relative frequencies of the n + symbols are as described in *Note Exercise 2-71::, and give the + order of growth (as a function of n) of the number of steps needed + to encode the most frequent and least frequent symbols in the + alphabet. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) See Hamming 1980 for a discussion of the mathematical properties +of Huffman codes. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-4, Next: 2-5, Prev: 2-3, Up: Chapter 2 + +2.4 Multiple Representations for Abstract Data +============================================== + +We have introduced data abstraction, a methodology for structuring +systems in such a way that much of a program can be specified +independent of the choices involved in implementing the data objects +that the program manipulates. For example, we saw in section *Note +2-1-1:: how to separate the task of designing a program that uses +rational numbers from the task of implementing rational numbers in +terms of the computer language's primitive mechanisms for constructing +compound data. The key idea was to erect an abstraction barrier - in +this case, the selectors and constructors for rational numbers +(`make-rat', `numer', `denom')--that isolates the way rational numbers +are used from their underlying representation in terms of list +structure. A similar abstraction barrier isolates the details of the +procedures that perform rational arithmetic (`add-rat', `sub-rat', +`mul-rat', and `div-rat') from the "higher-level" procedures that use +rational numbers. The resulting program has the structure shown in +*Note Figure 2-1::. + + These data-abstraction barriers are powerful tools for controlling +complexity. By isolating the underlying representations of data +objects, we can divide the task of designing a large program into +smaller tasks that can be performed separately. But this kind of data +abstraction is not yet powerful enough, because it may not always make +sense to speak of "the underlying representation" for a data object. + + For one thing, there might be more than one useful representation +for a data object, and we might like to design systems that can deal +with multiple representations. To take a simple example, complex +numbers may be represented in two almost equivalent ways: in +rectangular form (real and imaginary parts) and in polar form +(magnitude and angle). Sometimes rectangular form is more appropriate +and sometimes polar form is more appropriate. Indeed, it is perfectly +plausible to imagine a system in which complex numbers are represented +in both ways, and in which the procedures for manipulating complex +numbers work with either representation. + + More importantly, programming systems are often designed by many +people working over extended periods of time, subject to requirements +that change over time. In such an environment, it is simply not +possible for everyone to agree in advance on choices of data +representation. So in addition to the data-abstraction barriers that +isolate representation from use, we need abstraction barriers that +isolate different design choices from each other and permit different +choices to coexist in a single program. Furthermore, since large +programs are often created by combining pre-existing modules that were +designed in isolation, we need conventions that permit programmers to +incorporate modules into larger systems "additively", that is, without +having to redesign or reimplement these modules. + + In this section, we will learn how to cope with data that may be +represented in different ways by different parts of a program. This +requires constructing "generic procedures"--procedures that can operate +on data that may be represented in more than one way. Our main +technique for building generic procedures will be to work in terms of +data objects that have tags "type tags", that is, data objects that +include explicit information about how they are to be processed. We +will also discuss "data-directed" programming, a powerful and +convenient implementation strategy for additively assembling systems +with generic operations. + + We begin with the simple complex-number example. We will see how +type tags and data-directed style enable us to design separate +rectangular and polar representations for complex numbers while +maintaining the notion of an abstract "complex-number" data object. We +will accomplish this by defining arithmetic procedures for complex +numbers (`add-complex', `sub-complex', `mul-complex', and +`div-complex') in terms of generic selectors that access parts of a +complex number independent of how the number is represented. The +resulting complex-number system, as shown in *Note Figure 2-19::, +contains two different kinds of abstraction barriers. The "horizontal" +abstraction barriers play the same role as the ones in *Note Figure +2-1::. They isolate "higher-level" operations from "lower-level" +representations. In addition, there is a "vertical" barrier that gives +us the ability to separately design and install alternative +representations. + + *Figure 2.19:* Data-abstraction barriers in the complex-number + system. + + Programs that use complex numbers + +-------------------------------------------------+ + --| add-complex sub-complex mul-complex div-complex |-- + +-------------------------------------------------+ + Complex arithmetic package + ---------------------------+--------------------------- + Rectangular | Polar + representation | representation + ---------------------------+--------------------------- + List structure and primitive machine arithmetic + + In section *Note 2-5:: we will show how to use type tags and +data-directed style to develop a generic arithmetic package. This +provides procedures (`add', `mul', and so on) that can be used to +manipulate all sorts of "numbers" and can be easily extended when a new +kind of number is needed. In section *Note 2-5-3::, we'll show how to +use generic arithmetic in a system that performs symbolic algebra. + +* Menu: + +* 2-4-1:: Representations for Complex Numbers +* 2-4-2:: Tagged data +* 2-4-3:: Data-Directed Programming and Additivity + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-4-1, Next: 2-4-2, Prev: 2-4, Up: 2-4 + +2.4.1 Representations for Complex Numbers +----------------------------------------- + +We will develop a system that performs arithmetic operations on complex +numbers as a simple but unrealistic example of a program that uses +generic operations. We begin by discussing two plausible +representations for complex numbers as ordered pairs: rectangular form +(real part and imaginary part) and polar form (magnitude and angle).(1) +Section *Note 2-4-2:: will show how both representations can be made +to coexist in a single system through the use of type tags and generic +operations. + + Like rational numbers, complex numbers are naturally represented as +ordered pairs. The set of complex numbers can be thought of as a +two-dimensional space with two orthogonal axes, the "real" axis and the +"imaginary" axis. (See *Note Figure 2-20::.) From this point of view, +the complex number z = x + iy (where i^2 = - 1) can be thought of as +the point in the plane whose real coordinate is x and whose imaginary +coordinate is y. Addition of complex numbers reduces in this +representation to addition of coordinates: + + Real-part(z_1 + z_2) = Real-part(z_1) + Real-part(z_2) + + Imaginary-part(z_1 + z_2) = Imaginary-part(z_1) + Imaginary-part(z_2) + + When multiplying complex numbers, it is more natural to think in +terms of representing a complex number in polar form, as a magnitude +and an angle (r and A in *Note Figure 2-20::). The product of two +complex numbers is the vector obtained by stretching one complex number +by the length of the other and then rotating it through the angle of +the other: + + Magnitude(z_1 * z_2) = Magnitude(z_1) * Magnitude(z_2) + + Angle(z_1 * z_2) = Angle(z_1) + Angle(z_2) + + *Figure 2.20:* Complex numbers as points in the plane. + + Imaginary + ^ + | + y |.........................* z = x + ?y = r e^(?A) + | __-- . + | __-- . + | r __-- . + | __-- . + | __-- \ . + |__-- A | . + ----+----------+-------------------> Real + x + + Thus, there are two different representations for complex numbers, +which are appropriate for different operations. Yet, from the +viewpoint of someone writing a program that uses complex numbers, the +principle of data abstraction suggests that all the operations for +manipulating complex numbers should be available regardless of which +representation is used by the computer. For example, it is often +useful to be able to find the magnitude of a complex number that is +specified by rectangular coordinates. Similarly, it is often useful to +be able to determine the real part of a complex number that is +specified by polar coordinates. + + To design such a system, we can follow the same data-abstraction +strategy we followed in designing the rational-number package in +section *Note 2-1-1::. Assume that the operations on complex numbers +are implemented in terms of four selectors: `real-part', `imag-part', +`magnitude', and `angle'. Also assume that we have two procedures for +constructing complex numbers: `make-from-real-imag' returns a complex +number with specified real and imaginary parts, and `make-from-mag-ang' +returns a complex number with specified magnitude and angle. These +procedures have the property that, for any complex number `z', both + + (make-from-real-imag (real-part z) (imag-part z)) + +and + + (make-from-mag-ang (magnitude z) (angle z)) + +produce complex numbers that are equal to `z'. + + Using these constructors and selectors, we can implement arithmetic +on complex numbers using the "abstract data" specified by the +constructors and selectors, just as we did for rational numbers in +section *Note 2-1-1::. As shown in the formulas above, we can add and +subtract complex numbers in terms of real and imaginary parts while +multiplying and dividing complex numbers in terms of magnitudes and +angles: + + (define (add-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-real-imag (+ (real-part z1) (real-part z2)) + (+ (imag-part z1) (imag-part z2)))) + + (define (sub-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-real-imag (- (real-part z1) (real-part z2)) + (- (imag-part z1) (imag-part z2)))) + + (define (mul-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-mag-ang (* (magnitude z1) (magnitude z2)) + (+ (angle z1) (angle z2)))) + + (define (div-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-mag-ang (/ (magnitude z1) (magnitude z2)) + (- (angle z1) (angle z2)))) + + To complete the complex-number package, we must choose a +representation and we must implement the constructors and selectors in +terms of primitive numbers and primitive list structure. There are two +obvious ways to do this: We can represent a complex number in +"rectangular form" as a pair (real part, imaginary part) or in "polar +form" as a pair (magnitude, angle). Which shall we choose? + + In order to make the different choices concrete, imagine that there +are two programmers, Ben Bitdiddle and Alyssa P. Hacker, who are +independently designing representations for the complex-number system. +Ben chooses to represent complex numbers in rectangular form. With +this choice, selecting the real and imaginary parts of a complex number +is straightforward, as is constructing a complex number with given real +and imaginary parts. To find the magnitude and the angle, or to +construct a complex number with a given magnitude and angle, he uses +the trigonometric relations + + __________ + x = r cos A r = ./ x^2 + y^2 + + y = r sin A A = arctan(y,x) + +which relate the real and imaginary parts (x, y) to the magnitude and +the angle (r, A).(2) Ben's representation is therefore given by the +following selectors and constructors: + + (define (real-part z) (car z)) + + (define (imag-part z) (cdr z)) + + (define (magnitude z) + (sqrt (+ (square (real-part z)) (square (imag-part z))))) + + (define (angle z) + (atan (imag-part z) (real-part z))) + + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) (cons x y)) + + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) + (cons (* r (cos a)) (* r (sin a)))) + + Alyssa, in contrast, chooses to represent complex numbers in polar +form. For her, selecting the magnitude and angle is straightforward, +but she has to use the trigonometric relations to obtain the real and +imaginary parts. Alyssa's representation is: + + (define (real-part z) + (* (magnitude z) (cos (angle z)))) + + (define (imag-part z) + (* (magnitude z) (sin (angle z)))) + + (define (magnitude z) (car z)) + + (define (angle z) (cdr z)) + + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) + (cons (sqrt (+ (square x) (square y))) + (atan y x))) + + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) (cons r a)) + + The discipline of data abstraction ensures that the same +implementation of `add-complex', `sub-complex', `mul-complex', and +`div-complex' will work with either Ben's representation or Alyssa's +representation. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) In actual computational systems, rectangular form is preferable +to polar form most of the time because of roundoff errors in conversion +between rectangular and polar form. This is why the complex-number +example is unrealistic. Nevertheless, it provides a clear illustration +of the design of a system using generic operations and a good +introduction to the more substantial systems to be developed later in +this chapter. + + (2) The arctangent function referred to here, computed by Scheme's +`atan' procedure, is defined so as to take two arguments y and x and to +return the angle whose tangent is y/x. The signs of the arguments +determine the quadrant of the angle. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-4-2, Next: 2-4-3, Prev: 2-4-1, Up: 2-4 + +2.4.2 Tagged data +----------------- + +One way to view data abstraction is as an application of the "principle +of least commitment." In implementing the complex-number system in +section *Note 2-4-1::, we can use either Ben's rectangular +representation or Alyssa's polar representation. The abstraction +barrier formed by the selectors and constructors permits us to defer to +the last possible moment the choice of a concrete representation for +our data objects and thus retain maximum flexibility in our system +design. + + The principle of least commitment can be carried to even further +extremes. If we desire, we can maintain the ambiguity of +representation even _after_ we have designed the selectors and +constructors, and elect to use both Ben's representation _and_ Alyssa's +representation. If both representations are included in a single +system, however, we will need some way to distinguish data in polar +form from data in rectangular form. Otherwise, if we were asked, for +instance, to find the `magnitude' of the pair (3,4), we wouldn't know +whether to answer 5 (interpreting the number in rectangular form) or 3 +(interpreting the number in polar form). A straightforward way to +accomplish this distinction is to include a "type tag"--the symbol +`rectangular' or `polar'--as part of each complex number. Then when we +need to manipulate a complex number we can use the tag to decide which +selector to apply. + + In order to manipulate tagged data, we will assume that we have +procedures `type-tag' and `contents' that extract from a data object +the tag and the actual contents (the polar or rectangular coordinates, +in the case of a complex number). We will also postulate a procedure +`attach-tag' that takes a tag and contents and produces a tagged data +object. A straightforward way to implement this is to use ordinary +list structure: + + (define (attach-tag type-tag contents) + (cons type-tag contents)) + + (define (type-tag datum) + (if (pair? datum) + (car datum) + (error "Bad tagged datum -- TYPE-TAG" datum))) + + (define (contents datum) + (if (pair? datum) + (cdr datum) + (error "Bad tagged datum -- CONTENTS" datum))) + + Using these procedures, we can define predicates `rectangular?' and +`polar?', which recognize polar and rectangular numbers, respectively: + + (define (rectangular? z) + (eq? (type-tag z) 'rectangular)) + + (define (polar? z) + (eq? (type-tag z) 'polar)) + + With type tags, Ben and Alyssa can now modify their code so that +their two different representations can coexist in the same system. +Whenever Ben constructs a complex number, he tags it as rectangular. +Whenever Alyssa constructs a complex number, she tags it as polar. In +addition, Ben and Alyssa must make sure that the names of their +procedures do not conflict. One way to do this is for Ben to append +the suffix `rectangular' to the name of each of his representation +procedures and for Alyssa to append `polar' to the names of hers. Here +is Ben's revised rectangular representation from section *Note 2-4-1::: + + (define (real-part-rectangular z) (car z)) + + (define (imag-part-rectangular z) (cdr z)) + + (define (magnitude-rectangular z) + (sqrt (+ (square (real-part-rectangular z)) + (square (imag-part-rectangular z))))) + + (define (angle-rectangular z) + (atan (imag-part-rectangular z) + (real-part-rectangular z))) + + (define (make-from-real-imag-rectangular x y) + (attach-tag 'rectangular (cons x y))) + + (define (make-from-mag-ang-rectangular r a) + (attach-tag 'rectangular + (cons (* r (cos a)) (* r (sin a))))) + +and here is Alyssa's revised polar representation: + + (define (real-part-polar z) + (* (magnitude-polar z) (cos (angle-polar z)))) + + (define (imag-part-polar z) + (* (magnitude-polar z) (sin (angle-polar z)))) + + (define (magnitude-polar z) (car z)) + + (define (angle-polar z) (cdr z)) + + (define (make-from-real-imag-polar x y) + (attach-tag 'polar + (cons (sqrt (+ (square x) (square y))) + (atan y x)))) + + (define (make-from-mag-ang-polar r a) + (attach-tag 'polar (cons r a))) + + Each generic selector is implemented as a procedure that checks the +tag of its argument and calls the appropriate procedure for handling +data of that type. For example, to obtain the real part of a complex +number, `real-part' examines the tag to determine whether to use Ben's +`real-part-rectangular' or Alyssa's `real-part-polar'. In either case, +we use `contents' to extract the bare, untagged datum and send this to +the rectangular or polar procedure as required: + + (define (real-part z) + (cond ((rectangular? z) + (real-part-rectangular (contents z))) + ((polar? z) + (real-part-polar (contents z))) + (else (error "Unknown type -- REAL-PART" z)))) + + (define (imag-part z) + (cond ((rectangular? z) + (imag-part-rectangular (contents z))) + ((polar? z) + (imag-part-polar (contents z))) + (else (error "Unknown type -- IMAG-PART" z)))) + + (define (magnitude z) + (cond ((rectangular? z) + (magnitude-rectangular (contents z))) + ((polar? z) + (magnitude-polar (contents z))) + (else (error "Unknown type -- MAGNITUDE" z)))) + + (define (angle z) + (cond ((rectangular? z) + (angle-rectangular (contents z))) + ((polar? z) + (angle-polar (contents z))) + (else (error "Unknown type -- ANGLE" z)))) + + To implement the complex-number arithmetic operations, we can use +the same procedures `add-complex', `sub-complex', `mul-complex', and +`div-complex' from section *Note 2-4-1::, because the selectors they +call are generic, and so will work with either representation. For +example, the procedure `add-complex' is still + + (define (add-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-real-imag (+ (real-part z1) (real-part z2)) + (+ (imag-part z1) (imag-part z2)))) + + Finally, we must choose whether to construct complex numbers using +Ben's representation or Alyssa's representation. One reasonable choice +is to construct rectangular numbers whenever we have real and imaginary +parts and to construct polar numbers whenever we have magnitudes and +angles: + + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) + (make-from-real-imag-rectangular x y)) + + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) + (make-from-mag-ang-polar r a)) + + *Figure 2.21:* Structure of the generic complex-arithmetic system. + + +--------------------------------------------------+ + ----| add-complex sub-complex mul-complex- div-complex |---- + +--------------------------------------------------+ + Complex arithmetic package + +-----------------------+ + | real-part imag-part | + -----------------| |------------------ + | magnitude angle | + +-----------+-----------+ + Rectangular | Polar + representation | representation + -----------------------------+------------------------------ + List structure and primitive machine arithmetic + + The resulting complex-number system has the structure shown in *Note +Figure 2-21::. The system has been decomposed into three relatively +independent parts: the complex-number-arithmetic operations, Alyssa's +polar implementation, and Ben's rectangular implementation. The polar +and rectangular implementations could have been written by Ben and +Alyssa working separately, and both of these can be used as underlying +representations by a third programmer implementing the +complex-arithmetic procedures in terms of the abstract +constructor/selector interface. + + Since each data object is tagged with its type, the selectors +operate on the data in a generic manner. That is, each selector is +defined to have a behavior that depends upon the particular type of +data it is applied to. Notice the general mechanism for interfacing +the separate representations: Within a given representation +implementation (say, Alyssa's polar package) a complex number is an +untyped pair (magnitude, angle). When a generic selector operates on a +number of `polar' type, it strips off the tag and passes the contents on +to Alyssa's code. Conversely, when Alyssa constructs a number for +general use, she tags it with a type so that it can be appropriately +recognized by the higher-level procedures. This discipline of +stripping off and attaching tags as data objects are passed from level +to level can be an important organizational strategy, as we shall see +in section *Note 2-5::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-4-3, Prev: 2-4-2, Up: 2-4 + +2.4.3 Data-Directed Programming and Additivity +---------------------------------------------- + +The general strategy of checking the type of a datum and calling an +appropriate procedure is called "dispatching on type". This is a +powerful strategy for obtaining modularity in system design. Oh the +other hand, implementing the dispatch as in section *Note 2-4-2:: has +two significant weaknesses. One weakness is that the generic interface +procedures (`real-part', `imag-part', `magnitude', and `angle') must +know about all the different representations. For instance, suppose we +wanted to incorporate a new representation for complex numbers into our +complex-number system. We would need to identify this new +representation with a type, and then add a clause to each of the +generic interface procedures to check for the new type and apply the +appropriate selector for that representation. + + Another weakness of the technique is that even though the individual +representations can be designed separately, we must guarantee that no +two procedures in the entire system have the same name. This is why +Ben and Alyssa had to change the names of their original procedures +from section *Note 2-4-1::. + + The issue underlying both of these weaknesses is that the technique +for implementing generic interfaces is not "additive". The person +implementing the generic selector procedures must modify those +procedures each time a new representation is installed, and the people +interfacing the individual representations must modify their code to +avoid name conflicts. In each of these cases, the changes that must be +made to the code are straightforward, but they must be made +nonetheless, and this is a source of inconvenience and error. This is +not much of a problem for the complex-number system as it stands, but +suppose there were not two but hundreds of different representations +for complex numbers. And suppose that there were many generic +selectors to be maintained in the abstract-data interface. Suppose, in +fact, that no one programmer knew all the interface procedures or all +the representations. The problem is real and must be addressed in such +programs as large-scale data-base-management systems. + + What we need is a means for modularizing the system design even +further. This is provided by the programming technique known as programming +"data-directed programming". To understand how data-directed +programming works, begin with the observation that whenever we deal +with a set of generic operations that are common to a set of different +types we are, in effect, dealing with a two-dimensional table that +contains the possible operations on one axis and the possible types on +the other axis. The entries in the table are the procedures that +implement each operation for each type of argument presented. In the +complex-number system developed in the previous section, the +correspondence between operation name, data type, and actual procedure +was spread out among the various conditional clauses in the generic +interface procedures. But the same information could have been +organized in a table, as shown in *Note Figure 2-22::. + + Data-directed programming is the technique of designing programs to +work with such a table directly. Previously, we implemented the +mechanism that interfaces the complex-arithmetic code with the two +representation packages as a set of procedures that each perform an +explicit dispatch on type. Here we will implement the interface as a +single procedure that looks up the combination of the operation name +and argument type in the table to find the correct procedure to apply, +and then applies it to the contents of the argument. If we do this, +then to add a new representation package to the system we need not +change any existing procedures; we need only add new entries to the +table. + + *Figure 2.22:* Table of operations for the complex-number system. + + | Types + Operations | Polar | Rectangular + ===========+=================+====================== + real-part | real-part-polar | real-part-rectangular + imag-part | imag-part-polar | imag-part-rectangular + magnitude | magnitude-polar | magnitude-rectangular + angle | angle-polar | angle-rectangular + + To implement this plan, assume that we have two procedures, `put' and +`get', for manipulating the operation-and-type table: + + * `(put <OP> <TYPE> <ITEM>)' installs the `<ITEM>' in the table, + indexed by the `<OP>' and the `<TYPE>'. + + * `(get <OP> <TYPE>)' looks up the `<OP>', `<TYPE>' entry in the + table and returns the item found there. If no item is found, + `get' returns false. + + + For now, we can assume that `put' and `get' are included in our +language. In *Note Chapter 3:: (section *Note 3-3-3::, *Note Exercise +3-24::) we will see how to implement these and other operations for +manipulating tables. + + Here is how data-directed programming can be used in the +complex-number system. Ben, who developed the rectangular +representation, implements his code just as he did originally. He +defines a collection of procedures, or a "package", and interfaces +these to the rest of the system by adding entries to the table that +tell the system how to operate on rectangular numbers. This is +accomplished by calling the following procedure: + + (define (install-rectangular-package) + ;; internal procedures + (define (real-part z) (car z)) + (define (imag-part z) (cdr z)) + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) (cons x y)) + (define (magnitude z) + (sqrt (+ (square (real-part z)) + (square (imag-part z))))) + (define (angle z) + (atan (imag-part z) (real-part z))) + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) + (cons (* r (cos a)) (* r (sin a)))) + + ;; interface to the rest of the system + (define (tag x) (attach-tag 'rectangular x)) + (put 'real-part '(rectangular) real-part) + (put 'imag-part '(rectangular) imag-part) + (put 'magnitude '(rectangular) magnitude) + (put 'angle '(rectangular) angle) + (put 'make-from-real-imag 'rectangular + (lambda (x y) (tag (make-from-real-imag x y)))) + (put 'make-from-mag-ang 'rectangular + (lambda (r a) (tag (make-from-mag-ang r a)))) + 'done) + + Notice that the internal procedures here are the same procedures +from section *Note 2-4-1:: that Ben wrote when he was working in +isolation. No changes are necessary in order to interface them to the +rest of the system. Moreover, since these procedure definitions are +internal to the installation procedure, Ben needn't worry about name +conflicts with other procedures outside the rectangular package. To +interface these to the rest of the system, Ben installs his `real-part' +procedure under the operation name `real-part' and the type +`(rectangular)', and similarly for the other selectors.(1) The +interface also defines the constructors to be used by the external +system.(2) These are identical to Ben's internally defined +constructors, except that they attach the tag. + + Alyssa's polar package is analogous: + + (define (install-polar-package) + ;; internal procedures + (define (magnitude z) (car z)) + (define (angle z) (cdr z)) + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) (cons r a)) + (define (real-part z) + (* (magnitude z) (cos (angle z)))) + (define (imag-part z) + (* (magnitude z) (sin (angle z)))) + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) + (cons (sqrt (+ (square x) (square y))) + (atan y x))) + + ;; interface to the rest of the system + (define (tag x) (attach-tag 'polar x)) + (put 'real-part '(polar) real-part) + (put 'imag-part '(polar) imag-part) + (put 'magnitude '(polar) magnitude) + (put 'angle '(polar) angle) + (put 'make-from-real-imag 'polar + (lambda (x y) (tag (make-from-real-imag x y)))) + (put 'make-from-mag-ang 'polar + (lambda (r a) (tag (make-from-mag-ang r a)))) + 'done) + + Even though Ben and Alyssa both still use their original procedures +defined with the same names as each other's (e.g., `real-part'), these +definitions are now internal to different procedures (see section *Note +1-1-8::), so there is no name conflict. + + The complex-arithmetic selectors access the table by means of a +general "operation" procedure called `apply-generic', which applies a +generic operation to some arguments. `Apply-generic' looks in the +table under the name of the operation and the types of the arguments +and applies the resulting procedure if one is present:(3) + + (define (apply-generic op . args) + (let ((type-tags (map type-tag args))) + (let ((proc (get op type-tags))) + (if proc + (apply proc (map contents args)) + (error + "No method for these types -- APPLY-GENERIC" + (list op type-tags)))))) + + Using `apply-generic', we can define our generic selectors as +follows: + + (define (real-part z) (apply-generic 'real-part z)) + (define (imag-part z) (apply-generic 'imag-part z)) + (define (magnitude z) (apply-generic 'magnitude z)) + (define (angle z) (apply-generic 'angle z)) + + Observe that these do not change at all if a new representation is +added to the system. + + We can also extract from the table the constructors to be used by +the programs external to the packages in making complex numbers from +real and imaginary parts and from magnitudes and angles. As in section +*Note 2-4-2::, we construct rectangular numbers whenever we have real +and imaginary parts, and polar numbers whenever we have magnitudes and +angles: + + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) + ((get 'make-from-real-imag 'rectangular) x y)) + + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) + ((get 'make-from-mag-ang 'polar) r a)) + + *Exercise 2.73:* Section *Note 2-3-2:: described a program that + performs symbolic differentiation: + + (define (deriv exp var) + (cond ((number? exp) 0) + ((variable? exp) (if (same-variable? exp var) 1 0)) + ((sum? exp) + (make-sum (deriv (addend exp) var) + (deriv (augend exp) var))) + ((product? exp) + (make-sum + (make-product (multiplier exp) + (deriv (multiplicand exp) var)) + (make-product (deriv (multiplier exp) var) + (multiplicand exp)))) + <MORE RULES CAN BE ADDED HERE> + (else (error "unknown expression type -- DERIV" exp)))) + + We can regard this program as performing a dispatch on the type of + the expression to be differentiated. In this situation the "type + tag" of the datum is the algebraic operator symbol (such as `+') + and the operation being performed is `deriv'. We can transform + this program into data-directed style by rewriting the basic + derivative procedure as + + (define (deriv exp var) + (cond ((number? exp) 0) + ((variable? exp) (if (same-variable? exp var) 1 0)) + (else ((get 'deriv (operator exp)) (operands exp) + var)))) + + (define (operator exp) (car exp)) + + (define (operands exp) (cdr exp)) + + a. Explain what was done above. Why can't we assimilate the + predicates `number?' and `same-variable?' into the + data-directed dispatch? + + b. Write the procedures for derivatives of sums and products, + and the auxiliary code required to install them in the table + used by the program above. + + c. Choose any additional differentiation rule that you like, + such as the one for exponents (*Note Exercise 2-56::), and + install it in this data-directed system. + + d. In this simple algebraic manipulator the type of an + expression is the algebraic operator that binds it together. + Suppose, however, we indexed the procedures in the opposite + way, so that the dispatch line in `deriv' looked like + + ((get (operator exp) 'deriv) (operands exp) var) + + What corresponding changes to the derivative system are + required? + + + *Exercise 2.74:* Insatiable Enterprises, Inc., is a highly + decentralized conglomerate company consisting of a large number of + independent divisions located all over the world. The company's + computer facilities have just been interconnected by means of a + clever network-interfacing scheme that makes the entire network + appear to any user to be a single computer. Insatiable's + president, in her first attempt to exploit the ability of the + network to extract administrative information from division files, + is dismayed to discover that, although all the division files have + been implemented as data structures in Scheme, the particular data + structure used varies from division to division. A meeting of + division managers is hastily called to search for a strategy to + integrate the files that will satisfy headquarters' needs while + preserving the existing autonomy of the divisions. + + Show how such a strategy can be implemented with data-directed + programming. As an example, suppose that each division's + personnel records consist of a single file, which contains a set + of records keyed on employees' names. The structure of the set + varies from division to division. Furthermore, each employee's + record is itself a set (structured differently from division to + division) that contains information keyed under identifiers such + as `address' and `salary'. In particular: + + a. Implement for headquarters a `get-record' procedure that + retrieves a specified employee's record from a specified + personnel file. The procedure should be applicable to any + division's file. Explain how the individual divisions' files + should be structured. In particular, what type information + must be supplied? + + b. Implement for headquarters a `get-salary' procedure that + returns the salary information from a given employee's record + from any division's personnel file. How should the record be + structured in order to make this operation work? + + c. Implement for headquarters a `find-employee-record' + procedure. This should search all the divisions' files for + the record of a given employee and return the record. Assume + that this procedure takes as arguments an employee's name and + a list of all the divisions' files. + + d. When Insatiable takes over a new company, what changes must + be made in order to incorporate the new personnel information + into the central system? + + +Message passing +............... + +The key idea of data-directed programming is to handle generic +operations in programs by dealing explicitly with operation-and-type +tables, such as the table in *Note Figure 2-22::. The style of +programming we used in section *Note 2-4-2:: organized the required +dispatching on type by having each operation take care of its own +dispatching. In effect, this decomposes the operation-and-type table +into rows, with each generic operation procedure representing a row of +the table. + + An alternative implementation strategy is to decompose the table +into columns and, instead of using "intelligent operations" that +dispatch on data types, to work with "intelligent data objects" that +dispatch on operation names. We can do this by arranging things so +that a data object, such as a rectangular number, is represented as a +procedure that takes as input the required operation name and performs +the operation indicated. In such a discipline, `make-from-real-imag' +could be written as + + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) + (define (dispatch op) + (cond ((eq? op 'real-part) x) + ((eq? op 'imag-part) y) + ((eq? op 'magnitude) + (sqrt (+ (square x) (square y)))) + ((eq? op 'angle) (atan y x)) + (else + (error "Unknown op -- MAKE-FROM-REAL-IMAG" op)))) + dispatch) + + The corresponding `apply-generic' procedure, which applies a generic +operation to an argument, now simply feeds the operation's name to the +data object and lets the object do the work:(4) + + (define (apply-generic op arg) (arg op)) + + Note that the value returned by `make-from-real-imag' is a +procedure--the internal `dispatch' procedure. This is the procedure +that is invoked when `apply-generic' requests an operation to be +performed. + + This style of programming is called "message passing". The name +comes from the image that a data object is an entity that receives the +requested operation name as a "message." We have already seen an +example of message passing in section *Note 2-1-3::, where we saw how +`cons', `car', and `cdr' could be defined with no data objects but only +procedures. Here we see that message passing is not a mathematical +trick but a useful technique for organizing systems with generic +operations. In the remainder of this chapter we will continue to use +data-directed programming, rather than message passing, to discuss +generic arithmetic operations. In *Note Chapter 3:: we will return to +message passing, and we will see that it can be a powerful tool for +structuring simulation programs. + + *Exercise 2.75:* Implement the constructor `make-from-mag-ang' in + message-passing style. This procedure should be analogous to the + `make-from-real-imag' procedure given above. + + *Exercise 2.76:* As a large system with generic operations + evolves, new types of data objects or new operations may be needed. + For each of the three strategies--generic operations with explicit + dispatch, data-directed style, and message-passing-style--describe + the changes that must be made to a system in order to add new + types or new operations. Which organization would be most + appropriate for a system in which new types must often be added? + Which would be most appropriate for a system in which new + operations must often be added? + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We use the list `(rectangular)' rather than the symbol +`rectangular' to allow for the possibility of operations with multiple +arguments, not all of the same type. + + (2) The type the constructors are installed under needn't be a list +because a constructor is always used to make an object of one +particular type. + + (3) `Apply-generic' uses the dotted-tail notation described in *Note +Exercise 2-20::, because different generic operations may take +different numbers of arguments. In `apply-generic', `op' has as its +value the first argument to `apply-generic' and `args' has as its value +a list of the remaining arguments. + + `Apply-generic' also uses the primitive procedure `apply', which +takes two arguments, a procedure and a list. `Apply' applies the +procedure, using the elements in the list as arguments. For example, + + (apply + (list 1 2 3 4)) + +returns 10. + + (4) One limitation of this organization is it permits only generic +procedures of one argument. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-5, Prev: 2-4, Up: Chapter 2 + +2.5 Systems with Generic Operations +=================================== + +In the previous section, we saw how to design systems in which data +objects can be represented in more than one way. The key idea is to +link the code that specifies the data operations to the several +representations by means of generic interface procedures. Now we will +see how to use this same idea not only to define operations that are +generic over different representations but also to define operations +that are generic over different kinds of arguments. We have already +seen several different packages of arithmetic operations: the primitive +arithmetic (`+', `-', `*', `/') built into our language, the +rational-number arithmetic (`add-rat', `sub-rat', `mul-rat', `div-rat') +of section *Note 2-1-1::, and the complex-number arithmetic that we +implemented in section *Note 2-4-3::. We will now use data-directed +techniques to construct a package of arithmetic operations that +incorporates all the arithmetic packages we have already constructed. + + *Note Figure 2-23:: shows the structure of the system we shall +build. Notice the abstraction barriers. From the perspective of +someone using "numbers," there is a single procedure `add' that +operates on whatever numbers are supplied. `Add' is part of a generic +interface that allows the separate ordinary-arithmetic, +rational-arithmetic, and complex-arithmetic packages to be accessed +uniformly by programs that use numbers. Any individual arithmetic +package (such as the complex package) may itself be accessed through +generic procedures (such as `add-complex') that combine packages +designed for different representations (such as rectangular and polar). +Moreover, the structure of the system is additive, so that one can +design the individual arithmetic packages separately and combine them +to produce a generic arithmetic system. + + *Figure 2.23:* Generic arithmetic system. + + Programs that use numbers + +-----------------+ + ---------------------------| add sub mul div |------------------- + +-----------------+ + Generic arithmetic package + +-----------------+ +-------------------------+ + | add-rat sub-rat | | add-complex sub-complex | +---------+ + -| |-+-| |-+-| + - * / |- + | mul-rat div-rat | | | mul-complex div-complex | | +---------+ + +-----------------+ | +-------------------------+ | + Rational | Complex artithmetic | Ordinary + arithmetic +--------------+--------------+ arithmetic + | Rectangular | Polar | + ---------------------+--------------+--------------+------------- + +* Menu: + +* 2-5-1:: Generic Arithmetic Operations +* 2-5-2:: Combining Data of Different Types +* 2-5-3:: Example: Symbolic Algebra + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-5-1, Next: 2-5-2, Prev: 2-5, Up: 2-5 + +2.5.1 Generic Arithmetic Operations +----------------------------------- + +The task of designing generic arithmetic operations is analogous to +that of designing the generic complex-number operations. We would +like, for instance, to have a generic addition procedure `add' that +acts like ordinary primitive addition `+' on ordinary numbers, like +`add-rat' on rational numbers, and like `add-complex' on complex +numbers. We can implement `add', and the other generic arithmetic +operations, by following the same strategy we used in section *Note +2-4-3:: to implement the generic selectors for complex numbers. We +will attach a type tag to each kind of number and cause the generic +procedure to dispatch to an appropriate package according to the data +type of its arguments. + + The generic arithmetic procedures are defined as follows: + + (define (add x y) (apply-generic 'add x y)) + (define (sub x y) (apply-generic 'sub x y)) + (define (mul x y) (apply-generic 'mul x y)) + (define (div x y) (apply-generic 'div x y)) + + We begin by installing a package for handling "ordinary" numbers, +that is, the primitive numbers of our language. We will tag these with +the symbol `scheme-number'. The arithmetic operations in this package +are the primitive arithmetic procedures (so there is no need to define +extra procedures to handle the untagged numbers). Since these +operations each take two arguments, they are installed in the table +keyed by the list `(scheme-number scheme-number)': + + (define (install-scheme-number-package) + (define (tag x) + (attach-tag 'scheme-number x)) + (put 'add '(scheme-number scheme-number) + (lambda (x y) (tag (+ x y)))) + (put 'sub '(scheme-number scheme-number) + (lambda (x y) (tag (- x y)))) + (put 'mul '(scheme-number scheme-number) + (lambda (x y) (tag (* x y)))) + (put 'div '(scheme-number scheme-number) + (lambda (x y) (tag (/ x y)))) + (put 'make 'scheme-number + (lambda (x) (tag x))) + 'done) + + Users of the Scheme-number package will create (tagged) ordinary +numbers by means of the procedure: + + (define (make-scheme-number n) + ((get 'make 'scheme-number) n)) + + Now that the framework of the generic arithmetic system is in place, +we can readily include new kinds of numbers. Here is a package that +performs rational arithmetic. Notice that, as a benefit of additivity, +we can use without modification the rational-number code from section +*Note 2-1-1:: as the internal procedures in the package: + + (define (install-rational-package) + ;; internal procedures + (define (numer x) (car x)) + (define (denom x) (cdr x)) + (define (make-rat n d) + (let ((g (gcd n d))) + (cons (/ n g) (/ d g)))) + (define (add-rat x y) + (make-rat (+ (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (numer y) (denom x))) + (* (denom x) (denom y)))) + (define (sub-rat x y) + (make-rat (- (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (numer y) (denom x))) + (* (denom x) (denom y)))) + (define (mul-rat x y) + (make-rat (* (numer x) (numer y)) + (* (denom x) (denom y)))) + (define (div-rat x y) + (make-rat (* (numer x) (denom y)) + (* (denom x) (numer y)))) + + ;; interface to rest of the system + (define (tag x) (attach-tag 'rational x)) + (put 'add '(rational rational) + (lambda (x y) (tag (add-rat x y)))) + (put 'sub '(rational rational) + (lambda (x y) (tag (sub-rat x y)))) + (put 'mul '(rational rational) + (lambda (x y) (tag (mul-rat x y)))) + (put 'div '(rational rational) + (lambda (x y) (tag (div-rat x y)))) + + (put 'make 'rational + (lambda (n d) (tag (make-rat n d)))) + 'done) + + (define (make-rational n d) + ((get 'make 'rational) n d)) + + We can install a similar package to handle complex numbers, using +the tag `complex'. In creating the package, we extract from the table +the operations `make-from-real-imag' and `make-from-mag-ang' that were +defined by the rectangular and polar packages. Additivity permits us +to use, as the internal operations, the same `add-complex', +`sub-complex', `mul-complex', and `div-complex' procedures from section +*Note 2-4-1::. + + (define (install-complex-package) + ;; imported procedures from rectangular and polar packages + (define (make-from-real-imag x y) + ((get 'make-from-real-imag 'rectangular) x y)) + (define (make-from-mag-ang r a) + ((get 'make-from-mag-ang 'polar) r a)) + + ;; internal procedures + (define (add-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-real-imag (+ (real-part z1) (real-part z2)) + (+ (imag-part z1) (imag-part z2)))) + (define (sub-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-real-imag (- (real-part z1) (real-part z2)) + (- (imag-part z1) (imag-part z2)))) + (define (mul-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-mag-ang (* (magnitude z1) (magnitude z2)) + (+ (angle z1) (angle z2)))) + (define (div-complex z1 z2) + (make-from-mag-ang (/ (magnitude z1) (magnitude z2)) + (- (angle z1) (angle z2)))) + + ;; interface to rest of the system + (define (tag z) (attach-tag 'complex z)) + (put 'add '(complex complex) + (lambda (z1 z2) (tag (add-complex z1 z2)))) + (put 'sub '(complex complex) + (lambda (z1 z2) (tag (sub-complex z1 z2)))) + (put 'mul '(complex complex) + (lambda (z1 z2) (tag (mul-complex z1 z2)))) + (put 'div '(complex complex) + (lambda (z1 z2) (tag (div-complex z1 z2)))) + (put 'make-from-real-imag 'complex + (lambda (x y) (tag (make-from-real-imag x y)))) + (put 'make-from-mag-ang 'complex + (lambda (r a) (tag (make-from-mag-ang r a)))) + 'done) + + Programs outside the complex-number package can construct complex +numbers either from real and imaginary parts or from magnitudes and +angles. Notice how the underlying procedures, originally defined in +the rectangular and polar packages, are exported to the complex +package, and exported from there to the outside world. + + (define (make-complex-from-real-imag x y) + ((get 'make-from-real-imag 'complex) x y)) + + (define (make-complex-from-mag-ang r a) + ((get 'make-from-mag-ang 'complex) r a)) + + What we have here is a two-level tag system. A typical complex +number, such as 3 + 4i in rectangular form, would be represented as +shown in *Note Figure 2-24::. The outer tag (`complex') is used to +direct the number to the complex package. Once within the complex +package, the next tag (`rectangular') is used to direct the number to +the rectangular package. In a large and complicated system there might +be many levels, each interfaced with the next by means of generic +operations. As a data object is passed "downward," the outer tag that +is used to direct it to the appropriate package is stripped off (by +applying `contents') and the next level of tag (if any) becomes visible +to be used for further dispatching. + + *Figure 2.24:* Representation of 3 + 4i in rectangular form. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + ---->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | * | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+-|-+ + | | | | + V V V V + +---------+ +-------------+ +---+ +---+ + | complex | | rectangular | | 3 | | 4 | + +---------+ +-------------+ +---+ +---+ + + In the above packages, we used `add-rat', `add-complex', and the +other arithmetic procedures exactly as originally written. Once these +definitions are internal to different installation procedures, however, +they no longer need names that are distinct from each other: we could +simply name them `add', `sub', `mul', and `div' in both packages. + + *Exercise 2.77:* Louis Reasoner tries to evaluate the expression + `(magnitude z)' where `z' is the object shown in *Note Figure + 2-24::. To his surprise, instead of the answer 5 he gets an error + message from `apply-generic', saying there is no method for the + operation `magnitude' on the types `(complex)'. He shows this + interaction to Alyssa P. Hacker, who says "The problem is that the + complex-number selectors were never defined for `complex' numbers, + just for `polar' and `rectangular' numbers. All you have to do to + make this work is add the following to the `complex' package:" + + (put 'real-part '(complex) real-part) + (put 'imag-part '(complex) imag-part) + (put 'magnitude '(complex) magnitude) + (put 'angle '(complex) angle) + + Describe in detail why this works. As an example, trace through + all the procedures called in evaluating the expression `(magnitude + z)' where `z' is the object shown in *Note Figure 2-24::. In + particular, how many times is `apply-generic' invoked? What + procedure is dispatched to in each case? + + *Exercise 2.78:* The internal procedures in the `scheme-number' + package are essentially nothing more than calls to the primitive + procedures `+', `-', etc. It was not possible to use the + primitives of the language directly because our type-tag system + requires that each data object have a type attached to it. In + fact, however, all Lisp implementations do have a type system, + which they use internally. Primitive predicates such as `symbol?' + and `number?' determine whether data objects have particular + types. Modify the definitions of `type-tag', `contents', and + `attach-tag' from section *Note 2-4-2:: so that our generic system + takes advantage of Scheme's internal type system. That is to say, + the system should work as before except that ordinary numbers + should be represented simply as Scheme numbers rather than as + pairs whose `car' is the symbol `scheme-number'. + + *Exercise 2.79:* Define a generic equality predicate `equ?' that + tests the equality of two numbers, and install it in the generic + arithmetic package. This operation should work for ordinary + numbers, rational numbers, and complex numbers. + + *Exercise 2.80:* Define a generic predicate `=zero?' that tests if + its argument is zero, and install it in the generic arithmetic + package. This operation should work for ordinary numbers, rational + numbers, and complex numbers. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-5-2, Next: 2-5-3, Prev: 2-5-1, Up: 2-5 + +2.5.2 Combining Data of Different Types +--------------------------------------- + +We have seen how to define a unified arithmetic system that encompasses +ordinary numbers, complex numbers, rational numbers, and any other type +of number we might decide to invent, but we have ignored an important +issue. The operations we have defined so far treat the different data +types as being completely independent. Thus, there are separate +packages for adding, say, two ordinary numbers, or two complex numbers. +What we have not yet considered is the fact that it is meaningful to +define operations that cross the type boundaries, such as the addition +of a complex number to an ordinary number. We have gone to great pains +to introduce barriers between parts of our programs so that they can be +developed and understood separately. We would like to introduce the +cross-type operations in some carefully controlled way, so that we can +support them without seriously violating our module boundaries. + + One way to handle cross-type operations is to design a different +procedure for each possible combination of types for which the +operation is valid. For example, we could extend the complex-number +package so that it provides a procedure for adding complex numbers to +ordinary numbers and installs this in the table using the tag `(complex +scheme-number)':(1) + + ;; to be included in the complex package + (define (add-complex-to-schemenum z x) + (make-from-real-imag (+ (real-part z) x) + (imag-part z))) + + (put 'add '(complex scheme-number) + (lambda (z x) (tag (add-complex-to-schemenum z x)))) + + This technique works, but it is cumbersome. With such a system, the +cost of introducing a new type is not just the construction of the +package of procedures for that type but also the construction and +installation of the procedures that implement the cross-type +operations. This can easily be much more code than is needed to define +the operations on the type itself. The method also undermines our +ability to combine separate packages additively, or least to limit the +extent to which the implementors of the individual packages need to +take account of other packages. For instance, in the example above, it +seems reasonable that handling mixed operations on complex numbers and +ordinary numbers should be the responsibility of the complex-number +package. Combining rational numbers and complex numbers, however, +might be done by the complex package, by the rational package, or by +some third package that uses operations extracted from these two +packages. Formulating coherent policies on the division of +responsibility among packages can be an overwhelming task in designing +systems with many packages and many cross-type operations. + +Coercion +........ + +In the general situation of completely unrelated operations acting on +completely unrelated types, implementing explicit cross-type operations, +cumbersome though it may be, is the best that one can hope for. +Fortunately, we can usually do better by taking advantage of additional +structure that may be latent in our type system. Often the different +data types are not completely independent, and there may be ways by +which objects of one type may be viewed as being of another type. This +process is called "coercion". For example, if we are asked to +arithmetically combine an ordinary number with a complex number, we can +view the ordinary number as a complex number whose imaginary part is +zero. This transforms the problem to that of combining two complex +numbers, which can be handled in the ordinary way by the +complex-arithmetic package. + + In general, we can implement this idea by designing coercion +procedures that transform an object of one type into an equivalent +object of another type. Here is a typical coercion procedure, which +transforms a given ordinary number to a complex number with that real +part and zero imaginary part: + + (define (scheme-number->complex n) + (make-complex-from-real-imag (contents n) 0)) + + We install these coercion procedures in a special coercion table, +indexed under the names of the two types: + + (put-coercion 'scheme-number 'complex scheme-number->complex) + + (We assume that there are `put-coercion' and `get-coercion' +procedures available for manipulating this table.) Generally some of +the slots in the table will be empty, because it is not generally +possible to coerce an arbitrary data object of each type into all other +types. For example, there is no way to coerce an arbitrary complex +number to an ordinary number, so there will be no general +`complex->scheme-number' procedure included in the table. + + Once the coercion table has been set up, we can handle coercion in a +uniform manner by modifying the `apply-generic' procedure of section +*Note 2-4-3::. When asked to apply an operation, we first check +whether the operation is defined for the arguments' types, just as +before. If so, we dispatch to the procedure found in the +operation-and-type table. Otherwise, we try coercion. For simplicity, +we consider only the case where there are two arguments.(2) We check +the coercion table to see if objects of the first type can be coerced +to the second type. If so, we coerce the first argument and try the +operation again. If objects of the first type cannot in general be +coerced to the second type, we try the coercion the other way around to +see if there is a way to coerce the second argument to the type of the +first argument. Finally, if there is no known way to coerce either +type to the other type, we give up. Here is the procedure: + + (define (apply-generic op . args) + (let ((type-tags (map type-tag args))) + (let ((proc (get op type-tags))) + (if proc + (apply proc (map contents args)) + (if (= (length args) 2) + (let ((type1 (car type-tags)) + (type2 (cadr type-tags)) + (a1 (car args)) + (a2 (cadr args))) + (let ((t1->t2 (get-coercion type1 type2)) + (t2->t1 (get-coercion type2 type1))) + (cond (t1->t2 + (apply-generic op (t1->t2 a1) a2)) + (t2->t1 + (apply-generic op a1 (t2->t1 a2))) + (else + (error "No method for these types" + (list op type-tags)))))) + (error "No method for these types" + (list op type-tags))))))) + + This coercion scheme has many advantages over the method of defining +explicit cross-type operations, as outlined above. Although we still +need to write coercion procedures to relate the types (possibly n^2 +procedures for a system with n types), we need to write only one +procedure for each pair of types rather than a different procedure for +each collection of types and each generic operation.(3) What we are +counting on here is the fact that the appropriate transformation +between types depends only on the types themselves, not on the +operation to be applied. + + On the other hand, there may be applications for which our coercion +scheme is not general enough. Even when neither of the objects to be +combined can be converted to the type of the other it may still be +possible to perform the operation by converting both objects to a third +type. In order to deal with such complexity and still preserve +modularity in our programs, it is usually necessary to build systems +that take advantage of still further structure in the relations among +types, as we discuss next. + +Hierarchies of types +.................... + +The coercion scheme presented above relied on the existence of natural +relations between pairs of types. Often there is more "global" +structure in how the different types relate to each other. For +instance, suppose we are building a generic arithmetic system to handle +integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers. In such +a system, it is quite natural to regard an integer as a special kind of +rational number, which is in turn a special kind of real number, which +is in turn a special kind of complex number. What we actually have is +a so-called "hierarchy of types", in which, for example, integers are a "subtype" +of rational numbers (i.e., any operation that can be applied to a +rational number can automatically be applied to an integer). +Conversely, we say that rational numbers form a "supertype" of +integers. The particular hierarchy we have here is of a very simple +kind, in which each type has at most one supertype and at most one +subtype. Such a structure, called a "tower", is illustrated in *Note +Figure 2-25::. + + *Figure 2.25:* A tower of types. + + complex + ^ + | + real + ^ + | + rational + ^ + | + integer + + If we have a tower structure, then we can greatly simplify the +problem of adding a new type to the hierarchy, for we need only specify +how the new type is embedded in the next supertype above it and how it +is the supertype of the type below it. For example, if we want to add +an integer to a complex number, we need not explicitly define a special +coercion procedure `integer->complex'. Instead, we define how an +integer can be transformed into a rational number, how a rational +number is transformed into a real number, and how a real number is +transformed into a complex number. We then allow the system to +transform the integer into a complex number through these steps and +then add the two complex numbers. + + We can redesign our `apply-generic' procedure in the following way: +For each type, we need to supply a `raise' procedure, which "raises" +objects of that type one level in the tower. Then when the system is +required to operate on objects of different types it can successively +raise the lower types until all the objects are at the same level in +the tower. (*Note Exercise 2-83:: and *Note Exercise 2-84:: concern +the details of implementing such a strategy.) + + Another advantage of a tower is that we can easily implement the +notion that every type "inherits" all operations defined on a +supertype. For instance, if we do not supply a special procedure for +finding the real part of an integer, we should nevertheless expect that +`real-part' will be defined for integers by virtue of the fact that +integers are a subtype of complex numbers. In a tower, we can arrange +for this to happen in a uniform way by modifying `apply-generic'. If +the required operation is not directly defined for the type of the +object given, we raise the object to its supertype and try again. We +thus crawl up the tower, transforming our argument as we go, until we +either find a level at which the desired operation can be performed or +hit the top (in which case we give up). + + Yet another advantage of a tower over a more general hierarchy is +that it gives us a simple way to "lower" a data object to the simplest +representation. For example, if we add 2 + 3i to 4 - 3i, it would be +nice to obtain the answer as the integer 6 rather than as the complex +number 6 + 0i. *Note Exercise 2-85:: discusses a way to implement such +a lowering operation. (The trick is that we need a general way to +distinguish those objects that can be lowered, such as 6 + 0i, from +those that cannot, such as 6 + 2i.) + + *Figure 2.26:* Relations among types of geometric figures. + + polygon + / \ + / \ + triangle quadrilateral + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + isosceles right trapezoid kite + triangle triangle | | + | \ | | | + | \ | | | + equilateral isosceles parallelogram | + triangle right | \ | + triangle | \ | + rectangle rhombus + \ / + \ / + square + +Inadequacies of hierarchies +........................... + +If the data types in our system can be naturally arranged in a tower, +this greatly simplifies the problems of dealing with generic operations +on different types, as we have seen. Unfortunately, this is usually +not the case. *Note Figure 2-26:: illustrates a more complex +arrangement of mixed types, this one showing relations among different +types of geometric figures. We see that, in general, a type may have +more than one subtype. Triangles and quadrilaterals, for instance, are +both subtypes of polygons. In addition, a type may have more than one +supertype. For example, an isosceles right triangle may be regarded +either as an isosceles triangle or as a right triangle. This +multiple-supertypes issue is particularly thorny, since it means that +there is no unique way to "raise" a type in the hierarchy. Finding the +"correct" supertype in which to apply an operation to an object may +involve considerable searching through the entire type network on the +part of a procedure such as `apply-generic'. Since there generally are +multiple subtypes for a type, there is a similar problem in coercing a +value "down" the type hierarchy. Dealing with large numbers of +interrelated types while still preserving modularity in the design of +large systems is very difficult, and is an area of much current +research.(4) + + *Exercise 2.81:* Louis Reasoner has noticed that `apply-generic' + may try to coerce the arguments to each other's type even if they + already have the same type. Therefore, he reasons, we need to put + procedures in the coercion table to "coerce" arguments of each + type to their own type. For example, in addition to the + `scheme-number->complex' coercion shown above, he would do: + + (define (scheme-number->scheme-number n) n) + (define (complex->complex z) z) + (put-coercion 'scheme-number 'scheme-number + scheme-number->scheme-number) + (put-coercion 'complex 'complex complex->complex) + + a. With Louis's coercion procedures installed, what happens if + `apply-generic' is called with two arguments of type + `scheme-number' or two arguments of type `complex' for an + operation that is not found in the table for those types? + For example, assume that we've defined a generic + exponentiation operation: + + (define (exp x y) (apply-generic 'exp x y)) + + and have put a procedure for exponentiation in the + Scheme-number package but not in any other package: + + ;; following added to Scheme-number package + (put 'exp '(scheme-number scheme-number) + (lambda (x y) (tag (expt x y)))) ; using primitive `expt' + + What happens if we call `exp' with two complex numbers as + arguments? + + b. Is Louis correct that something had to be done about coercion + with arguments of the same type, or does `apply-generic' work + correctly as is? + + c. Modify `apply-generic' so that it doesn't try coercion if the + two arguments have the same type. + + + *Exercise 2.82:* Show how to generalize `apply-generic' to handle + coercion in the general case of multiple arguments. One strategy + is to attempt to coerce all the arguments to the type of the first + argument, then to the type of the second argument, and so on. + Give an example of a situation where this strategy (and likewise + the two-argument version given above) is not sufficiently general. + (Hint: Consider the case where there are some suitable mixed-type + operations present in the table that will not be tried.) + + *Exercise 2.83:* Suppose you are designing a generic arithmetic + system for dealing with the tower of types shown in *Note Figure + 2-25::: integer, rational, real, complex. For each type (except + complex), design a procedure that raises objects of that type one + level in the tower. Show how to install a generic `raise' + operation that will work for each type (except complex). + + *Exercise 2.84:* Using the `raise' operation of *Note Exercise + 2-83::, modify the `apply-generic' procedure so that it coerces + its arguments to have the same type by the method of successive + raising, as discussed in this section. You will need to devise a + way to test which of two types is higher in the tower. Do this in + a manner that is "compatible" with the rest of the system and will + not lead to problems in adding new levels to the tower. + + *Exercise 2.85:* This section mentioned a method for "simplifying" + a data object by lowering it in the tower of types as far as + possible. Design a procedure `drop' that accomplishes this for the + tower described in *Note Exercise 2-83::. The key is to decide, + in some general way, whether an object can be lowered. For + example, the complex number 1.5 + 0i can be lowered as far as + `real', the complex number 1 + 0i can be lowered as far as + `integer', and the complex number 2 + 3i cannot be lowered at all. + Here is a plan for determining whether an object can be lowered: + Begin by defining a generic operation `project' that "pushes" an + object down in the tower. For example, projecting a complex + number would involve throwing away the imaginary part. Then a + number can be dropped if, when we `project' it and `raise' the + result back to the type we started with, we end up with something + equal to what we started with. Show how to implement this idea in + detail, by writing a `drop' procedure that drops an object as far + as possible. You will need to design the various projection + operations(5) and install `project' as a generic operation in the + system. You will also need to make use of a generic equality + predicate, such as described in *Note Exercise 2-79::. Finally, + use `drop' to rewrite `apply-generic' from *Note Exercise 2-84:: + so that it "simplifies" its answers. + + *Exercise 2.86:* Suppose we want to handle complex numbers whose + real parts, imaginary parts, magnitudes, and angles can be either + ordinary numbers, rational numbers, or other numbers we might wish + to add to the system. Describe and implement the changes to the + system needed to accommodate this. You will have to define + operations such as `sine' and `cosine' that are generic over + ordinary numbers and rational numbers. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We also have to supply an almost identical procedure to handle +the types `(scheme-number complex)'. + + (2) See *Note Exercise 2-82:: for generalizations. + + (3) If we are clever, we can usually get by with fewer than n^2 +coercion procedures. For instance, if we know how to convert from type +1 to type 2 and from type 2 to type 3, then we can use this knowledge to +convert from type 1 to type 3. This can greatly decrease the number of +coercion procedures we need to supply explicitly when we add a new type +to the system. If we are willing to build the required amount of +sophistication into our system, we can have it search the "graph" of +relations among types and automatically generate those coercion +procedures that can be inferred from the ones that are supplied +explicitly. + + (4) This statement, which also appears in the first edition of this +book, is just as true now as it was when we wrote it twelve years ago. +Developing a useful, general framework for expressing the relations +among different types of entities (what philosophers call "ontology") +seems intractably difficult. The main difference between the confusion +that existed ten years ago and the confusion that exists now is that +now a variety of inadequate ontological theories have been embodied in +a plethora of correspondingly inadequate programming languages. For +example, much of the complexity of object-oriented programming +languages--and the subtle and confusing differences among contemporary +object-oriented languages--centers on the treatment of generic +operations on interrelated types. Our own discussion of computational +objects in *Note Chapter 3:: avoids these issues entirely. Readers +familiar with object-oriented programming will notice that we have much +to say in *Note Chapter 3:: about local state, but we do not even +mention "classes" or "inheritance." In fact, we suspect that these +problems cannot be adequately addressed in terms of computer-language +design alone, without also drawing on work in knowledge representation +and automated reasoning. + + (5) A real number can be projected to an integer using the `round' +primitive, which returns the closest integer to its argument. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 2-5-3, Prev: 2-5-2, Up: 2-5 + +2.5.3 Example: Symbolic Algebra +------------------------------- + +The manipulation of symbolic algebraic expressions is a complex process +that illustrates many of the hardest problems that occur in the design +of large-scale systems. An algebraic expression, in general, can be +viewed as a hierarchical structure, a tree of operators applied to +operands. We can construct algebraic expressions by starting with a +set of primitive objects, such as constants and variables, and +combining these by means of algebraic operators, such as addition and +multiplication. As in other languages, we form abstractions that +enable us to refer to compound objects in simple terms. Typical +abstractions in symbolic algebra are ideas such as linear combination, +polynomial, rational function, or trigonometric function. We can +regard these as compound "types," which are often useful for directing +the processing of expressions. For example, we could describe the +expression + + x^2 sin (y^2 + 1) + r cos 2y + cos(y^3 - 2y^2) + +as a polynomial in x with coefficients that are trigonometric functions +of polynomials in y whose coefficients are integers. + + We will not attempt to develop a complete algebraic-manipulation +system here. Such systems are exceedingly complex programs, embodying +deep algebraic knowledge and elegant algorithms. What we will do is +look at a simple but important part of algebraic manipulation: the +arithmetic of polynomials. We will illustrate the kinds of decisions +the designer of such a system faces, and how to apply the ideas of +abstract data and generic operations to help organize this effort. + +Arithmetic on polynomials +......................... + +Our first task in designing a system for performing arithmetic on +polynomials is to decide just what a polynomial is. Polynomials are +normally defined relative to certain variables (the "indeterminates" of +the polynomial). For simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to +polynomials having just one indeterminate ("univariate +polynomials").(1) We will define a polynomial to be a sum of terms, +each of which is either a coefficient, a power of the indeterminate, or +a product of a coefficient and a power of the indeterminate. A +coefficient is defined as an algebraic expression that is not dependent +upon the indeterminate of the polynomial. For example, + + 5x^2 + 3r + 7 + +is a simple polynomial in x, and + + (y^2 + 1)r^3 + (2y)x + 1 + +is a polynomial in x whose coefficients are polynomials in y. + + Already we are skirting some thorny issues. Is the first of these +polynomials the same as the polynomial 5y^2 + 3y + 7, or not? A +reasonable answer might be "yes, if we are considering a polynomial +purely as a mathematical function, but no, if we are considering a +polynomial to be a syntactic form." The second polynomial is +algebraically equivalent to a polynomial in y whose coefficients are +polynomials in x. Should our system recognize this, or not? +Furthermore, there are other ways to represent a polynomial--for +example, as a product of factors, or (for a univariate polynomial) as +the set of roots, or as a listing of the values of the polynomial at a +specified set of points.(2) We can finesse these questions by deciding +that in our algebraic-manipulation system a "polynomial" will be a +particular syntactic form, not its underlying mathematical meaning. + + Now we must consider how to go about doing arithmetic on +polynomials. In this simple system, we will consider only addition and +multiplication. Moreover, we will insist that two polynomials to be +combined must have the same indeterminate. + + We will approach the design of our system by following the familiar +discipline of data abstraction. We will represent polynomials using a +data structure called a "poly", which consists of a variable and a +collection of terms. We assume that we have selectors `variable' and +`term-list' that extract those parts from a poly and a constructor +`make-poly' that assembles a poly from a given variable and a term +list. A variable will be just a symbol, so we can use the +`same-variable?' procedure of section *Note 2-3-2:: to compare +variables. The following procedures define addition and multiplication +of polys: + + (define (add-poly p1 p2) + (if (same-variable? (variable p1) (variable p2)) + (make-poly (variable p1) + (add-terms (term-list p1) + (term-list p2))) + (error "Polys not in same var -- ADD-POLY" + (list p1 p2)))) + + (define (mul-poly p1 p2) + (if (same-variable? (variable p1) (variable p2)) + (make-poly (variable p1) + (mul-terms (term-list p1) + (term-list p2))) + (error "Polys not in same var -- MUL-POLY" + (list p1 p2)))) + + To incorporate polynomials into our generic arithmetic system, we +need to supply them with type tags. We'll use the tag `polynomial', +and install appropriate operations on tagged polynomials in the +operation table. We'll embed all our code in an installation procedure +for the polynomial package, similar to the ones in section *Note +2-5-1::: + + (define (install-polynomial-package) + ;; internal procedures + ;; representation of poly + (define (make-poly variable term-list) + (cons variable term-list)) + (define (variable p) (car p)) + (define (term-list p) (cdr p)) + <_procedures `same-variable?' and `variable?' from section 2.3.2_> + + ;; representation of terms and term lists + <_procedures `adjoin-term' ... `coeff' from text below_> + + ;; continued on next page + + (define (add-poly p1 p2) ...) + <_procedures used by `add-poly'_> + (define (mul-poly p1 p2) ...) + <_procedures used by `mul-poly'_> + + ;; interface to rest of the system + (define (tag p) (attach-tag 'polynomial p)) + (put 'add '(polynomial polynomial) + (lambda (p1 p2) (tag (add-poly p1 p2)))) + (put 'mul '(polynomial polynomial) + (lambda (p1 p2) (tag (mul-poly p1 p2)))) + (put 'make 'polynomial + (lambda (var terms) (tag (make-poly var terms)))) + 'done) + + Polynomial addition is performed termwise. Terms of the same order +(i.e., with the same power of the indeterminate) must be combined. +This is done by forming a new term of the same order whose coefficient +is the sum of the coefficients of the addends. Terms in one addend for +which there are no terms of the same order in the other addend are +simply accumulated into the sum polynomial being constructed. + + In order to manipulate term lists, we will assume that we have a +constructor `the-empty-termlist' that returns an empty term list and a +constructor `adjoin-term' that adjoins a new term to a term list. We +will also assume that we have a predicate `empty-termlist?' that tells +if a given term list is empty, a selector `first-term' that extracts +the highest-order term from a term list, and a selector `rest-terms' +that returns all but the highest-order term. To manipulate terms, we +will suppose that we have a constructor `make-term' that constructs a +term with given order and coefficient, and selectors `order' and +`coeff' that return, respectively, the order and the coefficient of the +term. These operations allow us to consider both terms and term lists +as data abstractions, whose concrete representations we can worry about +separately. + + Here is the procedure that constructs the term list for the sum of +two polynomials:(3) + + (define (add-terms L1 L2) + (cond ((empty-termlist? L1) L2) + ((empty-termlist? L2) L1) + (else + (let ((t1 (first-term L1)) (t2 (first-term L2))) + (cond ((> (order t1) (order t2)) + (adjoin-term + t1 (add-terms (rest-terms L1) L2))) + ((< (order t1) (order t2)) + (adjoin-term + t2 (add-terms L1 (rest-terms L2)))) + (else + (adjoin-term + (make-term (order t1) + (add (coeff t1) (coeff t2))) + (add-terms (rest-terms L1) + (rest-terms L2))))))))) + + The most important point to note here is that we used the generic +addition procedure `add' to add together the coefficients of the terms +being combined. This has powerful consequences, as we will see below. + + In order to multiply two term lists, we multiply each term of the +first list by all the terms of the other list, repeatedly using +`mul-term-by-all-terms', which multiplies a given term by all terms in +a given term list. The resulting term lists (one for each term of the +first list) are accumulated into a sum. Multiplying two terms forms a +term whose order is the sum of the orders of the factors and whose +coefficient is the product of the coefficients of the factors: + + (define (mul-terms L1 L2) + (if (empty-termlist? L1) + (the-empty-termlist) + (add-terms (mul-term-by-all-terms (first-term L1) L2) + (mul-terms (rest-terms L1) L2)))) + + (define (mul-term-by-all-terms t1 L) + (if (empty-termlist? L) + (the-empty-termlist) + (let ((t2 (first-term L))) + (adjoin-term + (make-term (+ (order t1) (order t2)) + (mul (coeff t1) (coeff t2))) + (mul-term-by-all-terms t1 (rest-terms L)))))) + + This is really all there is to polynomial addition and +multiplication. Notice that, since we operate on terms using the +generic procedures `add' and `mul', our polynomial package is +automatically able to handle any type of coefficient that is known +about by the generic arithmetic package. If we include a coercion +mechanism such as one of those discussed in section *Note 2-5-2::, then +we also are automatically able to handle operations on polynomials of +different coefficient types, such as + + / 2 \ + [3x^2 + (2 + 3i)x + 7] * | x^4 + --- x^2 + (5 + 3i) | + \ 3 / + + Because we installed the polynomial addition and multiplication +procedures `add-poly' and `mul-poly' in the generic arithmetic system +as the `add' and `mul' operations for type `polynomial', our system is +also automatically able to handle polynomial operations such as + + [(y + 1)x^2 + (y^2 + 1)x + (y - 1)] * [(y - 2)x + (y^3 + 7)] + + The reason is that when the system tries to combine coefficients, it +will dispatch through `add' and `mul'. Since the coefficients are +themselves polynomials (in y), these will be combined using `add-poly' +and `mul-poly'. The result is a kind of "data-directed recursion" in +which, for example, a call to `mul-poly' will result in recursive calls +to `mul-poly' in order to multiply the coefficients. If the +coefficients of the coefficients were themselves polynomials (as might +be used to represent polynomials in three variables), the data +direction would ensure that the system would follow through another +level of recursive calls, and so on through as many levels as the +structure of the data dictates.(4) + +Representing term lists +....................... + +Finally, we must confront the job of implementing a good representation +for term lists. A term list is, in effect, a set of coefficients keyed +by the order of the term. Hence, any of the methods for representing +sets, as discussed in section *Note 2-3-3::, can be applied to this +task. On the other hand, our procedures `add-terms' and `mul-terms' +always access term lists sequentially from highest to lowest order. +Thus, we will use some kind of ordered list representation. + + How should we structure the list that represents a term list? One +consideration is the "density" of the polynomials we intend to +manipulate. A polynomial is said to be "dense" if it has nonzero +coefficients in terms of most orders. If it has many zero terms it is +said to be "sparse". For example, + + A : x^5 + 2x^4 + 3x^2 - 2x - 5 + +is a dense polynomial, whereas + + B : x^100 + 2x^2 + 1 + +is sparse. + + The term lists of dense polynomials are most efficiently represented +as lists of the coefficients. For example, A above would be nicely +represented as `(1 2 0 3 -2 -5)'. The order of a term in this +representation is the length of the sublist beginning with that term's +coefficient, decremented by 1.(5) This would be a terrible +representation for a sparse polynomial such as B: There would be a +giant list of zeros punctuated by a few lonely nonzero terms. A more +reasonable representation of the term list of a sparse polynomial is as +a list of the nonzero terms, where each term is a list containing the +order of the term and the coefficient for that order. In such a +scheme, polynomial B is efficiently represented as `((100 1) (2 2) (0 +1))'. As most polynomial manipulations are performed on sparse +polynomials, we will use this method. We will assume that term lists +are represented as lists of terms, arranged from highest-order to +lowest-order term. Once we have made this decision, implementing the +selectors and constructors for terms and term lists is +straightforward:(6) + + (define (adjoin-term term term-list) + (if (=zero? (coeff term)) + term-list + (cons term term-list))) + + (define (the-empty-termlist) '()) + (define (first-term term-list) (car term-list)) + (define (rest-terms term-list) (cdr term-list)) + (define (empty-termlist? term-list) (null? term-list)) + + (define (make-term order coeff) (list order coeff)) + (define (order term) (car term)) + (define (coeff term) (cadr term)) + +where `=zero?' is as defined in *Note Exercise 2-80::. (See also *Note +Exercise 2-87:: below.) + + Users of the polynomial package will create (tagged) polynomials by +means of the procedure: + + (define (make-polynomial var terms) + ((get 'make 'polynomial) var terms)) + + *Exercise 2.87:* Install `=zero?' for polynomials in the generic + arithmetic package. This will allow `adjoin-term' to work for + polynomials with coefficients that are themselves polynomials. + + *Exercise 2.88:* Extend the polynomial system to include + subtraction of polynomials. (Hint: You may find it helpful to + define a generic negation operation.) + + *Exercise 2.89:* Define procedures that implement the term-list + representation described above as appropriate for dense + polynomials. + + *Exercise 2.90:* Suppose we want to have a polynomial system that + is efficient for both sparse and dense polynomials. One way to do + this is to allow both kinds of term-list representations in our + system. The situation is analogous to the complex-number example + of section *Note 2-4::, where we allowed both rectangular and + polar representations. To do this we must distinguish different + types of term lists and make the operations on term lists generic. + Redesign the polynomial system to implement this generalization. + This is a major effort, not a local change. + + *Exercise 2.91:* A univariate polynomial can be divided by another + one to produce a polynomial quotient and a polynomial remainder. + For example, + + x^5 - 1 + ------- = x^3 + x, remainder x - 1 + x^2 - 1 + + Division can be performed via long division. That is, divide the + highest-order term of the dividend by the highest-order term of + the divisor. The result is the first term of the quotient. Next, + multiply the result by the divisor, subtract that from the + dividend, and produce the rest of the answer by recursively + dividing the difference by the divisor. Stop when the order of the + divisor exceeds the order of the dividend and declare the dividend + to be the remainder. Also, if the dividend ever becomes zero, + return zero as both quotient and remainder. + + We can design a `div-poly' procedure on the model of `add-poly' and + `mul-poly'. The procedure checks to see if the two polys have the + same variable. If so, `div-poly' strips off the variable and + passes the problem to `div-terms', which performs the division + operation on term lists. `Div-poly' finally reattaches the + variable to the result supplied by `div-terms'. It is convenient + to design `div-terms' to compute both the quotient and the + remainder of a division. `Div-terms' can take two term lists as + arguments and return a list of the quotient term list and the + remainder term list. + + Complete the following definition of `div-terms' by filling in the + missing expressions. Use this to implement `div-poly', which + takes two polys as arguments and returns a list of the quotient + and remainder polys. + + (define (div-terms L1 L2) + (if (empty-termlist? L1) + (list (the-empty-termlist) (the-empty-termlist)) + (let ((t1 (first-term L1)) + (t2 (first-term L2))) + (if (> (order t2) (order t1)) + (list (the-empty-termlist) L1) + (let ((new-c (div (coeff t1) (coeff t2))) + (new-o (- (order t1) (order t2)))) + (let ((rest-of-result + <COMPUTE REST OF RESULT RECURSIVELY> + )) + <FORM COMPLETE RESULT> + )))))) + +Hierarchies of types in symbolic algebra +........................................ + +Our polynomial system illustrates how objects of one type (polynomials) +may in fact be complex objects that have objects of many different +types as parts. This poses no real difficulty in defining generic +operations. We need only install appropriate generic operations for +performing the necessary manipulations of the parts of the compound +types. In fact, we saw that polynomials form a kind of "recursive data +abstraction," in that parts of a polynomial may themselves be +polynomials. Our generic operations and our data-directed programming +style can handle this complication without much trouble. + + On the other hand, polynomial algebra is a system for which the data +types cannot be naturally arranged in a tower. For instance, it is +possible to have polynomials in x whose coefficients are polynomials in +y. It is also possible to have polynomials in y whose coefficients are +polynomials in x. Neither of these types is "above" the other in any +natural way, yet it is often necessary to add together elements from +each set. There are several ways to do this. One possibility is to +convert one polynomial to the type of the other by expanding and +rearranging terms so that both polynomials have the same principal +variable. One can impose a towerlike structure on this by ordering the +variables and thus always converting any polynomial to a "canonical +form" with the highest-priority variable dominant and the +lower-priority variables buried in the coefficients. This strategy +works fairly well, except that the conversion may expand a polynomial +unnecessarily, making it hard to read and perhaps less efficient to +work with. The tower strategy is certainly not natural for this domain +or for any domain where the user can invent new types dynamically using +old types in various combining forms, such as trigonometric functions, +power series, and integrals. + + It should not be surprising that controlling coercion is a serious +problem in the design of large-scale algebraic-manipulation systems. +Much of the complexity of such systems is concerned with relationships +among diverse types. Indeed, it is fair to say that we do not yet +completely understand coercion. In fact, we do not yet completely +understand the concept of a data type. Nevertheless, what we know +provides us with powerful structuring and modularity principles to +support the design of large systems. + + *Exercise 2.92:* By imposing an ordering on variables, extend the + polynomial package so that addition and multiplication of + polynomials works for polynomials in different variables. (This + is not easy!) + +Extended exercise: Rational functions +..................................... + +We can extend our generic arithmetic system to include functions +"rational functions". These are "fractions" whose numerator and +denominator are polynomials, such as + + x + 1 + ------- + x^3 - 1 + + The system should be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide +rational functions, and to perform such computations as + + x + 1 x x^3 + 2x^2 + 3x + 1 + ------- + ------- = ------------------- + x^3 - 1 x^2 - 1 x^4 + x^3 - x - 1 + +(Here the sum has been simplified by removing common factors. Ordinary +"cross multiplication" would have produced a fourth-degree polynomial +over a fifth-degree polynomial.) + + If we modify our rational-arithmetic package so that it uses generic +operations, then it will do what we want, except for the problem of +reducing fractions to lowest terms. + + *Exercise 2.93:* Modify the rational-arithmetic package to use + generic operations, but change `make-rat' so that it does not + attempt to reduce fractions to lowest terms. Test your system by + calling `make-rational' on two polynomials to produce a rational + function + + (define p1 (make-polynomial 'x '((2 1)(0 1)))) + (define p2 (make-polynomial 'x '((3 1)(0 1)))) + (define rf (make-rational p2 p1)) + + Now add `rf' to itself, using `add'. You will observe that this + addition procedure does not reduce fractions to lowest terms. + + We can reduce polynomial fractions to lowest terms using the same + idea we used with integers: modifying `make-rat' to divide both + the numerator and the denominator by their greatest common + divisor. The notion of "greatest common divisor" makes sense for + polynomials. In fact, we can compute the GCD of two polynomials + using essentially the same Euclid's Algorithm that works for + integers.(7) The integer version is + + (define (gcd a b) + (if (= b 0) + a + (gcd b (remainder a b)))) + + Using this, we could make the obvious modification to define a GCD + operation that works on term lists: + + (define (gcd-terms a b) + (if (empty-termlist? b) + a + (gcd-terms b (remainder-terms a b)))) + + where `remainder-terms' picks out the remainder component of the + list returned by the term-list division operation `div-terms' that + was implemented in *Note Exercise 2-91::. + + *Exercise 2.94:* Using `div-terms', implement the procedure + `remainder-terms' and use this to define `gcd-terms' as above. + Now write a procedure `gcd-poly' that computes the polynomial GCD + of two polys. (The procedure should signal an error if the two + polys are not in the same variable.) Install in the system a + generic operation `greatest-common-divisor' that reduces to + `gcd-poly' for polynomials and to ordinary `gcd' for ordinary + numbers. As a test, try + + (define p1 (make-polynomial 'x '((4 1) (3 -1) (2 -2) (1 2)))) + (define p2 (make-polynomial 'x '((3 1) (1 -1)))) + (greatest-common-divisor p1 p2) + + and check your result by hand. + + *Exercise 2.95:* Define P_1, P_2, and P_3 to be the polynomials + + P_1 : x^2 - 2x + 1 + + P_2 : 11x^2 + 7 + + P_3 : 13x + 5 + + Now define Q_1 to be the product of P_1 and P_2 and Q_2 to be the + product of P_1 and P_3, and use `greatest-common-divisor' (*Note + Exercise 2-94::) to compute the GCD of Q_1 and Q_2. Note that the + answer is not the same as P_1. This example introduces noninteger + operations into the computation, causing difficulties with the GCD + algorithm.(8) To understand what is happening, try tracing + `gcd-terms' while computing the GCD or try performing the division + by hand. + + We can solve the problem exhibited in *Note Exercise 2-95:: if we + use the following modification of the GCD algorithm (which really + works only in the case of polynomials with integer coefficients). + Before performing any polynomial division in the GCD computation, + we multiply the dividend by an integer constant factor, chosen to + guarantee that no fractions will arise during the division + process. Our answer will thus differ from the actual GCD by an + integer constant factor, but this does not matter in the case of + reducing rational functions to lowest terms; the GCD will be used + to divide both the numerator and denominator, so the integer + constant factor will cancel out. + + More precisely, if P and Q are polynomials, let O_1 be the order of + P (i.e., the order of the largest term of P) and let O_2 be the + order of Q. Let c be the leading coefficient of Q. Then it can be + shown that, if we multiply P by the "integerizing factor" c^(1+O_1 + -O_2), the resulting polynomial can be divided by Q by using the + `div-terms' algorithm without introducing any fractions. The + operation of multiplying the dividend by this constant and then + dividing is sometimes called the "pseudodivision" of P by Q. The + remainder of the division is called the "pseudoremainder". + + *Exercise 2.96:* + a. Implement the procedure `pseudoremainder-terms', which is + just like `remainder-terms' except that it multiplies the + dividend by the integerizing factor described above before + calling `div-terms'. Modify `gcd-terms' to use + `pseudoremainder-terms', and verify that + `greatest-common-divisor' now produces an answer with integer + coefficients on the example in *Note Exercise 2-95::. + + b. The GCD now has integer coefficients, but they are larger + than those of P_1. Modify `gcd-terms' so that it removes + common factors from the coefficients of the answer by + dividing all the coefficients by their (integer) greatest + common divisor. + + + Thus, here is how to reduce a rational function to lowest terms: + + * Compute the GCD of the numerator and denominator, using the + version of `gcd-terms' from *Note Exercise 2-96::. + + * When you obtain the GCD, multiply both numerator and + denominator by the same integerizing factor before dividing + through by the GCD, so that division by the GCD will not + introduce any noninteger coefficients. As the factor you can + use the leading coefficient of the GCD raised to the power 1 + + O_1 - O_2, where O_2 is the order of the GCD and O_1 is the + maximum of the orders of the numerator and denominator. This + will ensure that dividing the numerator and denominator by + the GCD will not introduce any fractions. + + * The result of this operation will be a numerator and + denominator with integer coefficients. The coefficients will + normally be very large because of all of the integerizing + factors, so the last step is to remove the redundant factors + by computing the (integer) greatest common divisor of all the + coefficients of the numerator and the denominator and + dividing through by this factor. + + + *Exercise 2.97:* + a. Implement this algorithm as a procedure `reduce-terms' that + takes two term lists `n' and `d' as arguments and returns a + list `nn', `dd', which are `n' and `d' reduced to lowest + terms via the algorithm given above. Also write a procedure + `reduce-poly', analogous to `add-poly', that checks to see if + the two polys have the same variable. If so, `reduce-poly' + strips off the variable and passes the problem to + `reduce-terms', then reattaches the variable to the two term + lists supplied by `reduce-terms'. + + b. Define a procedure analogous to `reduce-terms' that does what + the original `make-rat' did for integers: + + (define (reduce-integers n d) + (let ((g (gcd n d))) + (list (/ n g) (/ d g)))) + + and define `reduce' as a generic operation that calls + `apply-generic' to dispatch to either `reduce-poly' (for + `polynomial' arguments) or `reduce-integers' (for + `scheme-number' arguments). You can now easily make the + rational-arithmetic package reduce fractions to lowest terms + by having `make-rat' call `reduce' before combining the given + numerator and denominator to form a rational number. The + system now handles rational expressions in either integers or + polynomials. To test your program, try the example at the + beginning of this extended exercise: + + (define p1 (make-polynomial 'x '((1 1)(0 1)))) + (define p2 (make-polynomial 'x '((3 1)(0 -1)))) + (define p3 (make-polynomial 'x '((1 1)))) + (define p4 (make-polynomial 'x '((2 1)(0 -1)))) + + (define rf1 (make-rational p1 p2)) + (define rf2 (make-rational p3 p4)) + + (add rf1 rf2) + + See if you get the correct answer, correctly reduced to + lowest terms. + + The GCD computation is at the heart of any system that does + operations on rational functions. The algorithm used above, + although mathematically straightforward, is extremely slow. + The slowness is due partly to the large number of division + operations and partly to the enormous size of the + intermediate coefficients generated by the pseudodivisions. + One of the active areas in the development of + algebraic-manipulation systems is the design of better + algorithms for computing polynomial GCDs.(9) + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) On the other hand, we will allow polynomials whose coefficients +are themselves polynomials in other variables. This will give us +essentially the same representational power as a full multivariate +system, although it does lead to coercion problems, as discussed below. + + (2) For univariate polynomials, giving the value of a polynomial at +a given set of points can be a particularly good representation. This +makes polynomial arithmetic extremely simple. To obtain, for example, +the sum of two polynomials represented in this way, we need only add +the values of the polynomials at corresponding points. To transform +back to a more familiar representation, we can use the Lagrange +interpolation formula, which shows how to recover the coefficients of a +polynomial of degree n given the values of the polynomial at n + 1 +points. + + (3) This operation is very much like the ordered `union-set' +operation we developed in exercise *Note Exercise 2-62::. In fact, if +we think of the terms of the polynomial as a set ordered according to +the power of the indeterminate, then the program that produces the term +list for a sum is almost identical to `union-set'. + + (4) To make this work completely smoothly, we should also add to our +generic arithmetic system the ability to coerce a "number" to a +polynomial by regarding it as a polynomial of degree zero whose +coefficient is the number. This is necessary if we are going to +perform operations such as + + [x^2 + (y + 1)x + 5] + [x^2 + 2x + 1] + +which requires adding the coefficient y + 1 to the coefficient 2. + + (5) In these polynomial examples, we assume that we have implemented +the generic arithmetic system using the type mechanism suggested in +*Note Exercise 2-78::. Thus, coefficients that are ordinary numbers +will be represented as the numbers themselves rather than as pairs +whose `car' is the symbol `scheme-number'. + + (6) Although we are assuming that term lists are ordered, we have +implemented `adjoin-term' to simply `cons' the new term onto the +existing term list. We can get away with this so long as we guarantee +that the procedures (such as `add-terms') that use `adjoin-term' always +call it with a higher-order term than appears in the list. If we did +not want to make such a guarantee, we could have implemented +`adjoin-term' to be similar to the `adjoin-set' constructor for the +ordered-list representation of sets (*Note Exercise 2-61::). + + (7) The fact that Euclid's Algorithm works for polynomials is +formalized in algebra by saying that polynomials form a kind of +algebraic domain called a "Euclidean ring". A Euclidean ring is a +domain that admits addition, subtraction, and commutative +multiplication, together with a way of assigning to each element x of +the ring a positive integer "measure" m(x) with the properties that +m(xy)>= m(x) for any nonzero x and y and that, given any x and y, there +exists a q such that y = qx + r and either r = 0 or m(r)< m(x). From +an abstract point of view, this is what is needed to prove that +Euclid's Algorithm works. For the domain of integers, the measure m of +an integer is the absolute value of the integer itself. For the domain +of polynomials, the measure of a polynomial is its degree. + + (8) In an implementation like MIT Scheme, this produces a polynomial +that is indeed a divisor of Q_1 and Q_2, but with rational +coefficients. In many other Scheme systems, in which division of +integers can produce limited-precision decimal numbers, we may fail to +get a valid divisor. + + (9) One extremely efficient and elegant method for computing +polynomial GCDs was discovered by Richard Zippel (1979). The method is +a probabilistic algorithm, as is the fast test for primality that we +discussed in *Note Chapter 1::. Zippel's book (1993) describes this +method, together with other ways to compute polynomial GCDs. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Chapter 3, Next: Chapter 4, Prev: Chapter 2, Up: Top + +3 Modularity, Objects, and State +******************************** + + [greek not included here] + + (Even while it changes, it stands still.) + + --Heraclitus + + Plus c,a change, plus c'est la me*me chose. + + --Alphonse Karr + + The preceding chapters introduced the basic elements from which +programs are made. We saw how primitive procedures and primitive data +are combined to construct compound entities, and we learned that +abstraction is vital in helping us to cope with the complexity of large +systems. But these tools are not sufficient for designing programs. +Effective program synthesis also requires organizational principles +that can guide us in formulating the overall design of a program. In +particular, we need strategies to help us structure large systems so +that they will be "modular", that is, so that they can be divided +"naturally" into coherent parts that can be separately developed and +maintained. + + One powerful design strategy, which is particularly appropriate to +the construction of programs for modeling physical systems, is to base +the structure of our programs on the structure of the system being +modeled. For each object in the system, we construct a corresponding +computational object. For each system action, we define a symbolic +operation in our computational model. Our hope in using this strategy +is that extending the model to accommodate new objects or new actions +will require no strategic changes to the program, only the addition of +the new symbolic analogs of those objects or actions. If we have been +successful in our system organization, then to add a new feature or +debug an old one we will have to work on only a localized part of the +system. + + To a large extent, then, the way we organize a large program is +dictated by our perception of the system to be modeled. In this +chapter we will investigate two prominent organizational strategies +arising from two rather different "world views" of the structure of +systems. The first organizational strategy concentrates on "objects", +viewing a large system as a collection of distinct objects whose +behaviors may change over time. An alternative organizational strategy +concentrates on the "streams" of information that flow in the system, +much as an electrical engineer views a signal-processing system. + + Both the object-based approach and the stream-processing approach +raise significant linguistic issues in programming. With objects, we +must be concerned with how a computational object can change and yet +maintain its identity. This will force us to abandon our old +substitution model of computation (section *Note 1-1-5::) in favor of a +more mechanistic but less theoretically tractable "environment model" +of computation. The difficulties of dealing with objects, change, and +identity are a fundamental consequence of the need to grapple with time +in our computational models. These difficulties become even greater +when we allow the possibility of concurrent execution of programs. The +stream approach can be most fully exploited when we decouple simulated +time in our model from the order of the events that take place in the +computer during evaluation. We will accomplish this using a technique +known as "delayed evaluation". + +* Menu: + +* 3-1:: Assignment and Local State +* 3-2:: The Environment Model of Evaluation +* 3-3:: Modeling with Mutable Data +* 3-4:: Concurrency: Time Is of the Essence +* 3-5:: Streams + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-1, Next: 3-2, Prev: Chapter 3, Up: Chapter 3 + +3.1 Assignment and Local State +============================== + +We ordinarily view the world as populated by independent objects, each +of which has a state that changes over time. An object is said to +"have state" if its behavior is influenced by its history. A bank +account, for example, has state in that the answer to the question "Can +I withdraw $100?" depends upon the history of deposit and withdrawal +transactions. We can characterize an object's state by one or more "state +variables", which among them maintain enough information about history +to determine the object's current behavior. In a simple banking +system, we could characterize the state of an account by a current +balance rather than by remembering the entire history of account +transactions. + + In a system composed of many objects, the objects are rarely +completely independent. Each may influence the states of others +through interactions, which serve to couple the state variables of one +object to those of other objects. Indeed, the view that a system is +composed of separate objects is most useful when the state variables of +the system can be grouped into closely coupled subsystems that are only +loosely coupled to other subsystems. + + This view of a system can be a powerful framework for organizing +computational models of the system. For such a model to be modular, it +should be decomposed into computational objects that model the actual +objects in the system. Each computational object must have its own "local +state variables" describing the actual object's state. Since the +states of objects in the system being modeled change over time, the +state variables of the corresponding computational objects must also +change. If we choose to model the flow of time in the system by the +elapsed time in the computer, then we must have a way to construct +computational objects whose behaviors change as our programs run. In +particular, if we wish to model state variables by ordinary symbolic +names in the programming language, then the language must provide an operator +"assignment operator" to enable us to change the value associated with +a name. + +* Menu: + +* 3-1-1:: Local State Variables +* 3-1-2:: The Benefits of Introducing Assignment +* 3-1-3:: The Costs of Introducing Assignment + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-1-1, Next: 3-1-2, Prev: 3-1, Up: 3-1 + +3.1.1 Local State Variables +--------------------------- + +To illustrate what we mean by having a computational object with +time-varying state, let us model the situation of withdrawing money +from a bank account. We will do this using a procedure `withdraw', +which takes as argument an `amount' to be withdrawn. If there is +enough money in the account to accommodate the withdrawal, then +`withdraw' should return the balance remaining after the withdrawal. +Otherwise, `withdraw' should return the message _Insufficient funds_. +For example, if we begin with $100 in the account, we should obtain the +following sequence of responses using `withdraw': + + (withdraw 25) + 75 + + (withdraw 25) + 50 + + (withdraw 60) + "Insufficient funds" + + (withdraw 15) + 35 + + Observe that the expression `(withdraw 25)', evaluated twice, yields +different values. This is a new kind of behavior for a procedure. +Until now, all our procedures could be viewed as specifications for +computing mathematical functions. A call to a procedure computed the +value of the function applied to the given arguments, and two calls to +the same procedure with the same arguments always produced the same +result.(1) + + To implement `withdraw', we can use a variable `balance' to indicate +the balance of money in the account and define `withdraw' as a procedure +that accesses `balance'. The `withdraw' procedure checks to see if +`balance' is at least as large as the requested `amount'. If so, +`withdraw' decrements `balance' by `amount' and returns the new value +of `balance'. Otherwise, `withdraw' returns the _Insufficient funds_ +message. Here are the definitions of `balance' and `withdraw': + + (define balance 100) + + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + + Decrementing `balance' is accomplished by the expression + + (set! balance (- balance amount)) + + This uses the `set!' special form, whose syntax is + + (set! <NAME> <NEW-VALUE>) + + Here <NAME> is a symbol and <NEW-VALUE> is any expression. `Set!' +changes <NAME> so that its value is the result obtained by evaluating +<NEW-VALUE>. In the case at hand, we are changing `balance' so that +its new value will be the result of subtracting `amount' from the +previous value of `balance'.(2) + + `Withdraw' also uses the `begin' special form to cause two +expressions to be evaluated in the case where the `if' test is true: +first decrementing `balance' and then returning the value of `balance'. +In general, evaluating the expression + + (begin <EXP_1> <EXP_2> ... <EXP_K>) + +causes the expressions <EXP_1> through <EXP_K> to be evaluated in +sequence and the value of the final expression <EXP_K> to be returned +as the value of the entire `begin' form.(3) + + Although `withdraw' works as desired, the variable `balance' presents +a problem. As specified above, `balance' is a name defined in the +global environment and is freely accessible to be examined or modified +by any procedure. It would be much better if we could somehow make +`balance' internal to `withdraw', so that `withdraw' would be the only +procedure that could access `balance' directly and any other procedure +could access `balance' only indirectly (through calls to `withdraw'). +This would more accurately model the notion that `balance' is a local +state variable used by `withdraw' to keep track of the state of the +account. + + We can make `balance' internal to `withdraw' by rewriting the +definition as follows: + + (define new-withdraw + (let ((balance 100)) + (lambda (amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")))) + + What we have done here is use `let' to establish an environment with +a local variable `balance', bound to the initial value 100. Within this +local environment, we use `lambda' to create a procedure that takes +`amount' as an argument and behaves like our previous `withdraw' +procedure. This procedure--returned as the result of evaluating the +`let' expression--is `new-withdraw', which behaves in precisely the +same way as `withdraw' but whose variable `balance' is not accessible +by any other procedure.(4) + + Combining `set!' with local variables is the general programming +technique we will use for constructing computational objects with local +state. Unfortunately, using this technique raises a serious problem: +When we first introduced procedures, we also introduced the +substitution model of evaluation (section *Note 1-1-5::) to provide an +interpretation of what procedure application means. We said that +applying a procedure should be interpreted as evaluating the body of +the procedure with the formal parameters replaced by their values. The +trouble is that, as soon as we introduce assignment into our language, +substitution is no longer an adequate model of procedure application. +(We will see why this is so in section *Note 3-1-3::.) As a +consequence, we technically have at this point no way to understand why +the `new-withdraw' procedure behaves as claimed above. In order to +really understand a procedure such as `new-withdraw', we will need to +develop a new model of procedure application. In section *Note 3-2:: +we will introduce such a model, together with an explanation of `set!' +and local variables. First, however, we examine some variations on the +theme established by `new-withdraw'. + + The following procedure, `make-withdraw', creates "withdrawal +processors." The formal parameter `balance' in `make-withdraw' +specifies the initial amount of money in the account.(5) + + (define (make-withdraw balance) + (lambda (amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds"))) + + `Make-withdraw' can be used as follows to create two objects `W1' and +`W2': + + (define W1 (make-withdraw 100)) + (define W2 (make-withdraw 100)) + + (W1 50) + 50 + + (W2 70) + 30 + + (W2 40) + "Insufficient funds" + + (W1 40) + 10 + + Observe that `W1' and `W2' are completely independent objects, each +with its own local state variable `balance'. Withdrawals from one do +not affect the other. + + We can also create objects that handle deposits as well as +withdrawals, and thus we can represent simple bank accounts. Here is a +procedure that returns a "bank-account object" with a specified initial +balance: + + (define (make-account balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) withdraw) + ((eq? m 'deposit) deposit) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch) + + Each call to `make-account' sets up an environment with a local state +variable `balance'. Within this environment, `make-account' defines +procedures `deposit' and `withdraw' that access `balance' and an +additional procedure `dispatch' that takes a "message" as input and +returns one of the two local procedures. The `dispatch' procedure +itself is returned as the value that represents the bank-account +object. This is precisely the "message-passing" style of programming +that we saw in section *Note 2-4-3::, although here we are using it in +conjunction with the ability to modify local variables. + + `Make-account' can be used as follows: + + (define acc (make-account 100)) + + ((acc 'withdraw) 50) + 50 + + ((acc 'withdraw) 60) + "Insufficient funds" + + ((acc 'deposit) 40) + 90 + + ((acc 'withdraw) 60) + 30 + + Each call to `acc' returns the locally defined `deposit' or +`withdraw' procedure, which is then applied to the specified `amount'. +As was the case with `make-withdraw', another call to `make-account' + + (define acc2 (make-account 100)) + +will produce a completely separate account object, which maintains its +own local `balance'. + + *Exercise 3.1:* An "accumulator" is a procedure that is called + repeatedly with a single numeric argument and accumulates its + arguments into a sum. Each time it is called, it returns the + currently accumulated sum. Write a procedure `make-accumulator' + that generates accumulators, each maintaining an independent sum. + The input to `make-accumulator' should specify the initial value + of the sum; for example + + (define A (make-accumulator 5)) + + (A 10) + 15 + + (A 10) + 25 + + *Exercise 3.2:* In software-testing applications, it is useful to + be able to count the number of times a given procedure is called + during the course of a computation. Write a procedure + `make-monitored' that takes as input a procedure, `f', that itself + takes one input. The result returned by `make-monitored' is a + third procedure, say `mf', that keeps track of the number of times + it has been called by maintaining an internal counter. If the + input to `mf' is the special symbol `how-many-calls?', then `mf' + returns the value of the counter. If the input is the special + symbol `reset-count', then `mf' resets the counter to zero. For + any other input, `mf' returns the result of calling `f' on that + input and increments the counter. For instance, we could make a + monitored version of the `sqrt' procedure: + + (define s (make-monitored sqrt)) + + (s 100) + 10 + + (s 'how-many-calls?) + 1 + + *Exercise 3.3:* Modify the `make-account' procedure so that it + creates password-protected accounts. That is, `make-account' + should take a symbol as an additional argument, as in + + (define acc (make-account 100 'secret-password)) + + The resulting account object should process a request only if it + is accompanied by the password with which the account was created, + and should otherwise return a complaint: + + ((acc 'secret-password 'withdraw) 40) + 60 + + ((acc 'some-other-password 'deposit) 50) + "Incorrect password" + + *Exercise 3.4:* Modify the `make-account' procedure of *Note + Exercise 3-3:: by adding another local state variable so that, if + an account is accessed more than seven consecutive times with an + incorrect password, it invokes the procedure `call-the-cops'. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Actually, this is not quite true. One exception was the +random-number generator in section *Note 1-2-6::. Another exception +involved the operation/type tables we introduced in section *Note +2-4-3::, where the values of two calls to `get' with the same arguments +depended on intervening calls to `put'. On the other hand, until we +introduce assignment, we have no way to create such procedures +ourselves. + + (2) The value of a `set!' expression is implementation-dependent. +`Set!' should be used only for its effect, not for its value. + + The name `set!' reflects a naming convention used in Scheme: +Operations that change the values of variables (or that change data +structures, as we will see in section *Note 3-3::) are given names that +end with an exclamation point. This is similar to the convention of +designating predicates by names that end with a question mark. + + (3) We have already used `begin' implicitly in our programs, because +in Scheme the body of a procedure can be a sequence of expressions. +Also, the <CONSEQUENT> part of each clause in a `cond' expression can +be a sequence of expressions rather than a single expression. + + (4) In programming-language jargon, the variable `balance' is said +to be "encapsulated" within the `new-withdraw' procedure. +Encapsulation reflects the general system-design principle known as the "hiding +principle": One can make a system more modular and robust by protecting +parts of the system from each other; that is, by providing information +access only to those parts of the system that have a "need to know." + + (5) In contrast with `new-withdraw' above, we do not have to use +`let' to make `balance' a local variable, since formal parameters are +already local. This will be clearer after the discussion of the +environment model of evaluation in section *Note 3-2::. (See also +*Note Exercise 3-10::.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-1-2, Next: 3-1-3, Prev: 3-1-1, Up: 3-1 + +3.1.2 The Benefits of Introducing Assignment +-------------------------------------------- + +As we shall see, introducing assignment into our programming language +leads us into a thicket of difficult conceptual issues. Nevertheless, +viewing systems as collections of objects with local state is a +powerful technique for maintaining a modular design. As a simple +example, consider the design of a procedure `rand' that, whenever it is +called, returns an integer chosen at random. + + It is not at all clear what is meant by "chosen at random." What we +presumably want is for successive calls to `rand' to produce a sequence +of numbers that has statistical properties of uniform distribution. We +will not discuss methods for generating suitable sequences here. +Rather, let us assume that we have a procedure `rand-update' that has +the property that if we start with a given number x_1 and form + + x_2 = (rand-update x_1) + x_3 = (rand-update x_2) + +then the sequence of values x_1, x_2, x_3, ..., will have the desired +statistical properties.(1) + + We can implement `rand' as a procedure with a local state variable +`x' that is initialized to some fixed value `random-init'. Each call +to `rand' computes `rand-update' of the current value of `x', returns +this as the random number, and also stores this as the new value of `x'. + + (define rand + (let ((x random-init)) + (lambda () + (set! x (rand-update x)) + x))) + + Of course, we could generate the same sequence of random numbers +without using assignment by simply calling `rand-update' directly. +However, this would mean that any part of our program that used random +numbers would have to explicitly remember the current value of `x' to +be passed as an argument to `rand-update'. To realize what an +annoyance this would be, consider using random numbers to implement a +technique called simulation "Monte Carlo simulation". + + The Monte Carlo method consists of choosing sample experiments at +random from a large set and then making deductions on the basis of the +probabilities estimated from tabulating the results of those +experiments. For example, we can approximate [pi] using the fact that +6/[pi]^2 is the probability that two integers chosen at random will +have no factors in common; that is, that their greatest common divisor +will be 1.(2) To obtain the approximation to [pi], we perform a large +number of experiments. In each experiment we choose two integers at +random and perform a test to see if their GCD is 1. The fraction of +times that the test is passed gives us our estimate of 6/[pi]^2, and +from this we obtain our approximation to [pi]. + + The heart of our program is a procedure `monte-carlo', which takes as +arguments the number of times to try an experiment, together with the +experiment, represented as a no-argument procedure that will return +either true or false each time it is run. `Monte-carlo' runs the +experiment for the designated number of trials and returns a number +telling the fraction of the trials in which the experiment was found to +be true. + + (define (estimate-pi trials) + (sqrt (/ 6 (monte-carlo trials cesaro-test)))) + + (define (cesaro-test) + (= (gcd (rand) (rand)) 1)) + + (define (monte-carlo trials experiment) + (define (iter trials-remaining trials-passed) + (cond ((= trials-remaining 0) + (/ trials-passed trials)) + ((experiment) + (iter (- trials-remaining 1) (+ trials-passed 1))) + (else + (iter (- trials-remaining 1) trials-passed)))) + (iter trials 0)) + + Now let us try the same computation using `rand-update' directly +rather than `rand', the way we would be forced to proceed if we did not +use assignment to model local state: + + (define (estimate-pi trials) + (sqrt (/ 6 (random-gcd-test trials random-init)))) + + (define (random-gcd-test trials initial-x) + (define (iter trials-remaining trials-passed x) + (let ((x1 (rand-update x))) + (let ((x2 (rand-update x1))) + (cond ((= trials-remaining 0) + (/ trials-passed trials)) + ((= (gcd x1 x2) 1) + (iter (- trials-remaining 1) + (+ trials-passed 1) + x2)) + (else + (iter (- trials-remaining 1) + trials-passed + x2)))))) + (iter trials 0 initial-x)) + + While the program is still simple, it betrays some painful breaches +of modularity. In our first version of the program, using `rand', we +can express the Monte Carlo method directly as a general `monte-carlo' +procedure that takes as an argument an arbitrary `experiment' procedure. +In our second version of the program, with no local state for the +random-number generator, `random-gcd-test' must explicitly manipulate +the random numbers `x1' and `x2' and recycle `x2' through the iterative +loop as the new input to `rand-update'. This explicit handling of the +random numbers intertwines the structure of accumulating test results +with the fact that our particular experiment uses two random numbers, +whereas other Monte Carlo experiments might use one random number or +three. Even the top-level procedure `estimate-pi' has to be concerned +with supplying an initial random number. The fact that the +random-number generator's insides are leaking out into other parts of +the program makes it difficult for us to isolate the Monte Carlo idea +so that it can be applied to other tasks. In the first version of the +program, assignment encapsulates the state of the random-number +generator within the `rand' procedure, so that the details of +random-number generation remain independent of the rest of the program. + + The general phenomenon illustrated by the Monte Carlo example is +this: From the point of view of one part of a complex process, the +other parts appear to change with time. They have hidden time-varying +local state. If we wish to write computer programs whose structure +reflects this decomposition, we make computational objects (such as +bank accounts and random-number generators) whose behavior changes with +time. We model state with local state variables, and we model the +changes of state with assignments to those variables. + + It is tempting to conclude this discussion by saying that, by +introducing assignment and the technique of hiding state in local +variables, we are able to structure systems in a more modular fashion +than if all state had to be manipulated explicitly, by passing +additional parameters. Unfortunately, as we shall see, the story is +not so simple. + + *Exercise 3.5:* "Monte Carlo integration" is a method of + estimating definite integrals by means of Monte Carlo simulation. + Consider computing the area of a region of space described by a + predicate P(x, y) that is true for points (x, y) in the region and + false for points not in the region. For example, the region + contained within a circle of radius 3 centered at (5, 7) is + described by the predicate that tests whether (x - 5)^2 + (y - + 7)^2 <= 3^2. To estimate the area of the region described by such + a predicate, begin by choosing a rectangle that contains the + region. For example, a rectangle with diagonally opposite corners + at (2, 4) and (8, 10) contains the circle above. The desired + integral is the area of that portion of the rectangle that lies in + the region. We can estimate the integral by picking, at random, + points (x,y) that lie in the rectangle, and testing P(x, y) for + each point to determine whether the point lies in the region. If + we try this with many points, then the fraction of points that + fall in the region should give an estimate of the proportion of + the rectangle that lies in the region. Hence, multiplying this + fraction by the area of the entire rectangle should produce an + estimate of the integral. + + Implement Monte Carlo integration as a procedure + `estimate-integral' that takes as arguments a predicate `P', upper + and lower bounds `x1', `x2', `y1', and `y2' for the rectangle, and + the number of trials to perform in order to produce the estimate. + Your procedure should use the same `monte-carlo' procedure that + was used above to estimate [pi]. Use your `estimate-integral' to + produce an estimate of [pi] by measuring the area of a unit circle. + + You will find it useful to have a procedure that returns a number + chosen at random from a given range. The following + `random-in-range' procedure implements this in terms of the + `random' procedure used in section *Note 1-2-6::, which returns a + nonnegative number less than its input.(3) + + (define (random-in-range low high) + (let ((range (- high low))) + (+ low (random range)))) + + *Exercise 3.6:* It is useful to be able to reset a random-number + generator to produce a sequence starting from a given value. + Design a new `rand' procedure that is called with an argument that + is either the symbol `generate' or the symbol `reset' and behaves + as follows: `(rand 'generate)' produces a new random number; + `((rand 'reset) <NEW-VALUE>)' resets the internal state variable + to the designated <NEW-VALUE>. Thus, by resetting the state, one + can generate repeatable sequences. These are very handy to have + when testing and debugging programs that use random numbers. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) One common way to implement `rand-update' is to use the rule +that x is updated to ax + b modulo m, where a, b, and m are +appropriately chosen integers. Chapter 3 of Knuth 1981 includes an +extensive discussion of techniques for generating sequences of random +numbers and establishing their statistical properties. Notice that the +`rand-update' procedure computes a mathematical function: Given the +same input twice, it produces the same output. Therefore, the number +sequence produced by `rand-update' certainly is not "random," if by +"random" we insist that each number in the sequence is unrelated to the +preceding number. The relation between "real randomness" and so-called "pseudo-random" +sequences, which are produced by well-determined computations and yet +have suitable statistical properties, is a complex question involving +difficult issues in mathematics and philosophy. Kolmogorov, +Solomonoff, and Chaitin have made great progress in clarifying these +issues; a discussion can be found in Chaitin 1975. + + (2) This theorem is due to E. Cesa`ro. See section 4.5.2 of Knuth +1981 for a discussion and a proof. + + (3) MIT Scheme provides such a procedure. If `random' is given an +exact integer (as in section *Note 1-2-6::) it returns an exact +integer, but if it is given a decimal value (as in this exercise) it +returns a decimal value. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-1-3, Prev: 3-1-2, Up: 3-1 + +3.1.3 The Costs of Introducing Assignment +----------------------------------------- + +As we have seen, the `set!' operation enables us to model objects that +have local state. However, this advantage comes at a price. Our +programming language can no longer be interpreted in terms of the +substitution model of procedure application that we introduced in +section *Note 1-1-5::. Moreover, no simple model with "nice" +mathematical properties can be an adequate framework for dealing with +objects and assignment in programming languages. + + So long as we do not use assignments, two evaluations of the same +procedure with the same arguments will produce the same result, so that +procedures can be viewed as computing mathematical functions. +Programming without any use of assignments, as we did throughout the +first two chapters of this book, is accordingly known as "functional +programming". + + To understand how assignment complicates matters, consider a +simplified version of the `make-withdraw' procedure of section *Note +3-1-1:: that does not bother to check for an insufficient amount: + + (define (make-simplified-withdraw balance) + (lambda (amount) + (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance)) + + (define W (make-simplified-withdraw 25)) + + (W 20) + 5 + + (W 10) + - 5 + + Compare this procedure with the following `make-decrementer' +procedure, which does not use `set!': + + (define (make-decrementer balance) + (lambda (amount) + (- balance amount))) + + `Make-decrementer' returns a procedure that subtracts its input from +a designated amount `balance', but there is no accumulated effect over +successive calls, as with `make-simplified-withdraw': + + (define D (make-decrementer 25)) + + (D 20) + 5 + + (D 10) + 15 + + We can use the substitution model to explain how `make-decrementer' +works. For instance, let us analyze the evaluation of the expression + + ((make-decrementer 25) 20) + + We first simplify the operator of the combination by substituting 25 +for `balance' in the body of `make-decrementer'. This reduces the +expression to + + ((lambda (amount) (- 25 amount)) 20) + + Now we apply the operator by substituting 20 for `amount' in the +body of the `lambda' expression: + + (- 25 20) + + The final answer is 5. + + Observe, however, what happens if we attempt a similar substitution +analysis with `make-simplified-withdraw': + + ((make-simplified-withdraw 25) 20) + + We first simplify the operator by substituting 25 for `balance' in +the body of `make-simplified-withdraw'. This reduces the expression +to(1) + + ((lambda (amount) (set! balance (- 25 amount)) 25) 20) + + Now we apply the operator by substituting 20 for `amount' in the +body of the `lambda' expression: + + (set! balance (- 25 20)) 25 + + If we adhered to the substitution model, we would have to say that +the meaning of the procedure application is to first set `balance' to 5 +and then return 25 as the value of the expression. This gets the wrong +answer. In order to get the correct answer, we would have to somehow +distinguish the first occurrence of `balance' (before the effect of the +`set!') from the second occurrence of `balance' (after the effect of +the `set!'), and the substitution model cannot do this. + + The trouble here is that substitution is based ultimately on the +notion that the symbols in our language are essentially names for +values. But as soon as we introduce `set!' and the idea that the value +of a variable can change, a variable can no longer be simply a name. +Now a variable somehow refers to a place where a value can be stored, +and the value stored at this place can change. In section *Note 3-2:: +we will see how environments play this role of "place" in our +computational model. + +Sameness and change +................... + +The issue surfacing here is more profound than the mere breakdown of a +particular model of computation. As soon as we introduce change into +our computational models, many notions that were previously +straightforward become problematical. Consider the concept of two +things being "the same." + + Suppose we call `make-decrementer' twice with the same argument to +create two procedures: + + (define D1 (make-decrementer 25)) + + (define D2 (make-decrementer 25)) + + Are `D1' and `D2' the same? An acceptable answer is yes, because +`D1' and `D2' have the same computational behavior--each is a procedure +that subtracts its input from 25. In fact, `D1' could be substituted +for `D2' in any computation without changing the result. + + Contrast this with making two calls to `make-simplified-withdraw': + + (define W1 (make-simplified-withdraw 25)) + + (define W2 (make-simplified-withdraw 25)) + + Are `W1' and `W2' the same? Surely not, because calls to `W1' and +`W2' have distinct effects, as shown by the following sequence of +interactions: + + (W1 20) + 5 + + (W1 20) + - 15 + + (W2 20) + 5 + + Even though `W1' and `W2' are "equal" in the sense that they are +both created by evaluating the same expression, +`(make-simplified-withdraw 25)', it is not true that `W1' could be +substituted for `W2' in any expression without changing the result of +evaluating the expression. + + A language that supports the concept that "equals can be substituted +for equals" in an expresssion without changing the value of the +expression is said to be "referentially transparent". Referential +transparency is violated when we include `set!' in our computer +language. This makes it tricky to determine when we can simplify +expressions by substituting equivalent expressions. Consequently, +reasoning about programs that use assignment becomes drastically more +difficult. + + Once we forgo referential transparency, the notion of what it means +for computational objects to be "the same" becomes difficult to capture +in a formal way. Indeed, the meaning of "same" in the real world that +our programs model is hardly clear in itself. In general, we can +determine that two apparently identical objects are indeed "the same +one" only by modifying one object and then observing whether the other +object has changed in the same way. But how can we tell if an object +has "changed" other than by observing the "same" object twice and +seeing whether some property of the object differs from one observation +to the next? Thus, we cannot determine "change" without some _a +priori_ notion of "sameness," and we cannot determine sameness without +observing the effects of change. + + As an example of how this issue arises in programming, consider the +situation where Peter and Paul have a bank account with $100 in it. +There is a substantial difference between modeling this as + + (define peter-acc (make-account 100)) + (define paul-acc (make-account 100)) + +and modeling it as + + (define peter-acc (make-account 100)) + (define paul-acc peter-acc) + + In the first situation, the two bank accounts are distinct. +Transactions made by Peter will not affect Paul's account, and vice +versa. In the second situation, however, we have defined `paul-acc' to +be _the same thing_ as `peter-acc'. In effect, Peter and Paul now have +a joint bank account, and if Peter makes a withdrawal from `peter-acc' +Paul will observe less money in `paul-acc'. These two similar but +distinct situations can cause confusion in building computational +models. With the shared account, in particular, it can be especially +confusing that there is one object (the bank account) that has two +different names (`peter-acc' and `paul-acc'); if we are searching for +all the places in our program where `paul-acc' can be changed, we must +remember to look also at things that change `peter-acc'.(2) + + With reference to the above remarks on "sameness" and "change," +observe that if Peter and Paul could only examine their bank balances, +and could not perform operations that changed the balance, then the +issue of whether the two accounts are distinct would be moot. In +general, so long as we never modify data objects, we can regard a +compound data object to be precisely the totality of its pieces. For +example, a rational number is determined by giving its numerator and +its denominator. But this view is no longer valid in the presence of +change, where a compound data object has an "identity" that is +something different from the pieces of which it is composed. A bank +account is still "the same" bank account even if we change the balance +by making a withdrawal; conversely, we could have two different bank +accounts with the same state information. This complication is a +consequence, not of our programming language, but of our perception of +a bank account as an object. We do not, for example, ordinarily regard +a rational number as a changeable object with identity, such that we +could change the numerator and still have "the same" rational number. + +Pitfalls of imperative programming +.................................. + +In contrast to functional programming, programming that makes extensive +use of assignment is known as "imperative programming". In addition to +raising complications about computational models, programs written in +imperative style are susceptible to bugs that cannot occur in functional +programs. For example, recall the iterative factorial program from +section *Note 1-2-1::: + + (define (factorial n) + (define (iter product counter) + (if (> counter n) + product + (iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1)))) + (iter 1 1)) + + Instead of passing arguments in the internal iterative loop, we +could adopt a more imperative style by using explicit assignment to +update the values of the variables `product' and `counter': + + (define (factorial n) + (let ((product 1) + (counter 1)) + (define (iter) + (if (> counter n) + product + (begin (set! product (* counter product)) + (set! counter (+ counter 1)) + (iter)))) + (iter))) + + This does not change the results produced by the program, but it +does introduce a subtle trap. How do we decide the order of the +assignments? As it happens, the program is correct as written. But +writing the assignments in the opposite order + + (set! counter (+ counter 1)) + (set! product (* counter product)) + +would have produced a different, incorrect result. In general, +programming with assignment forces us to carefully consider the +relative orders of the assignments to make sure that each statement is +using the correct version of the variables that have been changed. +This issue simply does not arise in functional programs.(3) + + The complexity of imperative programs becomes even worse if we +consider applications in which several processes execute concurrently. +We will return to this in section *Note 3-4::. First, however, we will +address the issue of providing a computational model for expressions +that involve assignment, and explore the uses of objects with local +state in designing simulations. + + *Exercise 3.7:* Consider the bank account objects created by + `make-account', with the password modification described in *Note + Exercise 3-3::. Suppose that our banking system requires the + ability to make joint accounts. Define a procedure `make-joint' + that accomplishes this. `Make-joint' should take three arguments. + The first is a password-protected account. The second argument + must match the password with which the account was defined in + order for the `make-joint' operation to proceed. The third + argument is a new password. `Make-joint' is to create an + additional access to the original account using the new password. + For example, if `peter-acc' is a bank account with password + `open-sesame', then + + (define paul-acc + (make-joint peter-acc 'open-sesame 'rosebud)) + + will allow one to make transactions on `peter-acc' using the name + `paul-acc' and the password `rosebud'. You may wish to modify your + solution to *Note Exercise 3-3:: to accommodate this new feature + + *Exercise 3.8:* When we defined the evaluation model in section + *Note 1-1-3::, we said that the first step in evaluating an + expression is to evaluate its subexpressions. But we never + specified the order in which the subexpressions should be + evaluated (e.g., left to right or right to left). When we + introduce assignment, the order in which the arguments to a + procedure are evaluated can make a difference to the result. + Define a simple procedure `f' such that evaluating `(+ (f 0) (f + 1))' will return 0 if the arguments to `+' are evaluated from left + to right but will return 1 if the arguments are evaluated from + right to left. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We don't substitute for the occurrence of `balance' in the +`set!' expression because the <NAME> in a `set!' is not evaluated. If +we did substitute for it, we would get `(set! 25 (- 25 amount))', which +makes no sense. + + (2) The phenomenon of a single computational object being accessed +by more than one name is known as "aliasing". The joint bank account +situation illustrates a very simple example of an alias. In section +*Note 3-3:: we will see much more complex examples, such as "distinct" +compound data structures that share parts. Bugs can occur in our +programs if we forget that a change to an object may also, as a "side +effect," change a "different" object because the two "different" +objects are actually a single object appearing under different aliases. +These so-called "side-effect bugs" are so difficult to locate and to +analyze that some people have proposed that programming languages be +designed in such a way as to not allow side effects or aliasing +(Lampson et al. 1981; Morris, Schmidt, and Wadler 1980). + + (3) In view of this, it is ironic that introductory programming is +most often taught in a highly imperative style. This may be a vestige +of a belief, common throughout the 1960s and 1970s, that programs that +call procedures must inherently be less efficient than programs that +perform assignments. (Steele (1977) debunks this argument.) +Alternatively it may reflect a view that step-by-step assignment is +easier for beginners to visualize than procedure call. Whatever the +reason, it often saddles beginning programmers with "should I set this +variable before or after that one" concerns that can complicate +programming and obscure the important ideas. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-2, Next: 3-3, Prev: 3-1, Up: Chapter 3 + +3.2 The Environment Model of Evaluation +======================================= + +When we introduced compound procedures in *Note Chapter 1::, we used the +substitution model of evaluation (section *Note 1-1-5::) to define what +is meant by applying a procedure to arguments: + + * To apply a compound procedure to arguments, evaluate the body of + the procedure with each formal parameter replaced by the + corresponding argument. + + + Once we admit assignment into our programming language, such a +definition is no longer adequate. In particular, section *Note 3-1-3:: +argued that, in the presence of assignment, a variable can no longer be +considered to be merely a name for a value. Rather, a variable must +somehow designate a "place" in which values can be stored. In our new +model of evaluation, these places will be maintained in structures +called "environments". + + An environment is a sequence of "frames". Each frame is a table +(possibly empty) of "bindings", which associate variable names with +their corresponding values. (A single frame may contain at most one +binding for any variable.) Each frame also has a pointer to its environment +"enclosing environment", unless, for the purposes of discussion, the +frame is considered to be "global". The "value of a variable" with +respect to an environment is the value given by the binding of the +variable in the first frame in the environment that contains a binding +for that variable. If no frame in the sequence specifies a binding for +the variable, then the variable is said to be "unbound" in the +environment. + + *Figure 3.1:* A simple environment structure. + + +--------+ + | I | + | x: 3 | + | y: 5 | + +--------+ + ^ ^ + | | + C | | D + +---------+ | | +----------+ + | II | | | | III | + | z: 6 +---+ +---+ m: 1 | + | x: 7 | | y: 2 | + +---------+ +----------+ + + *Note Figure 3-1:: shows a simple environment structure consisting +of three frames, labeled I, II, and III. In the diagram, A, B, C, and +D are pointers to environments. C and D point to the same environment. +The variables `z' and `x' are bound in frame II, while `y' and `x' are +bound in frame I. The value of `x' in environment D is 3. The value +of `x' with respect to environment B is also 3. This is determined as +follows: We examine the first frame in the sequence (frame III) and do +not find a binding for `x', so we proceed to the enclosing environment +D and find the binding in frame I. On the other hand, the value of `x' +in environment A is 7, because the first frame in the sequence (frame +II) contains a binding of `x' to 7. With respect to environment A, the +binding of `x' to 7 in frame II is said to "shadow" the binding of `x' +to 3 in frame I. + + The environment is crucial to the evaluation process, because it +determines the context in which an expression should be evaluated. +Indeed, one could say that expressions in a programming language do +not, in themselves, have any meaning. Rather, an expression acquires a +meaning only with respect to some environment in which it is evaluated. +Even the interpretation of an expression as straightforward as `(+ 1 +1)' depends on an understanding that one is operating in a context in +which `+' is the symbol for addition. Thus, in our model of evaluation +we will always speak of evaluating an expression with respect to some +environment. To describe interactions with the interpreter, we will +suppose that there is a global environment, consisting of a single frame +(with no enclosing environment) that includes values for the symbols +associated with the primitive procedures. For example, the idea that +`+' is the symbol for addition is captured by saying that the symbol +`+' is bound in the global environment to the primitive addition +procedure. + +* Menu: + +* 3-2-1:: The Rules for Evaluation +* 3-2-2:: Applying Simple Procedures +* 3-2-3:: Frames as the Repository of Local State +* 3-2-4:: Internal Definitions + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-2-1, Next: 3-2-2, Prev: 3-2, Up: 3-2 + +3.2.1 The Rules for Evaluation +------------------------------ + +The overall specification of how the interpreter evaluates a combination +remains the same as when we first introduced it in section *Note +1-1-3::: + + * To evaluate a combination: + + + 1. Evaluate the subexpressions of the combination.(1) + + 2. Apply the value of the operator subexpression to the values of the + operand subexpressions. + + + The environment model of evaluation replaces the substitution model +in specifying what it means to apply a compound procedure to arguments. + + In the environment model of evaluation, a procedure is always a pair +consisting of some code and a pointer to an environment. Procedures +are created in one way only: by evaluating a `lambda' expression. This +produces a procedure whose code is obtained from the text of the +`lambda' expression and whose environment is the environment in which +the `lambda' expression was evaluated to produce the procedure. For +example, consider the procedure definition + + (define (square x) + (* x x)) + +evaluated in the global environment. The procedure definition syntax +is just syntactic sugar for an underlying implicit `lambda' expression. +It would have been equivalent to have used + + (define square + (lambda (x) (* x x))) + +which evaluates `(lambda (x) (* x x))' and binds `square' to the +resulting value, all in the global environment. + + *Note Figure 3-2:: shows the result of evaluating this `define' +expression. The procedure object is a pair whose code specifies that +the procedure has one formal parameter, namely `x', and a procedure +body `(* x x)'. The environment part of the procedure is a pointer to +the global environment, since that is the environment in which the +`lambda' expression was evaluated to produce the procedure. A new +binding, which associates the procedure object with the symbol +`square', has been added to the global frame. In general, `define' +creates definitions by adding bindings to frames. + + *Figure 3.2:* Environment structure produced by evaluating + `(define (square x) (* x x))' in the global environment. + + +----------------------+ + | other variables | + global --->| | + env | square: --+ | + +-----------|----------+ + | ^ + (define (square x) | | + (* x x)) V | + .---.---. | + | O | O-+---+ + `-|-^---' + | + V + parameters: x + body: (* x x) + + Now that we have seen how procedures are created, we can describe how +procedures are applied. The environment model specifies: To apply a +procedure to arguments, create a new environment containing a frame +that binds the parameters to the values of the arguments. The +enclosing environment of this frame is the environment specified by the +procedure. Now, within this new environment, evaluate the procedure +body. + + To show how this rule is followed, *Note Figure 3-3:: illustrates +the environment structure created by evaluating the expression `(square +5)' in the global environment, where `square' is the procedure +generated in *Note Figure 3-2::. Applying the procedure results in the +creation of a new environment, labeled E1 in the figure, that begins +with a frame in which `x', the formal parameter for the procedure, is +bound to the argument 5. The pointer leading upward from this frame +shows that the frame's enclosing environment is the global environment. +The global environment is chosen here, because this is the environment +that is indicated as part of the `square' procedure object. Within E1, +we evaluate the body of the procedure, `(* x x)'. Since the value of +`x' in E1 is 5, the result is `(* 5 5)', or 25. + + *Figure 3.3:* Environment created by evaluating `(square 5)' in + the global environment. + + +------------------------------------+ + | other variables | + global -->| | + env | square: --+ | + +-----------|---------------------+--+ + | ^ ^ + (square 5) | | | + V | | + .---.---. | +---+--+ + | O | O-+---+ E1 -->| x: 5 | + `-|-^---' +------+ + | + V + parameters: x + body: (* x x) + + The environment model of procedure application can be summarized by +two rules: + + * A procedure object is applied to a set of arguments by + constructing a frame, binding the formal parameters of the + procedure to the arguments of the call, and then evaluating the + body of the procedure in the context of the new environment + constructed. The new frame has as its enclosing environment the + environment part of the procedure object being applied. + + * A procedure is created by evaluating a `lambda' expression + relative to a given environment. The resulting procedure object + is a pair consisting of the text of the `lambda' expression and a + pointer to the environment in which the procedure was created. + + + We also specify that defining a symbol using `define' creates a +binding in the current environment frame and assigns to the symbol the +indicated value.(2) Finally, we specify the behavior of `set!', the +operation that forced us to introduce the environment model in the +first place. Evaluating the expression `(set! <VARIABLE> <VALUE>)' in +some environment locates the binding of the variable in the environment +and changes that binding to indicate the new value. That is, one finds +the first frame in the environment that contains a binding for the +variable and modifies that frame. If the variable is unbound in the +environment, then `set!' signals an error. + + These evaluation rules, though considerably more complex than the +substitution model, are still reasonably straightforward. Moreover, +the evaluation model, though abstract, provides a correct description +of how the interpreter evaluates expressions. In *Note Chapter 4:: we +shall see how this model can serve as a blueprint for implementing a +working interpreter. The following sections elaborate the details of +the model by analyzing some illustrative programs. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) ssignment introduces a subtlety into step 1 of the evaluation +rule. As shown in *Note Exercise 3-8::, the presence of assignment +allows us to write expressions that will produce different values +depending on the order in which the subexpressions in a combination are +evaluated. Thus, to be precise, we should specify an evaluation order +in step 1 (e.g., left to right or right to left). However, this order +should always be considered to be an implementation detail, and one +should never write programs that depend on some particular order. For +instance, a sophisticated compiler might optimize a program by varying +the order in which subexpressions are evaluated. + + (2) If there is already a binding for the variable in the current +frame, then the binding is changed. This is convenient because it +allows redefinition of symbols; however, it also means that `define' +can be used to change values, and this brings up the issues of +assignment without explicitly using `set!'. Because of this, some +people prefer redefinitions of existing symbols to signal errors or +warnings. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-2-2, Next: 3-2-3, Prev: 3-2-1, Up: 3-2 + +3.2.2 Applying Simple Procedures +-------------------------------- + +When we introduced the substitution model in section *Note 1-1-5:: we +showed how the combination `(f 5)' evaluates to 136, given the +following procedure definitions: + + (define (square x) + (* x x)) + + (define (sum-of-squares x y) + (+ (square x) (square y))) + + (define (f a) + (sum-of-squares (+ a 1) (* a 2))) + + We can analyze the same example using the environment model. *Note +Figure 3-4:: shows the three procedure objects created by evaluating +the definitions of `f', `square', and `sum-of-squares' in the global +environment. Each procedure object consists of some code, together +with a pointer to the global environment. + + *Figure 3.4:* Procedure objects in the global frame. + + +--------------------------------------------+ + | sum-of-squares: | + global -->| square: | + env | f: --+ | + +------|--------------+--------------+-------+ + | ^ | ^ | ^ + | | | | | | + V | V | V | + .---.---. | .---.---. | .---.---. | + | O | O-+-+ | O | O-+-+ | O | O-+-+ + `-|-^---' `-|-^---' `-|-^---' + | | | + V V V + parameters: a parameters: x parameters: x, y + body: (sum-of-squares body: (* x x) body: (+ (square x) + (+ a 1) (square y)) + (* a 2)) + + In *Note Figure 3-5:: we see the environment structure created by +evaluating the expression `(f 5)'. The call to `f' creates a new +environment E1 beginning with a frame in which `a', the formal +parameter of `f', is bound to the argument 5. In E1, we evaluate the +body of `f': + + (sum-of-squares (+ a 1) (* a 2)) + + *Figure 3.5:* Environments created by evaluating `(f 5)' using the + procedures in *Note Figure 3-4::. + + +-----------------------------------------------------+ + global -->| | + env +-----------------------------------------------------+ + ^ ^ ^ ^ + (f 5) | | | | + +------+ +-------+ +------+ +-------+ + E1 -->| a: 5 | E2 ->| x: 6 | E3 -->| x: 6 | E4 -->| x: 10 | + | | | y: 10 | | | | | + +------+ +-------+ +------+ +-------+ + (sum-of-squares (+ (square x) (* x x) (* x x) + (+ a 1) (square u)) + (+ a 2)) + + To evaluate this combination, we first evaluate the subexpressions. +The first subexpression, `sum-of-squares', has a value that is a +procedure object. (Notice how this value is found: We first look in +the first frame of E1, which contains no binding for `sum-of-squares'. +Then we proceed to the enclosing environment, i.e. the global +environment, and find the binding shown in *Note Figure 3-4::.) The +other two subexpressions are evaluated by applying the primitive +operations `+' and `*' to evaluate the two combinations `(+ a 1)' and +`(* a 2)' to obtain 6 and 10, respectively. + + Now we apply the procedure object `sum-of-squares' to the arguments +6 and 10. This results in a new environment E2 in which the formal +parameters `x' and `y' are bound to the arguments. Within E2 we +evaluate the combination `(+ (square x) (square y))'. This leads us to +evaluate `(square x)', where `square' is found in the global frame and +`x' is 6. Once again, we set up a new environment, E3, in which `x' is +bound to 6, and within this we evaluate the body of `square', which is +`(* x x)'. Also as part of applying `sum-of-squares', we must evaluate +the subexpression `(square y)', where `y' is 10. This second call to +`square' creates another environment, E4, in which `x', the formal +parameter of `square', is bound to 10. And within E4 we must evaluate +`(* x x)'. + + The important point to observe is that each call to `square' creates +a new environment containing a binding for `x'. We can see here how the +different frames serve to keep separate the different local variables +all named `x'. Notice that each frame created by `square' points to +the global environment, since this is the environment indicated by the +`square' procedure object. + + After the subexpressions are evaluated, the results are returned. +The values generated by the two calls to `square' are added by +`sum-of-squares', and this result is returned by `f'. Since our focus +here is on the environment structures, we will not dwell on how these +returned values are passed from call to call; however, this is also an +important aspect of the evaluation process, and we will return to it in +detail in *Note Chapter 5::. + + *Exercise 3.9:* In section *Note 1-2-1:: we used the substitution + model to analyze two procedures for computing factorials, a + recursive version + + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* n (factorial (- n 1))))) + + and an iterative version + + (define (factorial n) + (fact-iter 1 1 n)) + + (define (fact-iter product counter max-count) + (if (> counter max-count) + product + (fact-iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1) + max-count))) + + Show the environment structures created by evaluating `(factorial + 6)' using each version of the `factorial' procedure.(1) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The environment model will not clarify our claim in section +*Note 1-2-1:: that the interpreter can execute a procedure such as +`fact-iter' in a constant amount of space using tail recursion. We +will discuss tail recursion when we deal with the control structure of +the interpreter in section *Note 5-4::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-2-3, Next: 3-2-4, Prev: 3-2-2, Up: 3-2 + +3.2.3 Frames as the Repository of Local State +--------------------------------------------- + +We can turn to the environment model to see how procedures and +assignment can be used to represent objects with local state. As an +example, consider the "withdrawal processor" from section *Note 3-1-1:: +created by calling the procedure + + (define (make-withdraw balance) + (lambda (amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds"))) + + Let us describe the evaluation of + + (define W1 (make-withdraw 100)) + +followed by + + (W1 50) + 50 + + *Note Figure 3-6:: shows the result of defining the `make-withdraw' +procedure in the global environment. This produces a procedure object +that contains a pointer to the global environment. So far, this is no +different from the examples we have already seen, except that the body +of the procedure is itself a `lambda' expression. + + *Figure 3.6:* Result of defining `make-withdraw' in the global + environment. + + +---------------------------+ + global -->| make-withdraw: --+ | + env +------------------|--------+ + | ^ + V | + .---.---. | + | O | O-+--+ + `-|-^---' + | + V + parameters: balance + body: (lambda (amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance + (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + + The interesting part of the computation happens when we apply the +procedure `make-withdraw' to an argument: + + (define W1 (make-withdraw 100)) + + We begin, as usual, by setting up an environment E1 in which the +formal parameter `balance' is bound to the argument 100. Within this +environment, we evaluate the body of `make-withdraw', namely the +`lambda' expression. This constructs a new procedure object, whose code +is as specified by the `lambda' and whose environment is E1, the +environment in which the `lambda' was evaluated to produce the +procedure. The resulting procedure object is the value returned by the +call to `make-withdraw'. This is bound to `W1' in the global +environment, since the `define' itself is being evaluated in the global +environment. *Note Figure 3-7:: shows the resulting environment +structure. + + *Figure 3.7:* Result of evaluating `(define W1 (make-withdraw + 100))'. + + +-----------------------------------------------+ + | make-withdraw: -----------------------+ | + global -->| | | + | W1: --+ | | + +-------|-------------------------------|-------+ + | ^ | ^ + | | V | + | +-------+------+ .---.---. | + | E1 -->| balance: 100 | | O | O-+-+ + | +--------------+ `-|-^---' + V ^ | + .---.---. | V + +-+-O | O-+------------+ parameters: balance + | `---^---' body: ... + V + parameters: amount + body: (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds") + + Now we can analyze what happens when `W1' is applied to an argument: + + (W1 50) + 50 + + We begin by constructing a frame in which `amount', the formal +parameter of `W1', is bound to the argument 50. The crucial point to +observe is that this frame has as its enclosing environment not the +global environment, but rather the environment E1, because this is the +environment that is specified by the `W1' procedure object. Within +this new environment, we evaluate the body of the procedure: + + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds") + + The resulting environment structure is shown in *Note Figure 3-8::. +The expression being evaluated references both `amount' and `balance'. +`Amount' will be found in the first frame in the environment, while +`balance' will be found by following the enclosing-environment pointer +to E1. + + *Figure 3.8:* Environments created by applying the procedure + object `W1'. + + +---------------------------------------------------+ + | make-withdraw: ... | + global -->| | + env | W1: --+ | + +-------|-------------------------------------------+ + | ^ + | | + | +-------+------+ Here is the balance + | E1 -->| balance: 100 | that will be changed + | +--------------+ by the set!. + V ^ ^ + .---.---. | +----+ + | O | O-+-----------+ | + `-|-^---' +------+-----+ + | | amount: 50 | + V +------------+ + parameters: amount (if (>= balance amount) + body: ... (begin (set! balance + (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds") + + When the `set!' is executed, the binding of `balance' in E1 is +changed. At the completion of the call to `W1', `balance' is 50, and +the frame that contains `balance' is still pointed to by the procedure +object `W1'. The frame that binds `amount' (in which we executed the +code that changed `balance') is no longer relevant, since the procedure +call that constructed it has terminated, and there are no pointers to +that frame from other parts of the environment. The next time `W1' is +called, this will build a new frame that binds `amount' and whose +enclosing environment is E1. We see that E1 serves as the "place" that +holds the local state variable for the procedure object `W1'. *Note +Figure 3-9:: shows the situation after the call to `W1'. + + *Figure 3.9:* Environments after the call to `W1'. + + +------------------------------------+ + | make-withdraw: ... | + global --->| | + env | W1: --+ | + +-------|----------------------------+ + | ^ + | | + | +------+------+ + | E1 --->| balance: 50 | + | +-------------+ + V ^ + .---.---. | + | O | O-+---------------+ + `-|-^---' + | + V + parameters: amount + body: ... + + Observe what happens when we create a second "withdraw" object by +making another call to `make-withdraw': + + (define W2 (make-withdraw 100)) + + This produces the environment structure of *Note Figure 3-10::, +which shows that `W2' is a procedure object, that is, a pair with some +code and an environment. The environment E2 for `W2' was created by +the call to `make-withdraw'. It contains a frame with its own local +binding for `balance'. On the other hand, `W1' and `W2' have the same +code: the code specified by the `lambda' expression in the body of +`make-withdraw'.(1) We see here why `W1' and `W2' behave as independent +objects. Calls to `W1' reference the state variable `balance' stored +in E1, whereas calls to `W2' reference the `balance' stored in E2. +Thus, changes to the local state of one object do not affect the other +object. + + *Figure 3.10:* Using `(define W2 (make-withdraw 100))' to create a + second object. + + +-------------------------------------------------+ + | make-withdraw: ... | + global ->| W2: ---------------------------+ | + env | W1: --+ | | + +-------|------------------------|----------------+ + | ^ | ^ + | | | | + | +------+------+ | +------+-------+ + | E1 ->| balance: 50 | | E2 ->| balance: 100 | + | +-------------+ | +--------------+ + V ^ V ^ + .---.---. | .---.---. | + | O | O-+----------+ | O | O-+----------+ + `-|-^---' `-|-^---' + | +----------------------+ + V V + parameters: amount + body: ... + + *Exercise 3.10:* In the `make-withdraw' procedure, the local + variable `balance' is created as a parameter of `make-withdraw'. + We could also create the local state variable explicitly, using + `let', as follows: + + (define (make-withdraw initial-amount) + (let ((balance initial-amount)) + (lambda (amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")))) + + Recall from section *Note 1-3-2:: that `let' is simply syntactic + sugar for a procedure call: + + (let ((<VAR> <EXP>)) <BODY>) + + is interpreted as an alternate syntax for + + ((lambda (<VAR>) <BODY>) <EXP>) + + Use the environment model to analyze this alternate version of + `make-withdraw', drawing figures like the ones above to illustrate + the interactions + + (define W1 (make-withdraw 100)) + + (W1 50) + + (define W2 (make-withdraw 100)) + + Show that the two versions of `make-withdraw' create objects with + the same behavior. How do the environment structures differ for + the two versions? + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Whether `W1' and `W2' share the same physical code stored in the +computer, or whether they each keep a copy of the code, is a detail of +the implementation. For the interpreter we implement in *Note Chapter +4::, the code is in fact shared. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-2-4, Prev: 3-2-3, Up: 3-2 + +3.2.4 Internal Definitions +-------------------------- + +Section *Note 1-1-8:: introduced the idea that procedures can have +internal definitions, thus leading to a block structure as in the +following procedure to compute square roots: + + (define (sqrt x) + (define (good-enough? guess) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + (define (improve guess) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + (define (sqrt-iter guess) + (if (good-enough? guess) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess)))) + (sqrt-iter 1.0)) + + Now we can use the environment model to see why these internal +definitions behave as desired. *Note Figure 3-11:: shows the point in +the evaluation of the expression `(sqrt 2)' where the internal +procedure `good-enough?' has been called for the first time with +`guess' equal to 1. + + *Figure 3.11:* `Sqrt' procedure with internal definitions. + + +--------------------------------------------------+ + global -->| sqrt: --+ | + env | | | + +---------|----------------------------------------+ + V ^ ^ + .---.---. | | + +----------+-O | O-+---+ +----------+------------+ + | `---^---' | x: 2 | + V E1 -->| good-enough?: -+ | + parameters: x | improve: ... | | + body: (define good-enough? ...) | sqrt-iter: ... | | + (define improve ...) +----------------|------+ + (define sqrt-iter ...) ^ ^ | ^ + (sqrt-iter 1.0) | | V | + +---------++ | .---.---. | + E2 -->| guess: 1 | | | O | O-+-+ + +----------+ | `-|-^---' + call to sqrt-iter | | + | V + +---------++ parameters: guess + E3 -->| guess: 1 | body: (< (abs ...) + +----------+ ...) + call to good-enough? + + Observe the structure of the environment. `Sqrt' is a symbol in the +global environment that is bound to a procedure object whose associated +environment is the global environment. When `sqrt' was called, a new +environment E1 was formed, subordinate to the global environment, in +which the parameter `x' is bound to 2. The body of `sqrt' was then +evaluated in E1. Since the first expression in the body of `sqrt' is + + (define (good-enough? guess) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + +evaluating this expression defined the procedure `good-enough?' in the +environment E1. To be more precise, the symbol `good-enough?' was added +to the first frame of E1, bound to a procedure object whose associated +environment is E1. Similarly, `improve' and `sqrt-iter' were defined +as procedures in E1. For conciseness, *Note Figure 3-11:: shows only +the procedure object for `good-enough?'. + + After the local procedures were defined, the expression `(sqrt-iter +1.0)' was evaluated, still in environment E1. So the procedure object +bound to `sqrt-iter' in E1 was called with 1 as an argument. This +created an environment E2 in which `guess', the parameter of +`sqrt-iter', is bound to 1. `Sqrt-iter' in turn called `good-enough?' +with the value of `guess' (from E2) as the argument for `good-enough?'. +This set up another environment, E3, in which `guess' (the parameter of +`good-enough?') is bound to 1. Although `sqrt-iter' and `good-enough?' +both have a parameter named `guess', these are two distinct local +variables located in different frames. Also, E2 and E3 both have E1 as +their enclosing environment, because the `sqrt-iter' and `good-enough?' +procedures both have E1 as their environment part. One consequence of +this is that the symbol `x' that appears in the body of `good-enough?' +will reference the binding of `x' that appears in E1, namely the value +of `x' with which the original `sqrt' procedure was called. + + The environment model thus explains the two key properties that make +local procedure definitions a useful technique for modularizing +programs: + + * The names of the local procedures do not interfere with names + external to the enclosing procedure, because the local procedure + names will be bound in the frame that the procedure creates when + it is run, rather than being bound in the global environment. + + * The local procedures can access the arguments of the enclosing + procedure, simply by using parameter names as free variables. + This is because the body of the local procedure is evaluated in an + environment that is subordinate to the evaluation environment for + the enclosing procedure. + + + *Exercise 3.11:* In section *Note 3-2-3:: we saw how the + environment model described the behavior of procedures with local + state. Now we have seen how internal definitions work. A typical + message-passing procedure contains both of these aspects. + Consider the bank account procedure of section *Note 3-1-1::: + + (define (make-account balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) withdraw) + ((eq? m 'deposit) deposit) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch) + + Show the environment structure generated by the sequence of + interactions + + (define acc (make-account 50)) + + ((acc 'deposit) 40) + 90 + + ((acc 'withdraw) 60) + 30 + + Where is the local state for `acc' kept? Suppose we define another + account + + (define acc2 (make-account 100)) + + How are the local states for the two accounts kept distinct? + Which parts of the environment structure are shared between `acc' + and `acc2'? + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-3, Next: 3-4, Prev: 3-2, Up: Chapter 3 + +3.3 Modeling with Mutable Data +============================== + +Chapter 2 dealt with compound data as a means for constructing +computational objects that have several parts, in order to model +real-world objects that have several aspects. In that chapter we +introduced the discipline of data abstraction, according to which data +structures are specified in terms of constructors, which create data +objects, and selectors, which access the parts of compound data +objects. But we now know that there is another aspect of data that +*Note Chapter 2:: did not address. The desire to model systems +composed of objects that have changing state leads us to the need to +modify compound data objects, as well as to construct and select from +them. In order to model compound objects with changing state, we will +design data abstractions to include, in addition to selectors and +constructors, operations called "mutators", which modify data objects. +For instance, modeling a banking system requires us to change account +balances. Thus, a data structure for representing bank accounts might +admit an operation + + (set-balance! <ACCOUNT> <NEW-VALUE>) + +that changes the balance of the designated account to the designated +new value. Data objects for which mutators are defined are known as objects +"mutable data objects". + + *Note Chapter 2:: introduced pairs as a general-purpose "glue" for +synthesizing compound data. We begin this section by defining basic +mutators for pairs, so that pairs can serve as building blocks for +constructing mutable data objects. These mutators greatly enhance the +representational power of pairs, enabling us to build data structures +other than the sequences and trees that we worked with in section *Note +2-2::. We also present some examples of simulations in which complex +systems are modeled as collections of objects with local state. + +* Menu: + +* 3-3-1:: Mutable List Structure +* 3-3-2:: Representing Queues +* 3-3-3:: Representing Tables +* 3-3-4:: A Simulator for Digital Circuits +* 3-3-5:: Propagation of Constraints + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-3-1, Next: 3-3-2, Prev: 3-3, Up: 3-3 + +3.3.1 Mutable List Structure +---------------------------- + +The basic operations on pairs--`cons', `car', and `cdr'--can be used to +construct list structure and to select parts from list structure, but +they are incapable of modifying list structure. The same is true of the +list operations we have used so far, such as `append' and `list', since +these can be defined in terms of `cons', `car', and `cdr'. To modify +list structures we need new operations. + + *Figure 3.12:* Lists `x': `((a b) c d)' and `y': `(e f)'. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + x -->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | V V + | +---+ +---+ + | | c | | d | + | +---+ +---+ + | +---+---+ +---+---+ + +---------->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V + +---+ +---+ + | a | | b | + +---+ +---+ + +---+---+ +---+---+ + y -->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V + +---+ +---+ + | e | | f | + +---+ +---+ + + *Figure 3.13:* Effect of `(set-car! x y)' on the lists in *Note + Figure 3-12::. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + x -->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | V V + | +---+ +---+ + | | c | | d | + | +---+ +---+ + | +---+---+ +---+---+ + | | * | *-+---->| * | / | + | +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | V V + | +---+ +---+ + | | a | | b | + | +---+ +---+ + +---------->+---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+---->| * | / | + y -->+-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V + +---+ +---+ + | e | | f | + +---+ +---+ + + *Figure 3.14:* Effect of `(define z (cons y (cdr x)))' on the + lists in *Note Figure 3-12::. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + x -->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-->+-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | | V V + | | +---+ +---+ + | | | c | | d | + | | +---+ +---+ + | | +---+---+ +---+---+ + +-------+-->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + | +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + +---+---+ | V V + z -->| * | *-+-+ +---+ +---+ + +-|-+---+ | a | | b | + | +---+ +---+ + +---------->+---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+---->| * | / | + y -->+-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V + +---+ +---+ + | e | | f | + +---+ +---+ + + *Figure 3.15:* Effect of `(set-cdr! x y)' on the lists in *Note + Figure 3-12::. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + x -->| * | * | | * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | | V V + | | +---+ +---+ + | | | c | | d | + | | +---+ +---+ + | | +---+---+ +---+---+ + +---+------>| * | *-+---->| * | / | + | +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | V V + | +---+ +---+ + | | a | | b | + | +---+ +---+ + +------>+---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+---->| * | / | + y -->+-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V + +---+ +---+ + | e | | f | + +---+ +---+ + + The primitive mutators for pairs are `set-car!' and `set-cdr!'. +`Set-car!' takes two arguments, the first of which must be a pair. It +modifies this pair, replacing the `car' pointer by a pointer to the +second argument of `set-car!'.(1) + + As an example, suppose that `x' is bound to the list `((a b) c d)' +and `y' to the list `(e f)' as illustrated in *Note Figure 3-12::. +Evaluating the expression ` (set-car! x y)' modifies the pair to which +`x' is bound, replacing its `car' by the value of `y'. The result of +the operation is shown in *Note Figure 3-13::. The structure `x' has +been modified and would now be printed as `((e f) c d)'. The pairs +representing the list `(a b)', identified by the pointer that was +replaced, are now detached from the original structure.(2) + + Compare *Note Figure 3-13:: with *Note Figure 3-14::, which +illustrates the result of executing `(define z (cons y (cdr x)))' with +`x' and `y' bound to the original lists of *Note Figure 3-12::. The +variable `z' is now bound to a new pair created by the `cons' +operation; the list to which `x' is bound is unchanged. + + The `set-cdr!' operation is similar to `set-car!'. The only +difference is that the `cdr' pointer of the pair, rather than the `car' +pointer, is replaced. The effect of executing `(set-cdr! x y)' on the +lists of *Note Figure 3-12:: is shown in *Note Figure 3-15::. Here the +`cdr' pointer of `x' has been replaced by the pointer to `(e f)'. +Also, the list `(c d)', which used to be the `cdr' of `x', is now +detached from the structure. + + `Cons' builds new list structure by creating new pairs, while +`set-car!' and `set-cdr!' modify existing pairs. Indeed, we could +implement `cons' in terms of the two mutators, together with a procedure +`get-new-pair', which returns a new pair that is not part of any +existing list structure. We obtain the new pair, set its `car' and +`cdr' pointers to the designated objects, and return the new pair as +the result of the `cons'.(3) + + (define (cons x y) + (let ((new (get-new-pair))) + (set-car! new x) + (set-cdr! new y) + new)) + + *Exercise 3.12:* The following procedure for appending lists was + introduced in section *Note 2-2-1::: + + (define (append x y) + (if (null? x) + y + (cons (car x) (append (cdr x) y)))) + + `Append' forms a new list by successively `cons'ing the elements of + `x' onto `y'. The procedure `append!' is similar to `append', but + it is a mutator rather than a constructor. It appends the lists + by splicing them together, modifying the final pair of `x' so that + its `cdr' is now `y'. (It is an error to call `append!' with an + empty `x'.) + + (define (append! x y) + (set-cdr! (last-pair x) y) + x) + + Here `last-pair' is a procedure that returns the last pair in its + argument: + + (define (last-pair x) + (if (null? (cdr x)) + x + (last-pair (cdr x)))) + + Consider the interaction + + (define x (list 'a 'b)) + + (define y (list 'c 'd)) + + (define z (append x y)) + + z + (a b c d) + + (cdr x) + <RESPONSE> + + (define w (append! x y)) + + w + (a b c d) + + (cdr x) + <RESPONSE> + + What are the missing <RESPONSE>s? Draw box-and-pointer diagrams to + explain your answer. + + *Exercise 3.13:* Consider the following `make-cycle' procedure, + which uses the `last-pair' procedure defined in *Note Exercise + 3-12::: + + (define (make-cycle x) + (set-cdr! (last-pair x) x) + x) + + Draw a box-and-pointer diagram that shows the structure `z' + created by + + (define z (make-cycle (list 'a 'b 'c))) + + What happens if we try to compute `(last-pair z)'? + + *Exercise 3.14:* The following procedure is quite useful, although + obscure: + + (define (mystery x) + (define (loop x y) + (if (null? x) + y + (let ((temp (cdr x))) + (set-cdr! x y) + (loop temp x)))) + (loop x '())) + + `Loop' uses the "temporary" variable `temp' to hold the old value + of the `cdr' of `x', since the `set-cdr!' on the next line + destroys the `cdr'. Explain what `mystery' does in general. + Suppose `v' is defined by `(define v (list 'a 'b 'c 'd))'. Draw the + box-and-pointer diagram that represents the list to which `v' is + bound. Suppose that we now evaluate `(define w (mystery v))'. Draw + box-and-pointer diagrams that show the structures `v' and `w' after + evaluating this expression. What would be printed as the values + of `v' and `w'? + +Sharing and identity +.................... + +We mentioned in section *Note 3-1-3:: the theoretical issues of +"sameness" and "change" raised by the introduction of assignment. +These issues arise in practice when individual pairs are "shared" among +different data objects. For example, consider the structure formed by + + (define x (list 'a 'b)) + (define z1 (cons x x)) + + As shown in *Note Figure 3-16::, `z1' is a pair whose `car' and +`cdr' both point to the same pair `x'. This sharing of `x' by the +`car' and `cdr' of `z1' is a consequence of the straightforward way in +which `cons' is implemented. In general, using `cons' to construct +lists will result in an interlinked structure of pairs in which many +individual pairs are shared by many different structures. + + *Figure 3.16:* The list `z1' formed by `(cons x x)'. + + +---+---+ + z1 -->| * | * | + +-|-+-|-+ + V V + +---+---+ +---+---+ + x -->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V + +---+ +---+ + | a | | b | + +---+ +---+ + + *Figure 3.17:* The list `z2' formed by `(cons (list 'a 'b) (list + 'a 'b))'. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + z2 -->| * | *-+---->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | V V + | +---+ +---+ + | | a | | b | + | +---+ +---+ + | ^ ^ + | | | + | +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + +---------->| * | *-+---->| * | / | + +---+---+ +---+---+ + + In contrast to *Note Figure 3-16::, *Note Figure 3-17:: shows the +structure created by + + (define z2 (cons (list 'a 'b) (list 'a 'b))) + + In this structure, the pairs in the two `(a b)' lists are distinct, +although the actual symbols are shared.(4) + + When thought of as a list, `z1' and `z2' both represent "the same" +list, `((a b) a b)'. In general, sharing is completely undetectable if +we operate on lists using only `cons', `car', and `cdr'. However, if +we allow mutators on list structure, sharing becomes significant. As an +example of the difference that sharing can make, consider the following +procedure, which modifies the `car' of the structure to which it is +applied: + + (define (set-to-wow! x) + (set-car! (car x) 'wow) + x) + + Even though `z1' and `z2' are "the same" structure, applying +`set-to-wow!' to them yields different results. With `z1', altering +the `car' also changes the `cdr', because in `z1' the `car' and the +`cdr' are the same pair. With `z2', the `car' and `cdr' are distinct, +so `set-to-wow!' modifies only the `car': + + z1 + ((a b) a b) + + (set-to-wow! z1) + ((wow b) wow b) + + z2 + ((a b) a b) + + (set-to-wow! z2) + ((wow b) a b) + + One way to detect sharing in list structures is to use the predicate +`eq?', which we introduced in section *Note 2-3-1:: as a way to test +whether two symbols are equal. More generally, `(eq? x y)' tests +whether `x' and `y' are the same object (that is, whether `x' and `y' +are equal as pointers). Thus, with `z1' and `z2' as defined in figures +*Note Figure 3-16:: and *Note Figure 3-17::, `(eq? (car z1) (cdr z1))' +is true and `(eq? (car z2) (cdr z2))' is false. + + As will be seen in the following sections, we can exploit sharing to +greatly extend the repertoire of data structures that can be +represented by pairs. On the other hand, sharing can also be +dangerous, since modifications made to structures will also affect +other structures that happen to share the modified parts. The mutation +operations `set-car!' and `set-cdr!' should be used with care; unless +we have a good understanding of how our data objects are shared, +mutation can have unanticipated results.(5) + + *Exercise 3.15:* Draw box-and-pointer diagrams to explain the + effect of `set-to-wow!' on the structures `z1' and `z2' above. + + *Exercise 3.16:* Ben Bitdiddle decides to write a procedure to + count the number of pairs in any list structure. "It's easy," he + reasons. "The number of pairs in any structure is the number in + the `car' plus the number in the `cdr' plus one more to count the + current pair." So Ben writes the following procedure: + + (define (count-pairs x) + (if (not (pair? x)) + 0 + (+ (count-pairs (car x)) + (count-pairs (cdr x)) + 1))) + + Show that this procedure is not correct. In particular, draw + box-and-pointer diagrams representing list structures made up of + exactly three pairs for which Ben's procedure would return 3; + return 4; return 7; never return at all. + + *Exercise 3.17:* Devise a correct version of the `count-pairs' + procedure of *Note Exercise 3-16:: that returns the number of + distinct pairs in any structure. (Hint: Traverse the structure, + maintaining an auxiliary data structure that is used to keep track + of which pairs have already been counted.) + + *Exercise 3.18:* Write a procedure that examines a list and + determines whether it contains a cycle, that is, whether a program + that tried to find the end of the list by taking successive `cdr's + would go into an infinite loop. *Note Exercise 3-13:: constructed + such lists. + + *Exercise 3.19:* Redo *Note Exercise 3-18:: using an algorithm + that takes only a constant amount of space. (This requires a very + clever idea.) + +Mutation is just assignment +........................... + +When we introduced compound data, we observed in section *Note 2-1-3:: +that pairs can be represented purely in terms of procedures: + + (define (cons x y) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'car) x) + ((eq? m 'cdr) y) + (else (error "Undefined operation -- CONS" m)))) + dispatch) + + (define (car z) (z 'car)) + + (define (cdr z) (z 'cdr)) + + The same observation is true for mutable data. We can implement +mutable data objects as procedures using assignment and local state. +For instance, we can extend the above pair implementation to handle +`set-car!' and `set-cdr!' in a manner analogous to the way we +implemented bank accounts using `make-account' in section *Note 3-1-1::: + + (define (cons x y) + (define (set-x! v) (set! x v)) + (define (set-y! v) (set! y v)) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'car) x) + ((eq? m 'cdr) y) + ((eq? m 'set-car!) set-x!) + ((eq? m 'set-cdr!) set-y!) + (else (error "Undefined operation -- CONS" m)))) + dispatch) + + (define (car z) (z 'car)) + + (define (cdr z) (z 'cdr)) + + (define (set-car! z new-value) + ((z 'set-car!) new-value) + z) + + (define (set-cdr! z new-value) + ((z 'set-cdr!) new-value) + z) + + Assignment is all that is needed, theoretically, to account for the +behavior of mutable data. As soon as we admit `set!' to our language, +we raise all the issues, not only of assignment, but of mutable data in +general.(6) + + *Exercise 3.20:* Draw environment diagrams to illustrate the + evaluation of the sequence of expressions + + (define x (cons 1 2)) + (define z (cons x x)) + (set-car! (cdr z) 17) + + (car x) + 17 + + using the procedural implementation of pairs given above. (Compare + *Note Exercise 3-11::.) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) `Set-car!' and `set-cdr!' return implementation-dependent +values. Like `set!', they should be used only for their effect. + + (2) We see from this that mutation operations on lists can create +"garbage" that is not part of any accessible structure. We will see in +section *Note 5-3-2:: that Lisp memory-management systems include a "garbage +collector", which identifies and recycles the memory space used by +unneeded pairs. + + (3) `Get-new-pair' is one of the operations that must be implemented +as part of the memory management required by a Lisp implementation. We +will discuss this in section *Note 5-3-1::. + + (4) The two pairs are distinct because each call to `cons' returns a +new pair. The symbols are shared; in Scheme there is a unique symbol +with any given name. Since Scheme provides no way to mutate a symbol, +this sharing is undetectable. Note also that the sharing is what +enables us to compare symbols using `eq?', which simply checks equality +of pointers. + + (5) The subtleties of dealing with sharing of mutable data objects +reflect the underlying issues of "sameness" and "change" that were +raised in section *Note 3-1-3::. We mentioned there that admitting +change to our language requires that a compound object must have an +"identity" that is something different from the pieces from which it is +composed. In Lisp, we consider this "identity" to be the quality that +is tested by `eq?', i.e., by equality of pointers. Since in most Lisp +implementations a pointer is essentially a memory address, we are +"solving the problem" of defining the identity of objects by +stipulating that a data object "itself" is the information stored in +some particular set of memory locations in the computer. This suffices +for simple Lisp programs, but is hardly a general way to resolve the +issue of "sameness" in computational models. + + (6) On the other hand, from the viewpoint of implementation, +assignment requires us to modify the environment, which is itself a +mutable data structure. Thus, assignment and mutation are equipotent: +Each can be implemented in terms of the other. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-3-2, Next: 3-3-3, Prev: 3-3-1, Up: 3-3 + +3.3.2 Representing Queues +------------------------- + +The mutators `set-car!' and `set-cdr!' enable us to use pairs to +construct data structures that cannot be built with `cons', `car', and +`cdr' alone. This section shows how to use pairs to represent a data +structure called a queue. Section *Note 3-3-3:: will show how to +represent data structures called tables. + + A "queue" is a sequence in which items are inserted at one end +(called the "rear" of the queue) and deleted from the other end (the "front"). +*Note Figure 3-18:: shows an initially empty queue in which the items +`a' and `b' are inserted. Then `a' is removed, `c' and `d' are +inserted, and `b' is removed. Because items are always removed in the +order in which they are inserted, a queue is sometimes called a "FIFO" +(first in, first out) buffer. + + *Figure 3.18:* Queue operations. + + Operation Resulting Queue + (define q (make-queue)) + (insert-queue! q 'a) a + (insert-queue! q 'b) a b + (delete-queue! q) b + (insert-queue! q 'c) b c + (insert-queue! q 'd) b c d + (delete-queue! q) c d + + In terms of data abstraction, we can regard a queue as defined by +the following set of operations: + + * a constructor: `(make-queue)' returns an empty queue (a queue + containing no items). + + * two selectors: + + (empty-queue? <QUEUE>) + + tests if the queue is empty. + + (front-queue <QUEUE>) + + returns the object at the front of the queue, signaling an error + if the queue is empty; it does not modify the queue. + + * two mutators: + + (insert-queue! <QUEUE> <ITEM>) + + inserts the item at the rear of the queue and returns the modified + queue as its value. + + (delete-queue! <QUEUE>) + + removes the item at the front of the queue and returns the + modified queue as its value, signaling an error if the queue is + empty before the deletion. + + + Because a queue is a sequence of items, we could certainly represent +it as an ordinary list; the front of the queue would be the `car' of +the list, inserting an item in the queue would amount to appending a +new element at the end of the list, and deleting an item from the queue +would just be taking the `cdr' of the list. However, this +representation is inefficient, because in order to insert an item we +must scan the list until we reach the end. Since the only method we +have for scanning a list is by successive `cdr' operations, this +scanning requires [theta](n) steps for a list of n items. A simple +modification to the list representation overcomes this disadvantage by +allowing the queue operations to be implemented so that they require +[theta](1) steps; that is, so that the number of steps needed is +independent of the length of the queue. + + The difficulty with the list representation arises from the need to +scan to find the end of the list. The reason we need to scan is that, +although the standard way of representing a list as a chain of pairs +readily provides us with a pointer to the beginning of the list, it +gives us no easily accessible pointer to the end. The modification +that avoids the drawback is to represent the queue as a list, together +with an additional pointer that indicates the final pair in the list. +That way, when we go to insert an item, we can consult the rear pointer +and so avoid scanning the list. + + A queue is represented, then, as a pair of pointers, `front-ptr' and +`rear-ptr', which indicate, respectively, the first and last pairs in an +ordinary list. Since we would like the queue to be an identifiable +object, we can use `cons' to combine the two pointers. Thus, the queue +itself will be the `cons' of the two pointers. *Note Figure 3-19:: +illustrates this representation. + + *Figure 3.19:* Implementation of a queue as a list with front and + rear pointers. + + +---+---+ + q -->| * | *-+-------------------+ + +-|-+---+ | + | | + | front-ptr | rear-ptr + V V + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ + | a | | b | | c | + +---+ +---+ +---+ + + To define the queue operations we use the following procedures, +which enable us to select and to modify the front and rear pointers of +a queue: + + (define (front-ptr queue) (car queue)) + + (define (rear-ptr queue) (cdr queue)) + + (define (set-front-ptr! queue item) (set-car! queue item)) + + (define (set-rear-ptr! queue item) (set-cdr! queue item)) + + Now we can implement the actual queue operations. We will consider +a queue to be empty if its front pointer is the empty list: + + (define (empty-queue? queue) (null? (front-ptr queue))) + + The `make-queue' constructor returns, as an initially empty queue, a +pair whose `car' and `cdr' are both the empty list: + + (define (make-queue) (cons '() '())) + + To select the item at the front of the queue, we return the `car' of +the pair indicated by the front pointer: + + (define (front-queue queue) + (if (empty-queue? queue) + (error "FRONT called with an empty queue" queue) + (car (front-ptr queue)))) + + To insert an item in a queue, we follow the method whose result is +indicated in *Note Figure 3-20::. We first create a new pair whose +`car' is the item to be inserted and whose `cdr' is the empty list. If +the queue was initially empty, we set the front and rear pointers of +the queue to this new pair. Otherwise, we modify the final pair in the +queue to point to the new pair, and also set the rear pointer to the +new pair. + + *Figure 3.20:* Result of using `(insert-queue! q 'd)' on the + queue of *Note Figure 3-19::. + + +---+---+ + q -->| * | *-+--------------------------------+ + +-|-+---+ | + | | + | front-ptr | rear-ptr + V V + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | a | | b | | c | | d | + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + + (define (insert-queue! queue item) + (let ((new-pair (cons item '()))) + (cond ((empty-queue? queue) + (set-front-ptr! queue new-pair) + (set-rear-ptr! queue new-pair) + queue) + (else + (set-cdr! (rear-ptr queue) new-pair) + (set-rear-ptr! queue new-pair) + queue)))) + + To delete the item at the front of the queue, we merely modify the +front pointer so that it now points at the second item in the queue, +which can be found by following the `cdr' pointer of the first item +(see *Note Figure 3-21::):(1) + + *Figure 3.21:* Result of using `(delete-queue! q)' on the queue + of *Note Figure 3-20::. + + +---+---+ + q -->| * | *-+--------------------------------+ + +-|-+---+ | + +------------+ | + front-ptr | | rear-ptr + V V + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | a | | b | | c | | d | + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + + (define (delete-queue! queue) + (cond ((empty-queue? queue) + (error "DELETE! called with an empty queue" queue)) + (else + (set-front-ptr! queue (cdr (front-ptr queue))) + queue))) + + *Exercise 3.21:* Ben Bitdiddle decides to test the queue + implementation described above. He types in the procedures to the + Lisp interpreter and proceeds to try them out: + + (define q1 (make-queue)) + + (insert-queue! q1 'a) + ((a) a) + + (insert-queue! q1 'b) + ((a b) b) + + (delete-queue! q1) + ((b) b) + + (delete-queue! q1) + (() b) + + "It's all wrong!" he complains. "The interpreter's response shows + that the last item is inserted into the queue twice. And when I + delete both items, the second `b' is still there, so the queue + isn't empty, even though it's supposed to be." Eva Lu Ator + suggests that Ben has misunderstood what is happening. "It's not + that the items are going into the queue twice," she explains. + "It's just that the standard Lisp printer doesn't know how to make + sense of the queue representation. If you want to see the queue + printed correctly, you'll have to define your own print procedure + for queues." Explain what Eva Lu is talking about. In particular, + show why Ben's examples produce the printed results that they do. + Define a procedure `print-queue' that takes a queue as input and + prints the sequence of items in the queue. + + *Exercise 3.22:* Instead of representing a queue as a pair of + pointers, we can build a queue as a procedure with local state. + The local state will consist of pointers to the beginning and the + end of an ordinary list. Thus, the `make-queue' procedure will + have the form + + (define (make-queue) + (let ((front-ptr ... ) + (rear-ptr ... )) + <DEFINITIONS OF INTERNAL PROCEDURES> + (define (dispatch m) ...) + dispatch)) + + Complete the definition of `make-queue' and provide + implementations of the queue operations using this representation. + + *Exercise 3.23:* A "deque" ("double-ended queue") is a sequence in + which items can be inserted and deleted at either the front or the + rear. Operations on deques are the constructor `make-deque', the + predicate `empty-deque?', selectors `front-deque' and + `rear-deque', and mutators `front-insert-deque!', + `rear-insert-deque!', `front-delete-deque!', and + `rear-delete-deque!'. Show how to represent deques using pairs, + and give implementations of the operations.(2) All operations + should be accomplished in [theta](1) steps. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) If the first item is the final item in the queue, the front +pointer will be the empty list after the deletion, which will mark the +queue as empty; we needn't worry about updating the rear pointer, which +will still point to the deleted item, because `empty-queue?' looks only +at the front pointer. + + (2) Be careful not to make the interpreter try to print a structure +that contains cycles. (See *Note Exercise 3-13::.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-3-3, Next: 3-3-4, Prev: 3-3-2, Up: 3-3 + +3.3.3 Representing Tables +------------------------- + +When we studied various ways of representing sets in *Note Chapter 2::, +we mentioned in section *Note 2-3-3:: the task of maintaining a table +of records indexed by identifying keys. In the implementation of +data-directed programming in section *Note 2-4-3::, we made extensive +use of two-dimensional tables, in which information is stored and +retrieved using two keys. Here we see how to build tables as mutable +list structures. + + We first consider a one-dimensional table, in which each value is +stored under a single key. We implement the table as a list of +records, each of which is implemented as a pair consisting of a key and +the associated value. The records are glued together to form a list by +pairs whose `car's point to successive records. These gluing pairs are +called the "backbone" of the table. In order to have a place that we +can change when we add a new record to the table, we build the table as +a "headed list". A headed list has a special backbone pair at the +beginning, which holds a dummy "record"--in this case the arbitrarily +chosen symbol `*table*'. *Note Figure 3-22:: shows the box-and-pointer +diagram for the table + + a: 1 + b: 2 + c: 3 + + *Figure 3.22:* A table represented as a headed list. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | *-+--->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | | | | + V V V V + +---------+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | *table* | | * | * | | * | * | | * | * | + +---------+ +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+-|-+ + | | | | | | + V V V V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | a | | 1 | | b | | 2 | | c | | 3 | + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + + To extract information from a table we use the `lookup' procedure, +which takes a key as argument and returns the associated value (or +false if there is no value stored under that key). `Lookup' is defined +in terms of the `assoc' operation, which expects a key and a list of +records as arguments. Note that `assoc' never sees the dummy record. +`Assoc' returns the record that has the given key as its `car'.(1) +`Lookup' then checks to see that the resulting record returned by +`assoc' is not false, and returns the value (the `cdr') of the record. + + (define (lookup key table) + (let ((record (assoc key (cdr table)))) + (if record + (cdr record) + false))) + + (define (assoc key records) + (cond ((null? records) false) + ((equal? key (caar records)) (car records)) + (else (assoc key (cdr records))))) + + To insert a value in a table under a specified key, we first use +`assoc' to see if there is already a record in the table with this key. +If not, we form a new record by `cons'ing the key with the value, and +insert this at the head of the table's list of records, after the dummy +record. If there already is a record with this key, we set the `cdr' +of this record to the designated new value. The header of the table +provides us with a fixed location to modify in order to insert the new +record.(2) + + (define (insert! key value table) + (let ((record (assoc key (cdr table)))) + (if record + (set-cdr! record value) + (set-cdr! table + (cons (cons key value) (cdr table))))) + 'ok) + + To construct a new table, we simply create a list containing the +symbol `*table*': + + (define (make-table) + (list '*table*)) + +Two-dimensional tables +...................... + +In a two-dimensional table, each value is indexed by two keys. We can +construct such a table as a one-dimensional table in which each key +identifies a subtable. *Note Figure 3-23:: shows the box-and-pointer +diagram for the table + + math: + +: 43 + -: 45 + *: 42 + letters: + a: 97 + b: 98 + +which has two subtables. (The subtables don't need a special header +symbol, since the key that identifies the subtable serves this purpose.) + + *Figure 3.23:* A two-dimensional table. + + table + | + V + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+-->| * | *-+-->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V | V + +-------+ | +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + |*table*| | | * | *-+-->| * | *-+-->| * | / | + +-------+ | +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + | V V V + | +-------+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | |letters| | * | * | | * | * | + | +-------+ +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+-|-+ + | V V V V + | +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | | a | | 97| | b | | 98| + | +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + V + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | * | *-+-->| * | *-+-->| * | *-+-->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + V V V V + +------+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + | math | | * | * | | * | * | | * | * | + +------+ +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+-|-+ +-|-+-|-+ + V V V V V V + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + | + | | 43| | - | | 45| | * | | 42| + +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ + + When we look up an item, we use the first key to identify the +correct subtable. Then we use the second key to identify the record +within the subtable. + + (define (lookup key-1 key-2 table) + (let ((subtable (assoc key-1 (cdr table)))) + (if subtable + (let ((record (assoc key-2 (cdr subtable)))) + (if record + (cdr record) + false)) + false))) + + To insert a new item under a pair of keys, we use `assoc' to see if +there is a subtable stored under the first key. If not, we build a new +subtable containing the single record (`key-2', `value') and insert it +into the table under the first key. If a subtable already exists for +the first key, we insert the new record into this subtable, using the +insertion method for one-dimensional tables described above: + + (define (insert! key-1 key-2 value table) + (let ((subtable (assoc key-1 (cdr table)))) + (if subtable + (let ((record (assoc key-2 (cdr subtable)))) + (if record + (set-cdr! record value) + (set-cdr! subtable + (cons (cons key-2 value) + (cdr subtable))))) + (set-cdr! table + (cons (list key-1 + (cons key-2 value)) + (cdr table))))) + 'ok) + +Creating local tables +..................... + +The `lookup' and `insert!' operations defined above take the table as +an argument. This enables us to use programs that access more than one +table. Another way to deal with multiple tables is to have separate +`lookup' and `insert!' procedures for each table. We can do this by +representing a table procedurally, as an object that maintains an +internal table as part of its local state. When sent an appropriate +message, this "table object" supplies the procedure with which to +operate on the internal table. Here is a generator for two-dimensional +tables represented in this fashion: + + (define (make-table) + (let ((local-table (list '*table*))) + (define (lookup key-1 key-2) + (let ((subtable (assoc key-1 (cdr local-table)))) + (if subtable + (let ((record (assoc key-2 (cdr subtable)))) + (if record + (cdr record) + false)) + false))) + (define (insert! key-1 key-2 value) + (let ((subtable (assoc key-1 (cdr local-table)))) + (if subtable + (let ((record (assoc key-2 (cdr subtable)))) + (if record + (set-cdr! record value) + (set-cdr! subtable + (cons (cons key-2 value) + (cdr subtable))))) + (set-cdr! local-table + (cons (list key-1 + (cons key-2 value)) + (cdr local-table))))) + 'ok) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'lookup-proc) lookup) + ((eq? m 'insert-proc!) insert!) + (else (error "Unknown operation -- TABLE" m)))) + dispatch)) + + Using `make-table', we could implement the `get' and `put' +operations used in section *Note 2-4-3:: for data-directed programming, +as follows: + + (define operation-table (make-table)) + (define get (operation-table 'lookup-proc)) + (define put (operation-table 'insert-proc!)) + + `Get' takes as arguments two keys, and `put' takes as arguments two +keys and a value. Both operations access the same local table, which is +encapsulated within the object created by the call to `make-table'. + + *Exercise 3.24:* In the table implementations above, the keys are + tested for equality using `equal?' (called by `assoc'). This is + not always the appropriate test. For instance, we might have a + table with numeric keys in which we don't need an exact match to + the number we're looking up, but only a number within some + tolerance of it. Design a table constructor `make-table' that + takes as an argument a `same-key?' procedure that will be used to + test "equality" of keys. `Make-table' should return a `dispatch' + procedure that can be used to access appropriate `lookup' and + `insert!' procedures for a local table. + + *Exercise 3.25:* Generalizing one- and two-dimensional tables, + show how to implement a table in which values are stored under an + arbitrary number of keys and different values may be stored under + different numbers of keys. The `lookup' and `insert!' procedures + should take as input a list of keys used to access the table. + + *Exercise 3.26:* To search a table as implemented above, one needs + to scan through the list of records. This is basically the + unordered list representation of section *Note 2-3-3::. For large + tables, it may be more efficient to structure the table in a + different manner. Describe a table implementation where the (key, + value) records are organized using a binary tree, assuming that + keys can be ordered in some way (e.g., numerically or + alphabetically). (Compare *Note Exercise 2-66:: of *Note Chapter + 2::.) + + *Exercise 3.27:* "Memoization" (also called "tabulation") is a + technique that enables a procedure to record, in a local table, + values that have previously been computed. This technique can + make a vast difference in the performance of a program. A memoized + procedure maintains a table in which values of previous calls are + stored using as keys the arguments that produced the values. When + the memoized procedure is asked to compute a value, it first + checks the table to see if the value is already there and, if so, + just returns that value. Otherwise, it computes the new value in + the ordinary way and stores this in the table. As an example of + memoization, recall from section *Note 1-2-2:: the exponential + process for computing Fibonacci numbers: + + (define (fib n) + (cond ((= n 0) 0) + ((= n 1) 1) + (else (+ (fib (- n 1)) + (fib (- n 2)))))) + + The memoized version of the same procedure is + + (define memo-fib + (memoize (lambda (n) + (cond ((= n 0) 0) + ((= n 1) 1) + (else (+ (memo-fib (- n 1)) + (memo-fib (- n 2)))))))) + + where the memoizer is defined as + + (define (memoize f) + (let ((table (make-table))) + (lambda (x) + (let ((previously-computed-result (lookup x table))) + (or previously-computed-result + (let ((result (f x))) + (insert! x result table) + result)))))) + + Draw an environment diagram to analyze the computation of + `(memo-fib 3)'. Explain why `memo-fib' computes the nth Fibonacci + number in a number of steps proportional to n. Would the scheme + still work if we had simply defined `memo-fib' to be `(memoize + fib)'? + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Because `assoc' uses `equal?', it can recognize keys that are +symbols, numbers, or list structure. + + (2) Thus, the first backbone pair is the object that represents the +table "itself"; that is, a pointer to the table is a pointer to this +pair. This same backbone pair always starts the table. If we did not +arrange things in this way, `insert!' would have to return a new value +for the start of the table when it added a new record. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-3-4, Next: 3-3-5, Prev: 3-3-3, Up: 3-3 + +3.3.4 A Simulator for Digital Circuits +-------------------------------------- + +Designing complex digital systems, such as computers, is an important +engineering activity. Digital systems are constructed by +interconnecting simple elements. Although the behavior of these +individual elements is simple, networks of them can have very complex +behavior. Computer simulation of proposed circuit designs is an +important tool used by digital systems engineers. In this section we +design a system for performing digital logic simulations. This system +typifies a kind of program called an "event-driven simulation", in +which actions ("events") trigger further events that happen at a later +time, which in turn trigger more events, and so so. + + Our computational model of a circuit will be composed of objects that +correspond to the elementary components from which the circuit is +constructed. There are "wires", which carry "digital signals". A +digital signal may at any moment have only one of two possible values, +0 and 1. There are also various types of digital "function boxes", +which connect wires carrying input signals to other output wires. Such +boxes produce output signals computed from their input signals. The +output signal is delayed by a time that depends on the type of the +function box. For example, an "inverter" is a primitive function box +that inverts its input. If the input signal to an inverter changes to +0, then one inverter-delay later the inverter will change its output +signal to 1. If the input signal to an inverter changes to 1, then one +inverter-delay later the inverter will change its output signal to 0. +We draw an inverter symbolically as in *Note Figure 3-24::. An "and-gate", +also shown in *Note Figure 3-24::, is a primitive function box with two +inputs and one output. It drives its output signal to a value that is +the "logical and" of the inputs. That is, if both of its input signals +become 1, then one and-gate-delay time later the and-gate will force +its output signal to be 1; otherwise the output will be 0. An "or-gate" +is a similar two-input primitive function box that drives its output +signal to a value that is the "logical or" of the inputs. That is, the +output will become 1 if at least one of the input signals is 1; +otherwise the output will become 0. + + *Figure 3.24:* Primitive functions in the digital logic simulator. + + __ ___ + |\ --| \ --\ \ + --| >o-- | )-- ) >-- + |/ --|__/ --/__/ + + Inverter And-gate Or-gate + + We can connect primitive functions together to construct more complex +functions. To accomplish this we wire the outputs of some function +boxes to the inputs of other function boxes. For example, the "half-adder" +circuit shown in *Note Figure 3-25:: consists of an or-gate, two +and-gates, and an inverter. It takes two input signals, A and B, and +has two output signals, S and C. S will become 1 whenever precisely +one of A and B is 1, and C will become 1 whenever A and B are both 1. +We can see from the figure that, because of the delays involved, the +outputs may be generated at different times. Many of the difficulties +in the design of digital circuits arise from this fact. + + *Figure 3.25:* A half-adder circuit. + + +--------------------------------------+ + | ____ | + A --------*---\ \ D ___ | + | | > >---------------| \ | + | +--|---/___/ | )----- S + | | | |\ E +--|___/ | + | | | +--| >o---+ | + | | | ___ | |/ | + | | +---| \ | | + | | | )--*----------------------- C + B -----*------|___/ | + | | + +--------------------------------------+ + + We will now build a program for modeling the digital logic circuits +we wish to study. The program will construct computational objects +modeling the wires, which will "hold" the signals. Function boxes will +be modeled by procedures that enforce the correct relationships among +the signals. + + One basic element of our simulation will be a procedure `make-wire', +which constructs wires. For example, we can construct six wires as +follows: + + (define a (make-wire)) + (define b (make-wire)) + (define c (make-wire)) + + (define d (make-wire)) + (define e (make-wire)) + (define s (make-wire)) + + We attach a function box to a set of wires by calling a procedure +that constructs that kind of box. The arguments to the constructor +procedure are the wires to be attached to the box. For example, given +that we can construct and-gates, or-gates, and inverters, we can wire +together the half-adder shown in *Note Figure 3-25::: + + (or-gate a b d) + ok + + (and-gate a b c) + ok + + (inverter c e) + ok + + (and-gate d e s) + ok + + Better yet, we can explicitly name this operation by defining a +procedure `half-adder' that constructs this circuit, given the four +external wires to be attached to the half-adder: + + (define (half-adder a b s c) + (let ((d (make-wire)) (e (make-wire))) + (or-gate a b d) + (and-gate a b c) + (inverter c e) + (and-gate d e s) + 'ok)) + + The advantage of making this definition is that we can use +`half-adder' itself as a building block in creating more complex +circuits. *Note Figure 3-26::, for example, shows a "full-adder" +composed of two half-adders and an or-gate.(1) We can construct a +full-adder as follows: + + (define (full-adder a b c-in sum c-out) + (let ((s (make-wire)) + (c1 (make-wire)) + (c2 (make-wire))) + (half-adder b c-in s c1) + (half-adder a s sum c2) + (or-gate c1 c2 c-out) + 'ok)) + + Having defined `full-adder' as a procedure, we can now use it as a +building block for creating still more complex circuits. (For example, +see *Note Exercise 3-30::.) + + *Figure 3.26:* A full-adder circuit. + + +----------------------------------+ + | +-------+ | + A -----------------+ half +-------------- SUM + | +-------+ | adder | ____ | + B -----+ half +---+ +---\ \ | + | | adder | +-------+ >or >----- Cout + C -----+ +---------------/___/ | + | +-------+ | + +----------------------------------+ + + In essence, our simulator provides us with the tools to construct a +language of circuits. If we adopt the general perspective on languages +with which we approached the study of Lisp in section *Note 1-1::, we +can say that the primitive function boxes form the primitive elements +of the language, that wiring boxes together provides a means of +combination, and that specifying wiring patterns as procedures serves +as a means of abstraction. + +Primitive function boxes +........................ + +The primitive function boxes implement the "forces" by which a change +in the signal on one wire influences the signals on other wires. To +build function boxes, we use the following operations on wires: + + * (get-signal <WIRE>) + + returns the current value of the signal on the wire. + + * (set-signal! <WIRE> <NEW VALUE>) + + changes the value of the signal on the wire to the new value. + + * (add-action! <WIRE> <PROCEDURE OF NO ARGUMENTS>) + + asserts that the designated procedure should be run whenever the + signal on the wire changes value. Such procedures are the + vehicles by which changes in the signal value on the wire are + communicated to other wires. + + + In addition, we will make use of a procedure `after-delay' that +takes a time delay and a procedure to be run and executes the given +procedure after the given delay. + + Using these procedures, we can define the primitive digital logic +functions. To connect an input to an output through an inverter, we +use `add-action!' to associate with the input wire a procedure that +will be run whenever the signal on the input wire changes value. The +procedure computes the `logical-not' of the input signal, and then, +after one `inverter-delay', sets the output signal to be this new value: + + (define (inverter input output) + (define (invert-input) + (let ((new-value (logical-not (get-signal input)))) + (after-delay inverter-delay + (lambda () + (set-signal! output new-value))))) + (add-action! input invert-input) + 'ok) + + (define (logical-not s) + (cond ((= s 0) 1) + ((= s 1) 0) + (else (error "Invalid signal" s)))) + + An and-gate is a little more complex. The action procedure must be +run if either of the inputs to the gate changes. It computes the +`logical-and' (using a procedure analogous to `logical-not') of the +values of the signals on the input wires and sets up a change to the +new value to occur on the output wire after one `and-gate-delay'. + + (define (and-gate a1 a2 output) + (define (and-action-procedure) + (let ((new-value + (logical-and (get-signal a1) (get-signal a2)))) + (after-delay and-gate-delay + (lambda () + (set-signal! output new-value))))) + (add-action! a1 and-action-procedure) + (add-action! a2 and-action-procedure) + 'ok) + + *Exercise 3.28:* Define an or-gate as a primitive function box. + Your `or-gate' constructor should be similar to `and-gate'. + + *Exercise 3.29:* Another way to construct an or-gate is as a + compound digital logic device, built from and-gates and inverters. + Define a procedure `or-gate' that accomplishes this. What is the + delay time of the or-gate in terms of `and-gate-delay' and + `inverter-delay'? + + *Exercise 3.30:* *Note Figure 3-27:: shows a "ripple-carry adder" + formed by stringing together n full-adders. This is the simplest + form of parallel adder for adding two n-bit binary numbers. The + inputs A_1, A_2, A_3, ..., A_n and B_1, B_2, B_3, ..., B_n are the + two binary numbers to be added (each A_k and B_k is a 0 or a 1). + The circuit generates S_1, S_2, S_3, ..., S_n, the n bits of the + sum, and C, the carry from the addition. Write a procedure + `ripple-carry-adder' that generates this circuit. The procedure + should take as arguments three lists of n wires each--the A_k, the + B_k, and the S_k--and also another wire C. The major drawback of + the ripple-carry adder is the need to wait for the carry signals + to propagate. What is the delay needed to obtain the complete + output from an n-bit ripple-carry adder, expressed in terms of the + delays for and-gates, or-gates, and inverters? + + *Figure 3.27:* A ripple-carry adder for n-bit numbers. + + : : : + : A_1 B_1 C_1 A_2 B_2 C_2 A_3 B_3 C_3: : A_n B_n C_n=0 + : | | +---+ | | +---+ | | +----- : | | +- + | | | | | | | | | | | | : : | | | + : ++---+---++ | ++---+---++ | ++---+---++ : : ++---+---++ + : | FA | | | FA | | | FA | : : | FA | + : +--+---+--+ | +--+---+--+ | +--+---+--+ : : +--+---+--+ + : | | | | | | | | : : | | + C ------+ | +-----+ | +-----+ | : ------+ | + : | C_1 | C_2 | : :C_(n-1) | + : | | | : : | + S_1 S_2 S_3 S_n + +Representing wires +.................. + +A wire in our simulation will be a computational object with two local +state variables: a `signal-value' (initially taken to be 0) and a +collection of `action-procedures' to be run when the signal changes +value. We implement the wire, using message-passing style, as a +collection of local procedures together with a `dispatch' procedure +that selects the appropriate local operation, just as we did with the +simple bank-account object in section *Note 3-1-1::: + + (define (make-wire) + (let ((signal-value 0) (action-procedures '())) + (define (set-my-signal! new-value) + (if (not (= signal-value new-value)) + (begin (set! signal-value new-value) + (call-each action-procedures)) + 'done)) + + (define (accept-action-procedure! proc) + (set! action-procedures (cons proc action-procedures)) + (proc)) + + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'get-signal) signal-value) + ((eq? m 'set-signal!) set-my-signal!) + ((eq? m 'add-action!) accept-action-procedure!) + (else (error "Unknown operation -- WIRE" m)))) + dispatch)) + + The local procedure `set-my-signal!' tests whether the new signal +value changes the signal on the wire. If so, it runs each of the +action procedures, using the following procedure `call-each', which +calls each of the items in a list of no-argument procedures: + + (define (call-each procedures) + (if (null? procedures) + 'done + (begin + ((car procedures)) + (call-each (cdr procedures))))) + + The local procedure `accept-action-procedure!' adds the given +procedure to the list of procedures to be run, and then runs the new +procedure once. (See *Note Exercise 3-31::.) + + With the local `dispatch' procedure set up as specified, we can +provide the following procedures to access the local operations on +wires:(2) + + (define (get-signal wire) + (wire 'get-signal)) + + (define (set-signal! wire new-value) + ((wire 'set-signal!) new-value)) + + (define (add-action! wire action-procedure) + ((wire 'add-action!) action-procedure)) + + Wires, which have time-varying signals and may be incrementally +attached to devices, are typical of mutable objects. We have modeled +them as procedures with local state variables that are modified by +assignment. When a new wire is created, a new set of state variables +is allocated (by the `let' expression in `make-wire') and a new +`dispatch' procedure is constructed and returned, capturing the +environment with the new state variables. + + The wires are shared among the various devices that have been +connected to them. Thus, a change made by an interaction with one +device will affect all the other devices attached to the wire. The +wire communicates the change to its neighbors by calling the action +procedures provided to it when the connections were established. + +The agenda +.......... + +The only thing needed to complete the simulator is `after-delay'. The +idea here is that we maintain a data structure, called an "agenda", +that contains a schedule of things to do. The following operations are +defined for agendas: + + * `(make-agenda)' returns a new empty agenda. + + * `(empty-agenda? <AGENDA>)' is true if the specified agenda is + empty. + + * `(first-agenda-item <AGENDA>)' returns the first item on the + agenda. + + * `(remove-first-agenda-item! <AGENDA>)' modifies the agenda by + removing the first item. + + * `(add-to-agenda! <TIME> <ACTION> <AGENDA>)' modifies the agenda by + adding the given action procedure to be run at the specified time. + + * `(current-time <AGENDA>)' returns the current simulation time. + + + The particular agenda that we use is denoted by `the-agenda'. The +procedure `after-delay' adds new elements to `the-agenda': + + (define (after-delay delay action) + (add-to-agenda! (+ delay (current-time the-agenda)) + action + the-agenda)) + + The simulation is driven by the procedure `propagate', which +operates on `the-agenda', executing each procedure on the agenda in +sequence. In general, as the simulation runs, new items will be added +to the agenda, and `propagate' will continue the simulation as long as +there are items on the agenda: + + (define (propagate) + (if (empty-agenda? the-agenda) + 'done + (let ((first-item (first-agenda-item the-agenda))) + (first-item) + (remove-first-agenda-item! the-agenda) + (propagate)))) + +A sample simulation +................... + +The following procedure, which places a "probe" on a wire, shows the +simulator in action. The probe tells the wire that, whenever its signal +changes value, it should print the new signal value, together with the +current time and a name that identifies the wire: + + (define (probe name wire) + (add-action! wire + (lambda () + (newline) + (display name) + (display " ") + (display (current-time the-agenda)) + (display " New-value = ") + (display (get-signal wire))))) + + We begin by initializing the agenda and specifying delays for the +primitive function boxes: + + (define the-agenda (make-agenda)) + (define inverter-delay 2) + (define and-gate-delay 3) + (define or-gate-delay 5) + + Now we define four wires, placing probes on two of them: + + (define input-1 (make-wire)) + (define input-2 (make-wire)) + (define sum (make-wire)) + (define carry (make-wire)) + + (probe 'sum sum) + sum 0 New-value = 0 + + (probe 'carry carry) + carry 0 New-value = 0 + + Next we connect the wires in a half-adder circuit (as in *Note +Figure 3-25::), set the signal on `input-1' to 1, and run the +simulation: + + (half-adder input-1 input-2 sum carry) + ok + + (set-signal! input-1 1) + done + + (propagate) + sum 8 New-value = 1 + done + + The `sum' signal changes to 1 at time 8. We are now eight time +units from the beginning of the simulation. At this point, we can set +the signal on `input-2' to 1 and allow the values to propagate: + + (set-signal! input-2 1) + done + + (propagate) + carry 11 New-value = 1 + sum 16 New-value = 0 + done + + The `carry' changes to 1 at time 11 and the `sum' changes to 0 at +time 16. + + *Exercise 3.31:* The internal procedure `accept-action-procedure!' + defined in `make-wire' specifies that when a new action procedure + is added to a wire, the procedure is immediately run. Explain why + this initialization is necessary. In particular, trace through the + half-adder example in the paragraphs above and say how the + system's response would differ if we had defined + `accept-action-procedure!' as + + (define (accept-action-procedure! proc) + (set! action-procedures (cons proc action-procedures))) + +Implementing the agenda +....................... + +Finally, we give details of the agenda data structure, which holds the +procedures that are scheduled for future execution. + + The agenda is made up of "time segments". Each time segment is a +pair consisting of a number (the time) and a queue (see *Note Exercise +3-32::) that holds the procedures that are scheduled to be run during +that time segment. + + (define (make-time-segment time queue) + (cons time queue)) + + (define (segment-time s) (car s)) + + (define (segment-queue s) (cdr s)) + + We will operate on the time-segment queues using the queue +operations described in section *Note 3-3-2::. + + The agenda itself is a one-dimensional table of time segments. It +differs from the tables described in section *Note 3-3-3:: in that the +segments will be sorted in order of increasing time. In addition, we +store the "current time" (i.e., the time of the last action that was +processed) at the head of the agenda. A newly constructed agenda has +no time segments and has a current time of 0:(3) + + (define (make-agenda) (list 0)) + + (define (current-time agenda) (car agenda)) + + (define (set-current-time! agenda time) + (set-car! agenda time)) + + (define (segments agenda) (cdr agenda)) + + (define (set-segments! agenda segments) + (set-cdr! agenda segments)) + + (define (first-segment agenda) (car (segments agenda))) + + (define (rest-segments agenda) (cdr (segments agenda))) + + An agenda is empty if it has no time segments: + + (define (empty-agenda? agenda) + (null? (segments agenda))) + + To add an action to an agenda, we first check if the agenda is +empty. If so, we create a time segment for the action and install this +in the agenda. Otherwise, we scan the agenda, examining the time of +each segment. If we find a segment for our appointed time, we add the +action to the associated queue. If we reach a time later than the one +to which we are appointed, we insert a new time segment into the agenda +just before it. If we reach the end of the agenda, we must create a +new time segment at the end. + + (define (add-to-agenda! time action agenda) + (define (belongs-before? segments) + (or (null? segments) + (< time (segment-time (car segments))))) + (define (make-new-time-segment time action) + (let ((q (make-queue))) + (insert-queue! q action) + (make-time-segment time q))) + (define (add-to-segments! segments) + (if (= (segment-time (car segments)) time) + (insert-queue! (segment-queue (car segments)) + action) + (let ((rest (cdr segments))) + (if (belongs-before? rest) + (set-cdr! + segments + (cons (make-new-time-segment time action) + (cdr segments))) + (add-to-segments! rest))))) + (let ((segments (segments agenda))) + (if (belongs-before? segments) + (set-segments! + agenda + (cons (make-new-time-segment time action) + segments)) + (add-to-segments! segments)))) + + The procedure that removes the first item from the agenda deletes +the item at the front of the queue in the first time segment. If this +deletion makes the time segment empty, we remove it from the list of +segments:(4) + + (define (remove-first-agenda-item! agenda) + (let ((q (segment-queue (first-segment agenda)))) + (delete-queue! q) + (if (empty-queue? q) + (set-segments! agenda (rest-segments agenda))))) + + The first agenda item is found at the head of the queue in the first +time segment. Whenever we extract an item, we also update the current +time:(5) + + (define (first-agenda-item agenda) + (if (empty-agenda? agenda) + (error "Agenda is empty -- FIRST-AGENDA-ITEM") + (let ((first-seg (first-segment agenda))) + (set-current-time! agenda (segment-time first-seg)) + (front-queue (segment-queue first-seg))))) + + *Exercise 3.32:* The procedures to be run during each time segment + of the agenda are kept in a queue. Thus, the procedures for each + segment are called in the order in which they were added to the + agenda (first in, first out). Explain why this order must be + used. In particular, trace the behavior of an and-gate whose + inputs change from 0,1 to 1,0 in the same segment and say how the + behavior would differ if we stored a segment's procedures in an + ordinary list, adding and removing procedures only at the front + (last in, first out). + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) A full-adder is a basic circuit element used in adding two +binary numbers. Here A and B are the bits at corresponding positions in +the two numbers to be added, and C_(in) is the carry bit from the +addition one place to the right. The circuit generates SUM, which is +the sum bit in the corresponding position, and C_(out), which is the +carry bit to be propagated to the left. + + (2) [Footnote 27] These procedures are simply syntactic sugar that +allow us to use ordinary procedural syntax to access the local +procedures of objects. It is striking that we can interchange the role +of "procedures" and "data" in such a simple way. For example, if we +write `(wire 'get-signal)' we think of `wire' as a procedure that is +called with the message `get-signal' as input. Alternatively, writing +`(get-signal wire)' encourages us to think of `wire' as a data object +that is the input to a procedure `get-signal'. The truth of the matter +is that, in a language in which we can deal with procedures as objects, +there is no fundamental difference between "procedures" and "data," and +we can choose our syntactic sugar to allow us to program in whatever +style we choose. + + (3) The agenda is a headed list, like the tables in section *Note +3-3-3::, but since the list is headed by the time, we do not need an +additional dummy header (such as the `*table*' symbol used with tables). + + (4) Observe that the `if' expression in this procedure has no +<ALTERNATIVE> expression. Such a "one-armed `if' statement" is used to +decide whether to do something, rather than to select between two +expressions. An `if' expression returns an unspecified value if the +predicate is false and there is no <ALTERNATIVE>. + + (5) In this way, the current time will always be the time of the +action most recently processed. Storing this time at the head of the +agenda ensures that it will still be available even if the associated +time segment has been deleted. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-3-5, Prev: 3-3-4, Up: 3-3 + +3.3.5 Propagation of Constraints +-------------------------------- + +Computer programs are traditionally organized as one-directional +computations, which perform operations on prespecified arguments to +produce desired outputs. On the other hand, we often model systems in +terms of relations among quantities. For example, a mathematical model +of a mechanical structure might include the information that the +deflection d of a metal rod is related to the force f on the rod, the +length L of the rod, the cross-sectional area A, and the elastic +modulus E via the equation + + dAE = FL + + Such an equation is not one-directional. Given any four of the +quantities, we can use it to compute the fifth. Yet translating the +equation into a traditional computer language would force us to choose +one of the quantities to be computed in terms of the other four. Thus, +a procedure for computing the area A could not be used to compute the +deflection d, even though the computations of A and d arise from the +same equation.(1) + + In this section, we sketch the design of a language that enables us +to work in terms of relations themselves. The primitive elements of +the language are "primitive constraints", which state that certain +relations hold between quantities. For example, `(adder a b c)' +specifies that the quantities a, b, and c must be related by the +equation a + b = c, `(multiplier x y z)' expresses the constraint xy = +z, and `(constant 3.14 x)' says that the value of x must be 3.14. + + Our language provides a means of combining primitive constraints in +order to express more complex relations. We combine constraints by +constructing "constraint networks", in which constraints are joined by "connectors". +A connector is an object that "holds" a value that may participate in +one or more constraints. For example, we know that the relationship +between Fahrenheit and Celsius temperatures is + + 9C = 5(F - 32) + + Such a constraint can be thought of as a network consisting of +primitive adder, multiplier, and constant constraints (*Note Figure +3-28::). In the figure, we see on the left a multiplier box with three +terminals, labeled m1, m2, and p. These connect the multiplier to the +rest of the network as follows: The m1 terminal is linked to a +connector C, which will hold the Celsius temperature. The m2 terminal +is linked to a connector w, which is also linked to a constant box that +holds 9. The p terminal, which the multiplier box constrains to be the +product of m1 and m2, is linked to the p terminal of another multiplier +box, whose m2 is connected to a constant 5 and whose m1 is connected to +one of the terms in a sum. + + *Figure 3.28:* The relation 9C = 5(F - 32) expressed as a + constraint network. + + +---------+ +---------+ v +---------+ + C -----+ m1 | u | m1 +-------+ a1 | + | * p +-----+ p * | | + s +---- F + +--+ m2 | | m2 +--+ +--+ a2 | + | +---------+ +---------+ | | +---------+ + w | x| |y + | +-----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ + +----+ 9 | | 5 +-----+ +-----+ 32 | + +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ + + Computation by such a network proceeds as follows: When a connector +is given a value (by the user or by a constraint box to which it is +linked), it awakens all of its associated constraints (except for the +constraint that just awakened it) to inform them that it has a value. +Each awakened constraint box then polls its connectors to see if there +is enough information to determine a value for a connector. If so, the +box sets that connector, which then awakens all of its associated +constraints, and so on. For instance, in conversion between Celsius +and Fahrenheit, w, x, and y are immediately set by the constant boxes +to 9, 5, and 32, respectively. The connectors awaken the multipliers +and the adder, which determine that there is not enough information to +proceed. If the user (or some other part of the network) sets C to a +value (say 25), the leftmost multiplier will be awakened, and it will +set u to 25*9 = 225. Then u awakens the second multiplier, which sets +v to 45, and v awakens the adder, which sets f to 77. + +Using the constraint system +........................... + +To use the constraint system to carry out the temperature computation +outlined above, we first create two connectors, `C' and `F', by calling +the constructor `make-connector', and link `C' and `F' in an +appropriate network: + + (define C (make-connector)) + (define F (make-connector)) + (celsius-fahrenheit-converter C F) + ok + + The procedure that creates the network is defined as follows: + + (define (celsius-fahrenheit-converter c f) + (let ((u (make-connector)) + (v (make-connector)) + (w (make-connector)) + (x (make-connector)) + (y (make-connector))) + (multiplier c w u) + (multiplier v x u) + (adder v y f) + (constant 9 w) + (constant 5 x) + (constant 32 y) + 'ok)) + + This procedure creates the internal connectors `u', `v', `w', `x', +and `y', and links them as shown in *Note Figure 3-28:: using the +primitive constraint constructors `adder', `multiplier', and +`constant'. Just as with the digital-circuit simulator of section +*Note 3-3-4::, expressing these combinations of primitive elements in +terms of procedures automatically provides our language with a means of +abstraction for compound objects. + + To watch the network in action, we can place probes on the +connectors `C' and `F', using a `probe' procedure similar to the one we +used to monitor wires in section *Note 3-3-4::. Placing a probe on a +connector will cause a message to be printed whenever the connector is +given a value: + + (probe "Celsius temp" C) + (probe "Fahrenheit temp" F) + + Next we set the value of `C' to 25. (The third argument to +`set-value!' tells `C' that this directive comes from the `user'.) + + (set-value! C 25 'user) + Probe: Celsius temp = 25 + Probe: Fahrenheit temp = 77 + done + + The probe on `C' awakens and reports the value. `C' also propagates +its value through the network as described above. This sets `F' to 77, +which is reported by the probe on `F'. + + Now we can try to set `F' to a new value, say 212: + + (set-value! F 212 'user) + Error! Contradiction (77 212) + + The connector complains that it has sensed a contradiction: Its +value is 77, and someone is trying to set it to 212. If we really want +to reuse the network with new values, we can tell `C' to forget its old +value: + + (forget-value! C 'user) + Probe: Celsius temp = ? + Probe: Fahrenheit temp = ? + done + + `C' finds that the `user', who set its value originally, is now +retracting that value, so `C' agrees to lose its value, as shown by the +probe, and informs the rest of the network of this fact. This +information eventually propagates to `F', which now finds that it has +no reason for continuing to believe that its own value is 77. Thus, +`F' also gives up its value, as shown by the probe. + + Now that `F' has no value, we are free to set it to 212: + + (set-value! F 212 'user) + Probe: Fahrenheit temp = 212 + Probe: Celsius temp = 100 + done + + This new value, when propagated through the network, forces `C' to +have a value of 100, and this is registered by the probe on `C'. +Notice that the very same network is being used to compute `C' given +`F' and to compute `F' given `C'. This nondirectionality of +computation is the distinguishing feature of constraint-based systems. + +Implementing the constraint system +.................................. + +The constraint system is implemented via procedural objects with local +state, in a manner very similar to the digital-circuit simulator of +section *Note 3-3-4::. Although the primitive objects of the +constraint system are somewhat more complex, the overall system is +simpler, since there is no concern about agendas and logic delays. + + The basic operations on connectors are the following: + + * `(has-value? <CONNECTOR>)' tells whether the connector has a value. + + * `(get-value <CONNECTOR>)' returns the connector's current value. + + * `(set-value! <CONNECTOR> <NEW-VALUE> <INFORMANT>)' indicates that + the informant is requesting the connector to set its value to the + new value. + + * `(forget-value! <CONNECTOR> <RETRACTOR>)' tells the connector that + the retractor is requesting it to forget its value. + + * `(connect <CONNECTOR> <NEW-CONSTRAINT>)' tells the connector to + participate in the new constraint. + + + The connectors communicate with the constraints by means of the +procedures `inform-about-value', which tells the given constraint that +the connector has a value, and `inform-about-no-value', which tells the +constraint that the connector has lost its value. + + `Adder' constructs an adder constraint among summand connectors `a1' +and `a2' and a `sum' connector. An adder is implemented as a procedure +with local state (the procedure `me' below): + + (define (adder a1 a2 sum) + (define (process-new-value) + (cond ((and (has-value? a1) (has-value? a2)) + (set-value! sum + (+ (get-value a1) (get-value a2)) + me)) + ((and (has-value? a1) (has-value? sum)) + (set-value! a2 + (- (get-value sum) (get-value a1)) + me)) + ((and (has-value? a2) (has-value? sum)) + (set-value! a1 + (- (get-value sum) (get-value a2)) + me)))) + (define (process-forget-value) + (forget-value! sum me) + (forget-value! a1 me) + (forget-value! a2 me) + (process-new-value)) + (define (me request) + (cond ((eq? request 'I-have-a-value) + (process-new-value)) + ((eq? request 'I-lost-my-value) + (process-forget-value)) + (else + (error "Unknown request -- ADDER" request)))) + (connect a1 me) + (connect a2 me) + (connect sum me) + me) + + `Adder' connects the new adder to the designated connectors and +returns it as its value. The procedure `me', which represents the +adder, acts as a dispatch to the local procedures. The following +"syntax interfaces" (see footnote *Note Footnote 27:: in section *Note +3-3-4::) are used in conjunction with the dispatch: + + (define (inform-about-value constraint) + (constraint 'I-have-a-value)) + + (define (inform-about-no-value constraint) + (constraint 'I-lost-my-value)) + + The adder's local procedure `process-new-value' is called when the +adder is informed that one of its connectors has a value. The adder +first checks to see if both `a1' and `a2' have values. If so, it tells +`sum' to set its value to the sum of the two addends. The `informant' +argument to `set-value!' is `me', which is the adder object itself. If +`a1' and `a2' do not both have values, then the adder checks to see if +perhaps `a1' and `sum' have values. If so, it sets `a2' to the +difference of these two. Finally, if `a2' and `sum' have values, this +gives the adder enough information to set `a1'. If the adder is told +that one of its connectors has lost a value, it requests that all of its +connectors now lose their values. (Only those values that were set by +this adder are actually lost.) Then it runs `process-new-value'. The +reason for this last step is that one or more connectors may still have +a value (that is, a connector may have had a value that was not +originally set by the adder), and these values may need to be +propagated back through the adder. + + A multiplier is very similar to an adder. It will set its `product' +to 0 if either of the factors is 0, even if the other factor is not +known. + + (define (multiplier m1 m2 product) + (define (process-new-value) + (cond ((or (and (has-value? m1) (= (get-value m1) 0)) + (and (has-value? m2) (= (get-value m2) 0))) + (set-value! product 0 me)) + ((and (has-value? m1) (has-value? m2)) + (set-value! product + (* (get-value m1) (get-value m2)) + me)) + ((and (has-value? product) (has-value? m1)) + (set-value! m2 + (/ (get-value product) (get-value m1)) + me)) + ((and (has-value? product) (has-value? m2)) + (set-value! m1 + (/ (get-value product) (get-value m2)) + me)))) + (define (process-forget-value) + (forget-value! product me) + (forget-value! m1 me) + (forget-value! m2 me) + (process-new-value)) + (define (me request) + (cond ((eq? request 'I-have-a-value) + (process-new-value)) + ((eq? request 'I-lost-my-value) + (process-forget-value)) + (else + (error "Unknown request -- MULTIPLIER" request)))) + (connect m1 me) + (connect m2 me) + (connect product me) + me) + + A `constant' constructor simply sets the value of the designated +connector. Any `I-have-a-value' or `I-lost-my-value' message sent to +the constant box will produce an error. + + (define (constant value connector) + (define (me request) + (error "Unknown request -- CONSTANT" request)) + (connect connector me) + (set-value! connector value me) + me) + + Finally, a probe prints a message about the setting or unsetting of +the designated connector: + + (define (probe name connector) + (define (print-probe value) + (newline) + (display "Probe: ") + (display name) + (display " = ") + (display value)) + (define (process-new-value) + (print-probe (get-value connector))) + (define (process-forget-value) + (print-probe "?")) + (define (me request) + (cond ((eq? request 'I-have-a-value) + (process-new-value)) + ((eq? request 'I-lost-my-value) + (process-forget-value)) + (else + (error "Unknown request -- PROBE" request)))) + (connect connector me) + me) + +Representing connectors +....................... + +A connector is represented as a procedural object with local state +variables `value', the current value of the connector; `informant', the +object that set the connector's value; and `constraints', a list of the +constraints in which the connector participates. + + (define (make-connector) + (let ((value false) (informant false) (constraints '())) + (define (set-my-value newval setter) + (cond ((not (has-value? me)) + (set! value newval) + (set! informant setter) + (for-each-except setter + inform-about-value + constraints)) + ((not (= value newval)) + (error "Contradiction" (list value newval))) + (else 'ignored))) + (define (forget-my-value retractor) + (if (eq? retractor informant) + (begin (set! informant false) + (for-each-except retractor + inform-about-no-value + constraints)) + 'ignored)) + (define (connect new-constraint) + (if (not (memq new-constraint constraints)) + (set! constraints + (cons new-constraint constraints))) + (if (has-value? me) + (inform-about-value new-constraint)) + 'done) + (define (me request) + (cond ((eq? request 'has-value?) + (if informant true false)) + ((eq? request 'value) value) + ((eq? request 'set-value!) set-my-value) + ((eq? request 'forget) forget-my-value) + ((eq? request 'connect) connect) + (else (error "Unknown operation -- CONNECTOR" + request)))) + me)) + + The connector's local procedure `set-my-value' is called when there +is a request to set the connector's value. If the connector does not +currently have a value, it will set its value and remember as +`informant' the constraint that requested the value to be set.(2) Then +the connector will notify all of its participating constraints except +the constraint that requested the value to be set. This is +accomplished using the following iterator, which applies a designated +procedure to all items in a list except a given one: + + (define (for-each-except exception procedure list) + (define (loop items) + (cond ((null? items) 'done) + ((eq? (car items) exception) (loop (cdr items))) + (else (procedure (car items)) + (loop (cdr items))))) + (loop list)) + + If a connector is asked to forget its value, it runs the local +procedure `forget-my-value', which first checks to make sure that the +request is coming from the same object that set the value originally. +If so, the connector informs its associated constraints about the loss +of the value. + + The local procedure `connect' adds the designated new constraint to +the list of constraints if it is not already in that list. Then, if +the connector has a value, it informs the new constraint of this fact. + + The connector's procedure `me' serves as a dispatch to the other +internal procedures and also represents the connector as an object. +The following procedures provide a syntax interface for the dispatch: + + (define (has-value? connector) + (connector 'has-value?)) + + (define (get-value connector) + (connector 'value)) + + (define (set-value! connector new-value informant) + ((connector 'set-value!) new-value informant)) + + (define (forget-value! connector retractor) + ((connector 'forget) retractor)) + + (define (connect connector new-constraint) + ((connector 'connect) new-constraint)) + + *Exercise 3.33:* Using primitive multiplier, adder, and constant + constraints, define a procedure `averager' that takes three + connectors `a', `b', and `c' as inputs and establishes the + constraint that the value of `c' is the average of the values of + `a' and `b'. + + *Exercise 3.34:* Louis Reasoner wants to build a squarer, a + constraint device with two terminals such that the value of + connector `b' on the second terminal will always be the square of + the value `a' on the first terminal. He proposes the following + simple device made from a multiplier: + + (define (squarer a b) + (multiplier a a b)) + + There is a serious flaw in this idea. Explain. + + *Exercise 3.35:* Ben Bitdiddle tells Louis that one way to avoid + the trouble in *Note Exercise 3-34:: is to define a squarer as a + new primitive constraint. Fill in the missing portions in Ben's + outline for a procedure to implement such a constraint: + + (define (squarer a b) + (define (process-new-value) + (if (has-value? b) + (if (< (get-value b) 0) + (error "square less than 0 -- SQUARER" (get-value b)) + <ALTERNATIVE1>) + <ALTERNATIVE2>)) + (define (process-forget-value) <BODY1>) + (define (me request) <BODY2>) + <REST OF DEFINITION> + me) + + *Exercise 3.36:* Suppose we evaluate the following sequence of + expressions in the global environment: + + (define a (make-connector)) + (define b (make-connector)) + (set-value! a 10 'user) + + At some time during evaluation of the `set-value!', the following + expression from the connector's local procedure is evaluated: + + (for-each-except setter inform-about-value constraints) + + Draw an environment diagram showing the environment in which the + above expression is evaluated. + + *Exercise 3.37:* The `celsius-fahrenheit-converter' procedure is + cumbersome when compared with a more expression-oriented style of + definition, such as + + (define (celsius-fahrenheit-converter x) + (c+ (c* (c/ (cv 9) (cv 5)) + x) + (cv 32))) + + (define C (make-connector)) + (define F (celsius-fahrenheit-converter C)) + + Here `c+', `c*', etc. are the "constraint" versions of the + arithmetic operations. For example, `c+' takes two connectors as + arguments and returns a connector that is related to these by an + adder constraint: + + (define (c+ x y) + (let ((z (make-connector))) + (adder x y z) + z)) + + Define analogous procedures `c-', `c*', `c/', and `cv' (constant + value) that enable us to define compound constraints as in the + converter example above.(3) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Constraint propagation first appeared in the incredibly +forward-looking SKETCHPAD system of Ivan Sutherland (1963). A +beautiful constraint-propagation system based on the Smalltalk language +was developed by Alan Borning (1977) at Xerox Palo Alto Research +Center. Sussman, Stallman, and Steele applied constraint propagation +to electrical circuit analysis (Sussman and Stallman 1975; Sussman and +Steele 1980). TK!Solver (Konopasek and Jayaraman 1984) is an extensive +modeling environment based on constraints. + + (2) The `setter' might not be a constraint. In our temperature +example, we used `user' as the `setter'. + + (3) The expression-oriented format is convenient because it avoids +the need to name the intermediate expressions in a computation. Our +original formulation of the constraint language is cumbersome in the +same way that many languages are cumbersome when dealing with operations +on compound data. For example, if we wanted to compute the product (a + +b) * (c + d), where the variables represent vectors, we could work in +"imperative style," using procedures that set the values of designated +vector arguments but do not themselves return vectors as values: + + (v-sum a b temp1) + (v-sum c d temp2) + (v-prod temp1 temp2 answer) + + Alternatively, we could deal with expressions, using procedures that +return vectors as values, and thus avoid explicitly mentioning `temp1' +and `temp2': + + (define answer (v-prod (v-sum a b) (v-sum c d))) + + Since Lisp allows us to return compound objects as values of +procedures, we can transform our imperative-style constraint language +into an expression-oriented style as shown in this exercise. In +languages that are impoverished in handling compound objects, such as +Algol, Basic, and Pascal (unless one explicitly uses Pascal pointer +variables), one is usually stuck with the imperative style when +manipulating compound objects. Given the advantage of the +expression-oriented format, one might ask if there is any reason to have +implemented the system in imperative style, as we did in this section. +One reason is that the non-expression-oriented constraint language +provides a handle on constraint objects (e.g., the value of the `adder' +procedure) as well as on connector objects. This is useful if we wish +to extend the system with new operations that communicate with +constraints directly rather than only indirectly via operations on +connectors. Although it is easy to implement the expression-oriented +style in terms of the imperative implementation, it is very difficult +to do the converse. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-4, Next: 3-5, Prev: 3-3, Up: Chapter 3 + +3.4 Concurrency: Time Is of the Essence +======================================= + +We've seen the power of computational objects with local state as tools +for modeling. Yet, as section *Note 3-1-3:: warned, this power +extracts a price: the loss of referential transparency, giving rise to +a thicket of questions about sameness and change, and the need to +abandon the substitution model of evaluation in favor of the more +intricate environment model. + + The central issue lurking beneath the complexity of state, sameness, +and change is that by introducing assignment we are forced to admit "time" +into our computational models. Before we introduced assignment, all +our programs were timeless, in the sense that any expression that has a +value always has the same value. In contrast, recall the example of +modeling withdrawals from a bank account and returning the resulting +balance, introduced at the beginning of section *Note 3-1-1::: + + (withdraw 25) + 75 + + (withdraw 25) + 50 + + Here successive evaluations of the same expression yield different +values. This behavior arises from the fact that the execution of +assignment statements (in this case, assignments to the variable +`balance') delineates "moments in time" when values change. The result +of evaluating an expression depends not only on the expression itself, +but also on whether the evaluation occurs before or after these +moments. Building models in terms of computational objects with local +state forces us to confront time as an essential concept in programming. + + We can go further in structuring computational models to match our +perception of the physical world. Objects in the world do not change +one at a time in sequence. Rather we perceive them as acting "concurrently"--all +at once. So it is often natural to model systems as collections of +computational processes that execute concurrently. Just as we can make +our programs modular by organizing models in terms of objects with +separate local state, it is often appropriate to divide computational +models into parts that evolve separately and concurrently. Even if the +programs are to be executed on a sequential computer, the practice of +writing programs as if they were to be executed concurrently forces the +programmer to avoid inessential timing constraints and thus makes +programs more modular. + + In addition to making programs more modular, concurrent computation +can provide a speed advantage over sequential computation. Sequential +computers execute only one operation at a time, so the amount of time +it takes to perform a task is proportional to the total number of +operations performed.(1) However, if it is possible to decompose a +problem into pieces that are relatively independent and need to +communicate only rarely, it may be possible to allocate pieces to +separate computing processors, producing a speed advantage proportional +to the number of processors available. + + Unfortunately, the complexities introduced by assignment become even +more problematic in the presence of concurrency. The fact of +concurrent execution, either because the world operates in parallel or +because our computers do, entails additional complexity in our +understanding of time. + +* Menu: + +* 3-4-1:: The Nature of Time in Concurrent Systems +* 3-4-2:: Mechanisms for Controlling Concurrency + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Most real processors actually execute a few operations at a +time, following a strategy called "pipelining". Although this +technique greatly improves the effective utilization of the hardware, +it is used only to speed up the execution of a sequential instruction +stream, while retaining the behavior of the sequential program. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-4-1, Next: 3-4-2, Prev: 3-4, Up: 3-4 + +3.4.1 The Nature of Time in Concurrent Systems +---------------------------------------------- + +On the surface, time seems straightforward. It is an ordering imposed +on events.(1) For any events A and B, either A occurs before B, A and +B are simultaneous, or A occurs after B. For instance, returning to +the bank account example, suppose that Peter withdraws $10 and Paul +withdraws $25 from a joint account that initially contains $100, leaving +$65 in the account. Depending on the order of the two withdrawals, the +sequence of balances in the account is either $100 -> $90 -> $65 or +$100 -> $75 -> $65. In a computer implementation of the banking +system, this changing sequence of balances could be modeled by +successive assignments to a variable `balance'. + + In complex situations, however, such a view can be problematic. +Suppose that Peter and Paul, and other people besides, are accessing +the same bank account through a network of banking machines distributed +all over the world. The actual sequence of balances in the account +will depend critically on the detailed timing of the accesses and the +details of the communication among the machines. + + This indeterminacy in the order of events can pose serious problems +in the design of concurrent systems. For instance, suppose that the +withdrawals made by Peter and Paul are implemented as two separate +processes sharing a common variable `balance', each process specified +by the procedure given in section *Note 3-1-1::: + + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + + If the two processes operate independently, then Peter might test the +balance and attempt to withdraw a legitimate amount. However, Paul +might withdraw some funds in between the time that Peter checks the +balance and the time Peter completes the withdrawal, thus invalidating +Peter's test. + + Things can be worse still. Consider the expression + + (set! balance (- balance amount)) + +executed as part of each withdrawal process. This consists of three +steps: (1) accessing the value of the `balance' variable; (2) computing +the new balance; (3) setting `balance' to this new value. If Peter and +Paul's withdrawals execute this statement concurrently, then the two +withdrawals might interleave the order in which they access `balance' +and set it to the new value. + + The timing diagram in *Note Figure 3-29:: depicts an order of events +where `balance' starts at 100, Peter withdraws 10, Paul withdraws 25, +and yet the final value of `balance' is 75. As shown in the diagram, +the reason for this anomaly is that Paul's assignment of 75 to +`balance' is made under the assumption that the value of `balance' to +be decremented is 100. That assumption, however, became invalid when +Peter changed `balance' to 90. This is a catastrophic failure for the +banking system, because the total amount of money in the system is not +conserved. Before the transactions, the total amount of money was +$100. Afterwards, Peter has $10, Paul has $25, and the bank has $75.(2) + + The general phenomenon illustrated here is that several processes +may share a common state variable. What makes this complicated is that +more than one process may be trying to manipulate the shared state at +the same time. For the bank account example, during each transaction, +each customer should be able to act as if the other customers did not +exist. When a customer changes the balance in a way that depends on +the balance, he must be able to assume that, just before the moment of +change, the balance is still what he thought it was. + +Correct behavior of concurrent programs +....................................... + +The above example typifies the subtle bugs that can creep into +concurrent programs. The root of this complexity lies in the +assignments to variables that are shared among the different processes. +We already know that we must be careful in writing programs that use +`set!', because the results of a computation depend on the order in +which the assignments occur.(3) With concurrent processes we must be +especially careful about assignments, because we may not be able to +control the order of the assignments made by the different processes. +If several such changes might be made concurrently (as with two +depositors accessing a joint account) we need some way to ensure that +our system behaves correctly. For example, in the case of withdrawals +from a joint bank account, we must ensure that money is conserved. To +make concurrent programs behave correctly, we may have to place some +restrictions on concurrent execution. + + *Figure 3.29:* Timing diagram showing how interleaving the order + of events in two banking withdrawals can lead to an incorrect + final balance. + + | Peter Bank Paul + | ____ + | / \ + | .--------------| $100 |-------------. + | | \____/ | + | V V + | .----------------------. .----------------------. + | | Access balance: $100 | | Access balance: $100 | + | `----------+-----------' `----------+-----------' + | V V + | .----------------------. .----------------------. + | | new value: 100-10=90 | | new value: 100-25=75 | + | `----------+-----------' `----------+-----------' + | V | + | .----------------------. | + | | set! balance to $90 | | + | `----------+-----------' ____ | + | | / \ | + | `------------->| $ 90 | V + | \____/ .----------------------. + | | new value: 100-25=75 | + | ____ `----------+-----------' + | / \ | + | | $ 90 |<------------' + V \____/ + time + + One possible restriction on concurrency would stipulate that no two +operations that change any shared state variables can occur at the same +time. This is an extremely stringent requirement. For distributed +banking, it would require the system designer to ensure that only one +transaction could proceed at a time. This would be both inefficient +and overly conservative. *Note Figure 3-30:: shows Peter and Paul +sharing a bank account, where Paul has a private account as well. The +diagram illustrates two withdrawals from the shared account (one by +Peter and one by Paul) and a deposit to Paul's private account.(4) The +two withdrawals from the shared account must not be concurrent (since +both access and update the same account), and Paul's deposit and +withdrawal must not be concurrent (since both access and update the +amount in Paul's wallet). But there should be no problem permitting +Paul's deposit to his private account to proceed concurrently with +Peter's withdrawal from the shared account. + + *Figure 3.30:* Concurrent deposits and withdrawals from a joint + account in Bank1 and a private account in Bank2. + + | Peter Bank1 Paul Bank2 + | ____ ____ ____ ____ + | / \ / \ / \ / \ + | | $7 |--. .--| $100 | | $5 |--. .--| $300 | + | \____/ V V \____/ \____/ V V \____/ + | +---+ +---+ + | | W | | D | + | ____ ++-++ ____ ____ ++-++ ____ + | / \ | | / \ / \ | | / \ + | | $17 |<-' `->| $90 |--. .--| $0 |<-' `->| $305 | + | \____/ \____/ V V \____/ \____/ + | +---+ + | | W | + | ____ ____ ++-++ ____ ____ + | / \ / \ | | / \ / \ + | | $17 | | $65 |<-' `->| $25 | | $305 | + | \____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ + V + time + + A less stringent restriction on concurrency would ensure that a +concurrent system produces the same result as if the processes had run +sequentially in some order. There are two important aspects to this +requirement. First, it does not require the processes to actually run +sequentially, but only to produce results that are the same _as if_ +they had run sequentially. For the example in *Note Figure 3-30::, the +designer of the bank account system can safely allow Paul's deposit and +Peter's withdrawal to happen concurrently, because the net result will +be the same as if the two operations had happened sequentially. +Second, there may be more than one possible "correct" result produced +by a concurrent program, because we require only that the result be the +same as for _some_ sequential order. For example, suppose that Peter +and Paul's joint account starts out with $100, and Peter deposits $40 +while Paul concurrently withdraws half the money in the account. Then +sequential execution could result in the account balance being either +$70 or $90 (see *Note Exercise 3-38::).(5) + + There are still weaker requirements for correct execution of +concurrent programs. A program for simulating diffusion (say, the flow +of heat in an object) might consist of a large number of processes, +each one representing a small volume of space, that update their values +concurrently. Each process repeatedly changes its value to the average +of its own value and its neighbors' values. This algorithm converges +to the right answer independent of the order in which the operations +are done; there is no need for any restrictions on concurrent use of +the shared values. + + *Exercise 3.38:* Suppose that Peter, Paul, and Mary share a joint + bank account that initially contains $100. Concurrently, Peter + deposits $10, Paul withdraws $20, and Mary withdraws half the + money in the account, by executing the following commands: + + Peter: (set! balance (+ balance 10)) + Paul: (set! balance (- balance 20)) + Mary: (set! balance (- balance (/ balance 2))) + + a. List all the different possible values for `balance' after + these three transactions have been completed, assuming that + the banking system forces the three processes to run + sequentially in some order. + + b. What are some other values that could be produced if the + system allows the processes to be interleaved? Draw timing + diagrams like the one in *Note Figure 3-29:: to explain how + these values can occur. + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) To quote some graffiti seen on a Cambridge building wall: "Time +is a device that was invented to keep everything from happening at +once." + + (2) An even worse failure for this system could occur if the two +`set!' operations attempt to change the balance simultaneously, in +which case the actual data appearing in memory might end up being a +random combination of the information being written by the two +processes. Most computers have interlocks on the primitive +memory-write operations, which protect against such simultaneous +access. Even this seemingly simple kind of protection, however, raises +implementation challenges in the design of multiprocessing computers, +where elaborate "cache-coherence" protocols are required to ensure that +the various processors will maintain a consistent view of memory +contents, despite the fact that data may be replicated ("cached") among +the different processors to increase the speed of memory access. + + (3) The factorial program in section *Note 3-1-3:: illustrates this +for a single sequential process. + + (4) The columns show the contents of Peter's wallet, the joint +account (in Bank1), Paul's wallet, and Paul's private account (in +Bank2), before and after each withdrawal (W) and deposit (D). Peter +withdraws $10 from Bank1; Paul deposits $5 in Bank2, then withdraws $25 +from Bank1. + + (5) [Footnote 39] A more formal way to express this idea is to say +that concurrent programs are inherently "nondeterministic". That is, +they are described not by single-valued functions, but by functions +whose results are sets of possible values. In section *Note 4-3:: we +will study a language for expressing nondeterministic computations. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-4-2, Prev: 3-4-1, Up: 3-4 + +3.4.2 Mechanisms for Controlling Concurrency +-------------------------------------------- + +We've seen that the difficulty in dealing with concurrent processes is +rooted in the need to consider the interleaving of the order of events +in the different processes. For example, suppose we have two +processes, one with three ordered events (a,b,c) and one with three +ordered events (x,y,z). If the two processes run concurrently, with no +constraints on how their execution is interleaved, then there are 20 +different possible orderings for the events that are consistent with +the individual orderings for the two processes: + + (a,b,c,x,y,z) (a,x,b,y,c,z) (x,a,b,c,y,z) (x,a,y,z,b,c) + (a,b,x,c,y,z) (a,x,b,y,z,c) (x,a,b,y,c,z) (x,y,a,b,c,z) + (a,b,x,y,c,z) (a,x,y,b,c,z) (x,a,b,y,z,c) (x,y,a,b,z,c) + (a,b,x,y,z,c) (a,x,y,b,z,c) (x,a,y,b,c,z) (x,y,a,z,b,c) + (a,x,b,c,y,z) (a,x,y,z,b,c) (x,a,y,b,z,c) (x,y,z,a,b,c) + + As programmers designing this system, we would have to consider the +effects of each of these 20 orderings and check that each behavior is +acceptable. Such an approach rapidly becomes unwieldy as the numbers +of processes and events increase. + + A more practical approach to the design of concurrent systems is to +devise general mechanisms that allow us to constrain the interleaving +of concurrent processes so that we can be sure that the program +behavior is correct. Many mechanisms have been developed for this +purpose. In this section, we describe one of them, the "serializer". + +Serializing access to shared state +.................................. + +Serialization implements the following idea: Processes will execute +concurrently, but there will be certain collections of procedures that +cannot be executed concurrently. More precisely, serialization creates +distinguished sets of procedures such that only one execution of a +procedure in each serialized set is permitted to happen at a time. If +some procedure in the set is being executed, then a process that +attempts to execute any procedure in the set will be forced to wait +until the first execution has finished. + + We can use serialization to control access to shared variables. For +example, if we want to update a shared variable based on the previous +value of that variable, we put the access to the previous value of the +variable and the assignment of the new value to the variable in the +same procedure. We then ensure that no other procedure that assigns to +the variable can run concurrently with this procedure by serializing +all of these procedures with the same serializer. This guarantees that +the value of the variable cannot be changed between an access and the +corresponding assignment. + +Serializers in Scheme +..................... + +To make the above mechanism more concrete, suppose that we have +extended Scheme to include a procedure called `parallel-execute': + + (parallel-execute <P_1> <P_2> ... <P_K>) + + Each <P> must be a procedure of no arguments. `Parallel-execute' +creates a separate process for each <P>, which applies <P> (to no +arguments). These processes all run concurrently.(1) + + As an example of how this is used, consider + + (define x 10) + + (parallel-execute (lambda () (set! x (* x x))) + (lambda () (set! x (+ x 1)))) + + This creates two concurrent processes--P_1, which sets `x' to `x' +times `x', and P_2, which increments `x'. After execution is complete, +`x' will be left with one of five possible values, depending on the +interleaving of the events of P_1 and P_2: + + 101: P_1 sets `x' to 100 and then P_2 increments + `x' to 101. + 121: P_2 increments `x' to 11 and then P_1 sets + `x' to `x' times `x'. + 110: P_2 changes `x' from 10 to 11 between the two + times that P_1 accesses the value of `x' during + the evaluation of `(* x x)'. + 11: P_2 accesses `x', then P_1 sets `x' to + 100, then P_2 sets `x'. + 100: P_1 accesses `x' (twice), then P_2 sets + `x' to 11, then P_1 sets `x'. + + We can constrain the concurrency by using serialized procedures, +which are created by "serializers". Serializers are constructed by +`make-serializer', whose implementation is given below. A serializer +takes a procedure as argument and returns a serialized procedure that +behaves like the original procedure. All calls to a given serializer +return serialized procedures in the same set. + + Thus, in contrast to the example above, executing + + (define x 10) + + (define s (make-serializer)) + + (parallel-execute (s (lambda () (set! x (* x x)))) + (s (lambda () (set! x (+ x 1))))) + +can produce only two possible values for `x', 101 or 121. The other +possibilities are eliminated, because the execution of P_1 and P_2 +cannot be interleaved. + + Here is a version of the `make-account' procedure from section *Note +3-1-1::, where the deposits and withdrawals have been serialized: + + (define (make-account balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + (let ((protected (make-serializer))) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) (protected withdraw)) + ((eq? m 'deposit) (protected deposit)) + ((eq? m 'balance) balance) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch)) + + With this implementation, two processes cannot be withdrawing from or +depositing into a single account concurrently. This eliminates the +source of the error illustrated in *Note Figure 3-29::, where Peter +changes the account balance between the times when Paul accesses the +balance to compute the new value and when Paul actually performs the +assignment. On the other hand, each account has its own serializer, so +that deposits and withdrawals for different accounts can proceed +concurrently. + + *Exercise 3.39:* Which of the five possibilities in the parallel + execution shown above remain if we instead serialize execution as + follows: + + (define x 10) + + (define s (make-serializer)) + + (parallel-execute (lambda () (set! x ((s (lambda () (* x x)))))) + (s (lambda () (set! x (+ x 1))))) + + *Exercise 3.40:* Give all possible values of `x' that can result + from executing + + (define x 10) + + (parallel-execute (lambda () (set! x (* x x))) + (lambda () (set! x (* x x x)))) + + Which of these possibilities remain if we instead use serialized + procedures: + + (define x 10) + + (define s (make-serializer)) + + (parallel-execute (s (lambda () (set! x (* x x)))) + (s (lambda () (set! x (* x x x))))) + + *Exercise 3.41:* Ben Bitdiddle worries that it would be better to + implement the bank account as follows (where the commented line + has been changed): + + (define (make-account balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + ;; continued on next page + + (let ((protected (make-serializer))) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) (protected withdraw)) + ((eq? m 'deposit) (protected deposit)) + ((eq? m 'balance) + ((protected (lambda () balance)))) ; serialized + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch)) + + because allowing unserialized access to the bank balance can + result in anomalous behavior. Do you agree? Is there any + scenario that demonstrates Ben's concern? + + *Exercise 3.42:* Ben Bitdiddle suggests that it's a waste of time + to create a new serialized procedure in response to every + `withdraw' and `deposit' message. He says that `make-account' + could be changed so that the calls to `protected' are done outside + the `dispatch' procedure. That is, an account would return the + same serialized procedure (which was created at the same time as + the account) each time it is asked for a withdrawal procedure. + + (define (make-account balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + (let ((protected (make-serializer))) + (let ((protected-withdraw (protected withdraw)) + (protected-deposit (protected deposit))) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) protected-withdraw) + ((eq? m 'deposit) protected-deposit) + ((eq? m 'balance) balance) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch))) + + Is this a safe change to make? In particular, is there any + difference in what concurrency is allowed by these two versions of + `make-account' ? + +Complexity of using multiple shared resources +............................................. + +Serializers provide a powerful abstraction that helps isolate the +complexities of concurrent programs so that they can be dealt with +carefully and (hopefully) correctly. However, while using serializers +is relatively straightforward when there is only a single shared +resource (such as a single bank account), concurrent programming can be +treacherously difficult when there are multiple shared resources. + + To illustrate one of the difficulties that can arise, suppose we +wish to swap the balances in two bank accounts. We access each account +to find the balance, compute the difference between the balances, +withdraw this difference from one account, and deposit it in the other +account. We could implement this as follows:(2) + + (define (exchange account1 account2) + (let ((difference (- (account1 'balance) + (account2 'balance)))) + ((account1 'withdraw) difference) + ((account2 'deposit) difference))) + + This procedure works well when only a single process is trying to do +the exchange. Suppose, however, that Peter and Paul both have access +to accounts a1, a2, and a3, and that Peter exchanges a1 and a2 while +Paul concurrently exchanges a1 and a3. Even with account deposits and +withdrawals serialized for individual accounts (as in the `make-account' +procedure shown above in this section), `exchange' can still produce +incorrect results. For example, Peter might compute the difference in +the balances for a1 and a2, but then Paul might change the balance in +a1 before Peter is able to complete the exchange.(3) For correct +behavior, we must arrange for the `exchange' procedure to lock out any +other concurrent accesses to the accounts during the entire time of the +exchange. + + One way we can accomplish this is by using both accounts' +serializers to serialize the entire `exchange' procedure. To do this, +we will arrange for access to an account's serializer. Note that we +are deliberately breaking the modularity of the bank-account object by +exposing the serializer. The following version of `make-account' is +identical to the original version given in section *Note 3-1-1::, +except that a serializer is provided to protect the balance variable, +and the serializer is exported via message passing: + + (define (make-account-and-serializer balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + (let ((balance-serializer (make-serializer))) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) withdraw) + ((eq? m 'deposit) deposit) + ((eq? m 'balance) balance) + ((eq? m 'serializer) balance-serializer) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch)) + + We can use this to do serialized deposits and withdrawals. However, +unlike our earlier serialized account, it is now the responsibility of +each user of bank-account objects to explicitly manage the +serialization, for example as follows:(4) + + (define (deposit account amount) + (let ((s (account 'serializer)) + (d (account 'deposit))) + ((s d) amount))) + + Exporting the serializer in this way gives us enough flexibility to +implement a serialized exchange program. We simply serialize the +original `exchange' procedure with the serializers for both accounts: + + (define (serialized-exchange account1 account2) + (let ((serializer1 (account1 'serializer)) + (serializer2 (account2 'serializer))) + ((serializer1 (serializer2 exchange)) + account1 + account2))) + + *Exercise 3.43:* Suppose that the balances in three accounts start + out as $10, $20, and $30, and that multiple processes run, + exchanging the balances in the accounts. Argue that if the + processes are run sequentially, after any number of concurrent + exchanges, the account balances should be $10, $20, and $30 in + some order. Draw a timing diagram like the one in *Note Figure + 3-29:: to show how this condition can be violated if the exchanges + are implemented using the first version of the account-exchange + program in this section. On the other hand, argue that even with + this `exchange' program, the sum of the balances in the accounts + will be preserved. Draw a timing diagram to show how even this + condition would be violated if we did not serialize the + transactions on individual accounts. + + *Exercise 3.44:* Consider the problem of transferring an amount + from one account to another. Ben Bitdiddle claims that this can + be accomplished with the following procedure, even if there are + multiple people concurrently transferring money among multiple + accounts, using any account mechanism that serializes deposit and + withdrawal transactions, for example, the version of + `make-account' in the text above. + + (define (transfer from-account to-account amount) + ((from-account 'withdraw) amount) + ((to-account 'deposit) amount)) + + Louis Reasoner claims that there is a problem here, and that we + need to use a more sophisticated method, such as the one required + for dealing with the exchange problem. Is Louis right? If not, + what is the essential difference between the transfer problem and + the exchange problem? (You should assume that the balance in + `from-account' is at least `amount'.) + + *Exercise 3.45:* Louis Reasoner thinks our bank-account system is + unnecessarily complex and error-prone now that deposits and + withdrawals aren't automatically serialized. He suggests that + `make-account-and-serializer' should have exported the serializer + (for use by such procedures as `serialized-exchange') in addition + to (rather than instead of) using it to serialize accounts and + deposits as `make-account' did. He proposes to redefine accounts + as follows: + + (define (make-account-and-serializer balance) + (define (withdraw amount) + (if (>= balance amount) + (begin (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance) + "Insufficient funds")) + (define (deposit amount) + (set! balance (+ balance amount)) + balance) + (let ((balance-serializer (make-serializer))) + (define (dispatch m) + (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) (balance-serializer withdraw)) + ((eq? m 'deposit) (balance-serializer deposit)) + ((eq? m 'balance) balance) + ((eq? m 'serializer) balance-serializer) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT" + m)))) + dispatch)) + + Then deposits are handled as with the original `make-account': + + (define (deposit account amount) + ((account 'deposit) amount)) + + Explain what is wrong with Louis's reasoning. In particular, + consider what happens when `serialized-exchange' is called. + +Implementing serializers +........................ + +We implement serializers in terms of a more primitive synchronization +mechanism called a "mutex". A mutex is an object that supports two +operations--the mutex can be "acquired", and the mutex can be "released". +Once a mutex has been acquired, no other acquire operations on that +mutex may proceed until the mutex is released.(5) In our +implementation, each serializer has an associated mutex. Given a +procedure `p', the serializer returns a procedure that acquires the +mutex, runs `p', and then releases the mutex. This ensures that only +one of the procedures produced by the serializer can be running at +once, which is precisely the serialization property that we need to +guarantee. + + (define (make-serializer) + (let ((mutex (make-mutex))) + (lambda (p) + (define (serialized-p . args) + (mutex 'acquire) + (let ((val (apply p args))) + (mutex 'release) + val)) + serialized-p))) + + The mutex is a mutable object (here we'll use a one-element list, +which we'll refer to as a "cell") that can hold the value true or +false. When the value is false, the mutex is available to be acquired. +When the value is true, the mutex is unavailable, and any process that +attempts to acquire the mutex must wait. + + Our mutex constructor `make-mutex' begins by initializing the cell +contents to false. To acquire the mutex, we test the cell. If the +mutex is available, we set the cell contents to true and proceed. +Otherwise, we wait in a loop, attempting to acquire over and over +again, until we find that the mutex is available.(6) To release the +mutex, we set the cell contents to false. + + (define (make-mutex) + (let ((cell (list false))) + (define (the-mutex m) + (cond ((eq? m 'acquire) + (if (test-and-set! cell) + (the-mutex 'acquire))) ; retry + ((eq? m 'release) (clear! cell)))) + the-mutex)) + + (define (clear! cell) + (set-car! cell false)) + + `Test-and-set!' tests the cell and returns the result of the test. +In addition, if the test was false, `test-and-set!' sets the cell +contents to true before returning false. We can express this behavior +as the following procedure: + + (define (test-and-set! cell) + (if (car cell) + true + (begin (set-car! cell true) + false))) + + However, this implementation of `test-and-set!' does not suffice as +it stands. There is a crucial subtlety here, which is the essential +place where concurrency control enters the system: The `test-and-set!' +operation must be performed "atomically". That is, we must guarantee +that, once a process has tested the cell and found it to be false, the +cell contents will actually be set to true before any other process can +test the cell. If we do not make this guarantee, then the mutex can +fail in a way similar to the bank-account failure in *Note Figure +3-29::. (See *Note Exercise 3-46::.) + + The actual implementation of `test-and-set!' depends on the details +of how our system runs concurrent processes. For example, we might be +executing concurrent processes on a sequential processor using a +time-slicing mechanism that cycles through the processes, permitting +each process to run for a short time before interrupting it and moving +on to the next process. In that case, `test-and-set!' can work by +disabling time slicing during the testing and setting.(7) +Alternatively, multiprocessing computers provide instructions that +support atomic operations directly in hardware.(8) + + *Exercise 3.46:* Suppose that we implement `test-and-set!' using + an ordinary procedure as shown in the text, without attempting to + make the operation atomic. Draw a timing diagram like the one in + *Note Figure 3-29:: to demonstrate how the mutex implementation + can fail by allowing two processes to acquire the mutex at the + same time. + + *Exercise 3.47:* A semaphore (of size n) is a generalization of a + mutex. Like a mutex, a semaphore supports acquire and release + operations, but it is more general in that up to n processes can + acquire it concurrently. Additional processes that attempt to + acquire the semaphore must wait for release operations. Give + implementations of semaphores + + a. in terms of mutexes + + b. in terms of atomic `test-and-set!' operations. + + +Deadlock +........ + +Now that we have seen how to implement serializers, we can see that +account exchanging still has a problem, even with the +`serialized-exchange' procedure above. Imagine that Peter attempts to +exchange a1 with a2 while Paul concurrently attempts to exchange a2 +with a1. Suppose that Peter's process reaches the point where it has +entered a serialized procedure protecting a1 and, just after that, +Paul's process enters a serialized procedure protecting a2. Now Peter +cannot proceed (to enter a serialized procedure protecting a2) until +Paul exits the serialized procedure protecting a2. Similarly, Paul +cannot proceed until Peter exits the serialized procedure protecting +a1. Each process is stalled forever, waiting for the other. This +situation is called a "deadlock". Deadlock is always a danger in +systems that provide concurrent access to multiple shared resources. + + One way to avoid the deadlock in this situation is to give each +account a unique identification number and rewrite +`serialized-exchange' so that a process will always attempt to enter a +procedure protecting the lowest-numbered account first. Although this +method works well for the exchange problem, there are other situations +that require more sophisticated deadlock-avoidance techniques, or where +deadlock cannot be avoided at all. (See *Note Exercise 3-48:: and +*Note Exercise 3-49::.)(9) + + *Exercise 3.48:* Explain in detail why the deadlock-avoidance + method described above, (i.e., the accounts are numbered, and each + process attempts to acquire the smaller-numbered account first) + avoids deadlock in the exchange problem. Rewrite + `serialized-exchange' to incorporate this idea. (You will also + need to modify `make-account' so that each account is created with + a number, which can be accessed by sending an appropriate message.) + + *Exercise 3.49:* Give a scenario where the deadlock-avoidance + mechanism described above does not work. (Hint: In the exchange + problem, each process knows in advance which accounts it will need + to get access to. Consider a situation where a process must get + access to some shared resources before it can know which + additional shared resources it will require.) + +Concurrency, time, and communication +.................................... + +We've seen how programming concurrent systems requires controlling the +ordering of events when different processes access shared state, and +we've seen how to achieve this control through judicious use of +serializers. But the problems of concurrency lie deeper than this, +because, from a fundamental point of view, it's not always clear what +is meant by "shared state." + + Mechanisms such as `test-and-set!' require processes to examine a +global shared flag at arbitrary times. This is problematic and +inefficient to implement in modern high-speed processors, where due to +optimization techniques such as pipelining and cached memory, the +contents of memory may not be in a consistent state at every instant. +In contemporary multiprocessing systems, therefore, the serializer +paradigm is being supplanted by new approaches to concurrency +control.(10) + + The problematic aspects of shared state also arise in large, +distributed systems. For instance, imagine a distributed banking +system where individual branch banks maintain local values for bank +balances and periodically compare these with values maintained by other +branches. In such a system the value of "the account balance" would be +undetermined, except right after synchronization. If Peter deposits +money in an account he holds jointly with Paul, when should we say that +the account balance has changed--when the balance in the local branch +changes, or not until after the synchronization? And if Paul accesses +the account from a different branch, what are the reasonable +constraints to place on the banking system such that the behavior is +"correct"? The only thing that might matter for correctness is the +behavior observed by Peter and Paul individually and the "state" of the +account immediately after synchronization. Questions about the "real" +account balance or the order of events between synchronizations may be +irrelevant or meaningless.(11) + + The basic phenomenon here is that synchronizing different processes, +establishing shared state, or imposing an order on events requires +communication among the processes. In essence, any notion of time in +concurrency control must be intimately tied to communication.(12) It +is intriguing that a similar connection between time and communication +also arises in the Theory of Relativity, where the speed of light (the +fastest signal that can be used to synchronize events) is a fundamental +constant relating time and space. The complexities we encounter in +dealing with time and state in our computational models may in fact +mirror a fundamental complexity of the physical universe. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) `Parallel-execute' is not part of standard Scheme, but it can be +implemented in MIT Scheme. In our implementation, the new concurrent +processes also run concurrently with the original Scheme process. +Also, in our implementation, the value returned by `parallel-execute' +is a special control object that can be used to halt the newly created +processes. + + (2) We have simplified `exchange' by exploiting the fact that our +`deposit' message accepts negative amounts. (This is a serious bug in +our banking system!) + + (3) If the account balances start out as $10, $20, and $30, then +after any number of concurrent exchanges, the balances should still be +$10, $20, and $30 in some order. Serializing the deposits to +individual accounts is not sufficient to guarantee this. See *Note +Exercise 3-43::. + + (4) *Note Exercise 3-45:: investigates why deposits and withdrawals +are no longer automatically serialized by the account. + + (5) The term "mutex" is an abbreviation for "mutual exclusion". The +general problem of arranging a mechanism that permits concurrent +processes to safely share resources is called the mutual exclusion +problem. Our mutex is a simple variant of the "semaphore" mechanism +(see *Note Exercise 3-47::), which was introduced in the "THE" +Multiprogramming System developed at the Technological University of +Eindhoven and named for the university's initials in Dutch (Dijkstra +1968a). The acquire and release operations were originally called P +and V, from the Dutch words _passeren_ (to pass) and _vrijgeven_ (to +release), in reference to the semaphores used on railroad systems. +Dijkstra's classic exposition (1968b) was one of the first to clearly +present the issues of concurrency control, and showed how to use +semaphores to handle a variety of concurrency problems. + + (6) In most time-shared operating systems, processes that are +blocked by a mutex do not waste time "busy-waiting" as above. Instead, +the system schedules another process to run while the first is waiting, +and the blocked process is awakened when the mutex becomes available. + + (7) In MIT Scheme for a single processor, which uses a time-slicing +model, `test-and-set!' can be implemented as follows: + + (define (test-and-set! cell) + (without-interrupts + (lambda () + (if (car cell) + true + (begin (set-car! cell true) + false))))) + + `Without-interrupts' disables time-slicing interrupts while its +procedure argument is being executed. + + (8) There are many variants of such instructions--including +test-and-set, test-and-clear, swap, compare-and-exchange, load-reserve, +and store-conditional--whose design must be carefully matched to the +machine's processor-memory interface. One issue that arises here is to +determine what happens if two processes attempt to acquire the same +resource at exactly the same time by using such an instruction. This +requires some mechanism for making a decision about which process gets +control. Such a mechanism is called an "arbiter". Arbiters usually +boil down to some sort of hardware device. Unfortunately, it is +possible to prove that one cannot physically construct a fair arbiter +that works 100% of the time unless one allows the arbiter an +arbitrarily long time to make its decision. The fundamental phenomenon +here was originally observed by the fourteenth-century French +philosopher Jean Buridan in his commentary on Aristotle's De caelo. +Buridan argued that a perfectly rational dog placed between two equally +attractive sources of food will starve to death, because it is +incapable of deciding which to go to first. + + (9) The general technique for avoiding deadlock by numbering the +shared resources and acquiring them in order is due to Havender (1968). +Situations where deadlock cannot be avoided require "deadlock-recovery" +methods, which entail having processes "back out" of the deadlocked +state and try again. Deadlock-recovery mechanisms are widely used in +database management systems, a topic that is treated in detail in Gray +and Reuter 1993. + + (10) One such alternative to serialization is called "barrier +synchronization". The programmer permits concurrent processes to +execute as they please, but establishes certain synchronization points +("barriers") through which no process can proceed until all the +processes have reached the barrier. Modern processors provide machine +instructions that permit programmers to establish synchronization +points at places where consistency is required. The PowerPC^( TM), for +example, includes for this purpose two instructions called SYNC and +EIEIO (Enforced In-order Execution of Input/Output). + + (11) This may seem like a strange point of view, but there are +systems that work this way. International charges to credit-card +accounts, for example, are normally cleared on a per-country basis, and +the charges made in different countries are periodically reconciled. +Thus the account balance may be different in different countries. + + (12) For distributed systems, this perspective was pursued by +Lamport (1978), who showed how to use communication to establish +"global clocks" that can be used to establish orderings on events in +distributed systems. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-5, Prev: 3-4, Up: Chapter 3 + +3.5 Streams +=========== + +We've gained a good understanding of assignment as a tool in modeling, +as well as an appreciation of the complex problems that assignment +raises. It is time to ask whether we could have gone about things in a +different way, so as to avoid some of these problems. In this section, +we explore an alternative approach to modeling state, based on data +structures called "streams". As we shall see, streams can mitigate +some of the complexity of modeling state. + + Let's step back and review where this complexity comes from. In an +attempt to model real-world phenomena, we made some apparently +reasonable decisions: We modeled real-world objects with local state by +computational objects with local variables. We identified time +variation in the real world with time variation in the computer. We +implemented the time variation of the states of the model objects in +the computer with assignments to the local variables of the model +objects. + + Is there another approach? Can we avoid identifying time in the +computer with time in the modeled world? Must we make the model change +with time in order to model phenomena in a changing world? Think about +the issue in terms of mathematical functions. We can describe the +time-varying behavior of a quantity x as a function of time x(t). If +we concentrate on x instant by instant, we think of it as a changing +quantity. Yet if we concentrate on the entire time history of values, +we do not emphasize change--the function itself does not change.(1) + + If time is measured in discrete steps, then we can model a time +function as a (possibly infinite) sequence. In this section, we will +see how to model change in terms of sequences that represent the time +histories of the systems being modeled. To accomplish this, we +introduce new data structures called "streams". From an abstract point +of view, a stream is simply a sequence. However, we will find that the +straightforward implementation of streams as lists (as in section *Note +2-2-1::) doesn't fully reveal the power of stream processing. As an +alternative, we introduce the technique of "delayed evaluation", which +enables us to represent very large (even infinite) sequences as streams. + + Stream processing lets us model systems that have state without ever +using assignment or mutable data. This has important implications, +both theoretical and practical, because we can build models that avoid +the drawbacks inherent in introducing assignment. On the other hand, +the stream framework raises difficulties of its own, and the question +of which modeling technique leads to more modular and more easily +maintained systems remains open. + +* Menu: + +* 3-5-1:: Streams Are Delayed Lists +* 3-5-2:: Infinite Streams +* 3-5-3:: Exploiting the Stream Paradigm +* 3-5-4:: Streams and Delayed Evaluation +* 3-5-5:: Modularity of Functional Programs and Modularity of + Objects + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Physicists sometimes adopt this view by introducing the "world +lines" of particles as a device for reasoning about motion. We've also +already mentioned (section *Note 2-2-3::) that this is the natural way +to think about signal-processing systems. We will explore applications +of streams to signal processing in section *Note 3-5-3::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-5-1, Next: 3-5-2, Prev: 3-5, Up: 3-5 + +3.5.1 Streams Are Delayed Lists +------------------------------- + +As we saw in section *Note 2-2-3::, sequences can serve as standard +interfaces for combining program modules. We formulated powerful +abstractions for manipulating sequences, such as `map', `filter', and +`accumulate', that capture a wide variety of operations in a manner that +is both succinct and elegant. + + Unfortunately, if we represent sequences as lists, this elegance is +bought at the price of severe inefficiency with respect to both the +time and space required by our computations. When we represent +manipulations on sequences as transformations of lists, our programs +must construct and copy data structures (which may be huge) at every +step of a process. + + To see why this is true, let us compare two programs for computing +the sum of all the prime numbers in an interval. The first program is +written in standard iterative style:(1) + + (define (sum-primes a b) + (define (iter count accum) + (cond ((> count b) accum) + ((prime? count) (iter (+ count 1) (+ count accum))) + (else (iter (+ count 1) accum)))) + (iter a 0)) + + The second program performs the same computation using the sequence +operations of section *Note 2-2-3::: + + (define (sum-primes a b) + (accumulate + + 0 + (filter prime? (enumerate-interval a b)))) + + In carrying out the computation, the first program needs to store +only the sum being accumulated. In contrast, the filter in the second +program cannot do any testing until `enumerate-interval' has +constructed a complete list of the numbers in the interval. The filter +generates another list, which in turn is passed to `accumulate' before +being collapsed to form a sum. Such large intermediate storage is not +needed by the first program, which we can think of as enumerating the +interval incrementally, adding each prime to the sum as it is generated. + + The inefficiency in using lists becomes painfully apparent if we use +the sequence paradigm to compute the second prime in the interval from +10,000 to 1,000,000 by evaluating the expression + + (car (cdr (filter prime? + (enumerate-interval 10000 1000000)))) + + This expression does find the second prime, but the computational +overhead is outrageous. We construct a list of almost a million +integers, filter this list by testing each element for primality, and +then ignore almost all of the result. In a more traditional +programming style, we would interleave the enumeration and the +filtering, and stop when we reached the second prime. + + Streams are a clever idea that allows one to use sequence +manipulations without incurring the costs of manipulating sequences as +lists. With streams we can achieve the best of both worlds: We can +formulate programs elegantly as sequence manipulations, while attaining +the efficiency of incremental computation. The basic idea is to +arrange to construct a stream only partially, and to pass the partial +construction to the program that consumes the stream. If the consumer +attempts to access a part of the stream that has not yet been +constructed, the stream will automatically construct just enough more +of itself to produce the required part, thus preserving the illusion +that the entire stream exists. In other words, although we will write +programs as if we were processing complete sequences, we design our +stream implementation to automatically and transparently interleave the +construction of the stream with its use. + + On the surface, streams are just lists with different names for the +procedures that manipulate them. There is a constructor, +`cons-stream', and two selectors, `stream-car' and `stream-cdr', which +satisfy the constraints + + (stream-car (cons-stream x y)) = x + (stream-cdr (cons-stream x y)) = y + + There is a distinguishable object, `the-empty-stream', which cannot +be the result of any `cons-stream' operation, and which can be +identified with the predicate `stream-null?'.(2) Thus we can make and +use streams, in just the same way as we can make and use lists, to +represent aggregate data arranged in a sequence. In particular, we can +build stream analogs of the list operations from *Note Chapter 2::, +such as `list-ref', `map', and `for-each':(3) + + (define (stream-ref s n) + (if (= n 0) + (stream-car s) + (stream-ref (stream-cdr s) (- n 1)))) + + (define (stream-map proc s) + (if (stream-null? s) + the-empty-stream + (cons-stream (proc (stream-car s)) + (stream-map proc (stream-cdr s))))) + + (define (stream-for-each proc s) + (if (stream-null? s) + 'done + (begin (proc (stream-car s)) + (stream-for-each proc (stream-cdr s))))) + + `Stream-for-each' is useful for viewing streams: + + (define (display-stream s) + (stream-for-each display-line s)) + + (define (display-line x) + (newline) + (display x)) + + To make the stream implementation automatically and transparently +interleave the construction of a stream with its use, we will arrange +for the `cdr' of a stream to be evaluated when it is accessed by the +`stream-cdr' procedure rather than when the stream is constructed by +`cons-stream'. This implementation choice is reminiscent of our +discussion of rational numbers in section *Note 2-1-2::, where we saw +that we can choose to implement rational numbers so that the reduction +of numerator and denominator to lowest terms is performed either at +construction time or at selection time. The two rational-number +implementations produce the same data abstraction, but the choice has +an effect on efficiency. There is a similar relationship between +streams and ordinary lists. As a data abstraction, streams are the +same as lists. The difference is the time at which the elements are +evaluated. With ordinary lists, both the `car' and the `cdr' are +evaluated at construction time. With streams, the `cdr' is evaluated +at selection time. + + Our implementation of streams will be based on a special form called +`delay'. Evaluating `(delay <EXP>)' does not evaluate the expression +<EXP>, but rather returns a so-called object "delayed object", which we +can think of as a "promise" to evaluate <EXP> at some future time. As +a companion to `delay', there is a procedure called `force' that takes +a delayed object as argument and performs the evaluation--in effect, +forcing the `delay' to fulfill its promise. We will see below how +`delay' and `force' can be implemented, but first let us use these to +construct streams. + + `Cons-stream' is a special form defined so that + + (cons-stream <A> <B>) + +is equivalent to + + (cons <A> (delay <B>)) + + What this means is that we will construct streams using pairs. +However, rather than placing the value of the rest of the stream into +the `cdr' of the pair we will put there a promise to compute the rest +if it is ever requested. `Stream-car' and `stream-cdr' can now be +defined as procedures: + + (define (stream-car stream) (car stream)) + + (define (stream-cdr stream) (force (cdr stream))) + + `Stream-car' selects the `car' of the pair; `stream-cdr' selects the +`cdr' of the pair and evaluates the delayed expression found there to +obtain the rest of the stream.(4) + +The stream implementation in action +................................... + +To see how this implementation behaves, let us analyze the "outrageous" +prime computation we saw above, reformulated in terms of streams: + + (stream-car + (stream-cdr + (stream-filter prime? + (stream-enumerate-interval 10000 1000000)))) + + We will see that it does indeed work efficiently. + + We begin by calling `stream-enumerate-interval' with the arguments +10,000 and 1,000,000. `Stream-enumerate-interval' is the stream analog +of `enumerate-interval' (section *Note 2-2-3::): + + (define (stream-enumerate-interval low high) + (if (> low high) + the-empty-stream + (cons-stream + low + (stream-enumerate-interval (+ low 1) high)))) + +and thus the result returned by `stream-enumerate-interval', formed by +the `cons-stream', is(5) + + (cons 10000 + (delay (stream-enumerate-interval 10001 1000000))) + + That is, `stream-enumerate-interval' returns a stream represented as +a pair whose `car' is 10,000 and whose `cdr' is a promise to enumerate +more of the interval if so requested. This stream is now filtered for +primes, using the stream analog of the `filter' procedure (section +*Note 2-2-3::): + + (define (stream-filter pred stream) + (cond ((stream-null? stream) the-empty-stream) + ((pred (stream-car stream)) + (cons-stream (stream-car stream) + (stream-filter pred + (stream-cdr stream)))) + (else (stream-filter pred (stream-cdr stream))))) + + `Stream-filter' tests the `stream-car' of the stream (the `car' of +the pair, which is 10,000). Since this is not prime, `stream-filter' +examines the `stream-cdr' of its input stream. The call to +`stream-cdr' forces evaluation of the delayed +`stream-enumerate-interval', which now returns + + (cons 10001 + (delay (stream-enumerate-interval 10002 1000000))) + + `Stream-filter' now looks at the `stream-car' of this stream, 10,001, +sees that this is not prime either, forces another `stream-cdr', and so +on, until `stream-enumerate-interval' yields the prime 10,007, whereupon +`stream-filter', according to its definition, returns + + (cons-stream (stream-car stream) + (stream-filter pred (stream-cdr stream))) + +which in this case is + + (cons 10007 + (delay + (stream-filter + prime? + (cons 10008 + (delay + (stream-enumerate-interval 10009 + 1000000)))))) + + This result is now passed to `stream-cdr' in our original expression. +This forces the delayed `stream-filter', which in turn keeps forcing the +delayed `stream-enumerate-interval' until it finds the next prime, which +is 10,009. Finally, the result passed to `stream-car' in our original +expression is + + (cons 10009 + (delay + (stream-filter + prime? + (cons 10010 + (delay + (stream-enumerate-interval 10011 + 1000000)))))) + + `Stream-car' returns 10,009, and the computation is complete. Only +as many integers were tested for primality as were necessary to find +the second prime, and the interval was enumerated only as far as was +necessary to feed the prime filter. + + In general, we can think of delayed evaluation as "demand-driven" +programming, whereby each stage in the stream process is activated only +enough to satisfy the next stage. What we have done is to decouple the +actual order of events in the computation from the apparent structure +of our procedures. We write procedures as if the streams existed "all +at once" when, in reality, the computation is performed incrementally, +as in traditional programming styles. + +Implementing `delay' and `force' +................................ + +Although `delay' and `force' may seem like mysterious operations, their +implementation is really quite straightforward. `Delay' must package +an expression so that it can be evaluated later on demand, and we can +accomplish this simply by treating the expression as the body of a +procedure. `Delay' can be a special form such that + + (delay <EXP>) + +is syntactic sugar for + + (lambda () <EXP>) + + `Force' simply calls the procedure (of no arguments) produced by +`delay', so we can implement `force' as a procedure: + + (define (force delayed-object) + (delayed-object)) + + This implementation suffices for `delay' and `force' to work as +advertised, but there is an important optimization that we can include. +In many applications, we end up forcing the same delayed object many +times. This can lead to serious inefficiency in recursive programs +involving streams. (See *Note Exercise 3-57::.) The solution is to +build delayed objects so that the first time they are forced, they +store the value that is computed. Subsequent forcings will simply +return the stored value without repeating the computation. In other +words, we implement `delay' as a special-purpose memoized procedure +similar to the one described in *Note Exercise 3-27::. One way to +accomplish this is to use the following procedure, which takes as +argument a procedure (of no arguments) and returns a memoized version +of the procedure. The first time the memoized procedure is run, it +saves the computed result. On subsequent evaluations, it simply +returns the result. + + (define (memo-proc proc) + (let ((already-run? false) (result false)) + (lambda () + (if (not already-run?) + (begin (set! result (proc)) + (set! already-run? true) + result) + result)))) + + `Delay' is then defined so that `(delay <EXP>)' is equivalent to + + (memo-proc (lambda () <EXP>)) + +and `force' is as defined previously.(6) + + *Exercise 3.50:* Complete the following definition, which + generalizes `stream-map' to allow procedures that take multiple + arguments, analogous to `map' in section *Note 2-2-3::, footnote + *Note Footnote 12::. + + (define (stream-map proc . argstreams) + (if (<??> (car argstreams)) + the-empty-stream + (<??> + (apply proc (map <??> argstreams)) + (apply stream-map + (cons proc (map <??> argstreams)))))) + + *Exercise 3.51:* In order to take a closer look at delayed + evaluation, we will use the following procedure, which simply + returns its argument after printing it: + + (define (show x) + (display-line x) + x) + + What does the interpreter print in response to evaluating each + expression in the following sequence?(7) + + (define x (stream-map show (stream-enumerate-interval 0 10))) + + (stream-ref x 5) + + (stream-ref x 7) + + *Exercise 3.52:* Consider the sequence of expressions + + (define sum 0) + + (define (accum x) + (set! sum (+ x sum)) + sum) + + (define seq (stream-map accum (stream-enumerate-interval 1 20))) + (define y (stream-filter even? seq)) + (define z (stream-filter (lambda (x) (= (remainder x 5) 0)) + seq)) + + (stream-ref y 7) + + (display-stream z) + + What is the value of `sum' after each of the above expressions is + evaluated? What is the printed response to evaluating the + `stream-ref' and `display-stream' expressions? Would these + responses differ if we had implemented `(delay <EXP>)' simply as + `(lambda () <EXP>)' without using the optimization provided by + `memo-proc'? Explain + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Assume that we have a predicate `prime?' (e.g., as in section +*Note 1-2-6::) that tests for primality. + + (2) In the MIT implementation, `the-empty-stream' is the same as the +empty list `'()', and `stream-null?' is the same as `null?'. + + (3) This should bother you. The fact that we are defining such +similar procedures for streams and lists indicates that we are missing +some underlying abstraction. Unfortunately, in order to exploit this +abstraction, we will need to exert finer control over the process of +evaluation than we can at present. We will discuss this point further +at the end of section *Note 3-5-4::. In section *Note 4-2::, we'll +develop a framework that unifies lists and streams. + + (4) Although `stream-car' and `stream-cdr' can be defined as +procedures, `cons-stream' must be a special form. If `cons-stream' +were a procedure, then, according to our model of evaluation, +evaluating `(cons-stream <A> <B>)' would automatically cause <B> to be +evaluated, which is precisely what we do not want to happen. For the +same reason, `delay' must be a special form, though `force' can be an +ordinary procedure. + + (5) The numbers shown here do not really appear in the delayed +expression. What actually appears is the original expression, in an +environment in which the variables are bound to the appropriate numbers. +For example, `(+ low 1)' with `low' bound to 10,000 actually appears +where `10001' is shown. + + (6) There are many possible implementations of streams other than +the one described in this section. Delayed evaluation, which is the +key to making streams practical, was inherent in Algol 60's "call-by-name" +parameter-passing method. The use of this mechanism to implement +streams was first described by Landin (1965). Delayed evaluation for +streams was introduced into Lisp by Friedman and Wise (1976). In their +implementation, `cons' always delays evaluating its arguments, so that +lists automatically behave as streams. The memoizing optimization is +also known as "call-by-need". The Algol community would refer to our +original delayed objects as "call-by-name thunks" and to the optimized +versions as "call-by-need thunks". + + (7) Exercises such as *Note Exercise 3-51:: and *Note Exercise +3-52:: are valuable for testing our understanding of how `delay' works. +On the other hand, intermixing delayed evaluation with printing--and, +even worse, with assignment--is extremely confusing, and instructors of +courses on computer languages have traditionally tormented their +students with examination questions such as the ones in this section. +Needless to say, writing programs that depend on such subtleties is +odious programming style. Part of the power of stream processing is +that it lets us ignore the order in which events actually happen in our +programs. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we cannot afford to do +in the presence of assignment, which forces us to be concerned with +time and change. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-5-2, Next: 3-5-3, Prev: 3-5-1, Up: 3-5 + +3.5.2 Infinite Streams +---------------------- + +We have seen how to support the illusion of manipulating streams as +complete entities even though, in actuality, we compute only as much of +the stream as we need to access. We can exploit this technique to +represent sequences efficiently as streams, even if the sequences are +very long. What is more striking, we can use streams to represent +sequences that are infinitely long. For instance, consider the +following definition of the stream of positive integers: + + (define (integers-starting-from n) + (cons-stream n (integers-starting-from (+ n 1)))) + + (define integers (integers-starting-from 1)) + + This makes sense because `integers' will be a pair whose `car' is 1 +and whose `cdr' is a promise to produce the integers beginning with 2. +This is an infinitely long stream, but in any given time we can examine +only a finite portion of it. Thus, our programs will never know that +the entire infinite stream is not there. + + Using `integers' we can define other infinite streams, such as the +stream of integers that are not divisible by 7: + + (define (divisible? x y) (= (remainder x y) 0)) + + (define no-sevens + (stream-filter (lambda (x) (not (divisible? x 7))) + integers)) + + Then we can find integers not divisible by 7 simply by accessing +elements of this stream: + + (stream-ref no-sevens 100) + 117 + + In analogy with `integers', we can define the infinite stream of +Fibonacci numbers: + + (define (fibgen a b) + (cons-stream a (fibgen b (+ a b)))) + + (define fibs (fibgen 0 1)) + + `Fibs' is a pair whose `car' is 0 and whose `cdr' is a promise to +evaluate `(fibgen 1 1)'. When we evaluate this delayed `(fibgen 1 1)', +it will produce a pair whose `car' is 1 and whose `cdr' is a promise to +evaluate `(fibgen 1 2)', and so on. + + For a look at a more exciting infinite stream, we can generalize the +`no-sevens' example to construct the infinite stream of prime numbers, +using a method known as the Eratosthenes "sieve of Eratosthenes".(1) We +start with the integers beginning with 2, which is the first prime. To +get the rest of the primes, we start by filtering the multiples of 2 +from the rest of the integers. This leaves a stream beginning with 3, +which is the next prime. Now we filter the multiples of 3 from the +rest of this stream. This leaves a stream beginning with 5, which is +the next prime, and so on. In other words, we construct the primes by +a sieving process, described as follows: To sieve a stream `S', form a +stream whose first element is the first element of `S' and the rest of +which is obtained by filtering all multiples of the first element of +`S' out of the rest of `S' and sieving the result. This process is +readily described in terms of stream operations: + + (define (sieve stream) + (cons-stream + (stream-car stream) + (sieve (stream-filter + (lambda (x) + (not (divisible? x (stream-car stream)))) + (stream-cdr stream))))) + + (define primes (sieve (integers-starting-from 2))) + + Now to find a particular prime we need only ask for it: + + (stream-ref primes 50) + 233 + + It is interesting to contemplate the signal-processing system set up +by `sieve', shown in the "Henderson diagram" in *Note Figure 3-31::.(2) +The input stream feeds into an "un`cons'er" that separates the first +element of the stream from the rest of the stream. The first element +is used to construct a divisibility filter, through which the rest is +passed, and the output of the filter is fed to another sieve box. Then +the original first element is `cons'ed onto the output of the internal +sieve to form the output stream. Thus, not only is the stream +infinite, but the signal processor is also infinite, because the sieve +contains a sieve within it. + + *Figure 3.31:* The prime sieve viewed as a signal-processing + system. + + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ + | sieve | + | | + | __/| |\__ | + | __/car|........................................| \__ | + | _/ | : | \_ | + ----><_ | V | cons _>----> + | \__ | +------------+ +------------+ | __/ | + | \cdr|--->| filter: | | sieve |--->| __/ | + | \| | |--->| | |/ | + | | not | | | | + | | divisible? | | | | + | +------------+ +------------+ | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ + +Defining streams implicitly +........................... + +The `integers' and `fibs' streams above were defined by specifying +"generating" procedures that explicitly compute the stream elements one +by one. An alternative way to specify streams is to take advantage of +delayed evaluation to define streams implicitly. For example, the +following expression defines the stream `ones' to be an infinite stream +of ones: + + (define ones (cons-stream 1 ones)) + + This works much like the definition of a recursive procedure: `ones' +is a pair whose `car' is 1 and whose `cdr' is a promise to evaluate +`ones'. Evaluating the `cdr' gives us again a 1 and a promise to +evaluate `ones', and so on. + + We can do more interesting things by manipulating streams with +operations such as `add-streams', which produces the elementwise sum of +two given streams:(3) + + (define (add-streams s1 s2) + (stream-map + s1 s2)) + + Now we can define the integers as follows: + + (define integers (cons-stream 1 (add-streams ones integers))) + + This defines `integers' to be a stream whose first element is 1 and +the rest of which is the sum of `ones' and `integers'. Thus, the second +element of `integers' is 1 plus the first element of `integers', or 2; +the third element of `integers' is 1 plus the second element of +`integers', or 3; and so on. This definition works because, at any +point, enough of the `integers' stream has been generated so that we +can feed it back into the definition to produce the next integer. + + We can define the Fibonacci numbers in the same style: + + (define fibs + (cons-stream 0 + (cons-stream 1 + (add-streams (stream-cdr fibs) + fibs)))) + + This definition says that `fibs' is a stream beginning with 0 and 1, +such that the rest of the stream can be generated by adding `fibs' to +itself shifted by one place: + + 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 ... = `(stream-cdr fibs)' + 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 ... = `fibs' + 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 ... = `fibs' + + `Scale-stream' is another useful procedure in formulating such stream +definitions. This multiplies each item in a stream by a given constant: + + (define (scale-stream stream factor) + (stream-map (lambda (x) (* x factor)) stream)) + + For example, + + (define double (cons-stream 1 (scale-stream double 2))) + +produces the stream of powers of 2: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, .... + + An alternate definition of the stream of primes can be given by +starting with the integers and filtering them by testing for primality. +We will need the first prime, 2, to get started: + + (define primes + (cons-stream + 2 + (stream-filter prime? (integers-starting-from 3)))) + + This definition is not so straightforward as it appears, because we +will test whether a number n is prime by checking whether n is +divisible by a prime (not by just any integer) less than or equal to +_[sqrt]_(n): + + (define (prime? n) + (define (iter ps) + (cond ((> (square (stream-car ps)) n) true) + ((divisible? n (stream-car ps)) false) + (else (iter (stream-cdr ps))))) + (iter primes)) + + This is a recursive definition, since `primes' is defined in terms +of the `prime?' predicate, which itself uses the `primes' stream. The +reason this procedure works is that, at any point, enough of the +`primes' stream has been generated to test the primality of the numbers +we need to check next. That is, for every n we test for primality, +either n is not prime (in which case there is a prime already generated +that divides it) or n is prime (in which case there is a prime already +generated--i.e., a prime less than n--that is greater than +_[sqrt]_(n)).(4) + + *Exercise 3.53:* Without running the program, describe the + elements of the stream defined by + + (define s (cons-stream 1 (add-streams s s))) + + *Exercise 3.54:* Define a procedure `mul-streams', analogous to + `add-streams', that produces the elementwise product of its two + input streams. Use this together with the stream of `integers' to + complete the following definition of the stream whose nth element + (counting from 0) is n + 1 factorial: + + (define factorials (cons-stream 1 (mul-streams <??> <??>))) + + *Exercise 3.55:* Define a procedure `partial-sums' that takes as + argument a stream S and returns the stream whose elements are S_0, + S_0 + S_1, S_0 + S_1 + S_2, .... For example, `(partial-sums + integers)' should be the stream 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, .... + + *Exercise 3.56:* A famous problem, first raised by R. Hamming, is + to enumerate, in ascending order with no repetitions, all positive + integers with no prime factors other than 2, 3, or 5. One obvious + way to do this is to simply test each integer in turn to see + whether it has any factors other than 2, 3, and 5. But this is + very inefficient, since, as the integers get larger, fewer and + fewer of them fit the requirement. As an alternative, let us call + the required stream of numbers `S' and notice the following facts + about it. + + * `S' begins with 1. + + * The elements of `(scale-stream S 2)' are also elements of `S'. + + * The same is true for `(scale-stream S 3)' and `(scale-stream + 5 S)'. + + * These are all the elements of `S'. + + + Now all we have to do is combine elements from these sources. For + this we define a procedure `merge' that combines two ordered + streams into one ordered result stream, eliminating repetitions: + + (define (merge s1 s2) + (cond ((stream-null? s1) s2) + ((stream-null? s2) s1) + (else + (let ((s1car (stream-car s1)) + (s2car (stream-car s2))) + (cond ((< s1car s2car) + (cons-stream s1car (merge (stream-cdr s1) s2))) + ((> s1car s2car) + (cons-stream s2car (merge s1 (stream-cdr s2)))) + (else + (cons-stream s1car + (merge (stream-cdr s1) + (stream-cdr s2))))))))) + + Then the required stream may be constructed with `merge', as + follows: + + (define S (cons-stream 1 (merge <??> <??>))) + + Fill in the missing expressions in the places marked <??> above. + + *Exercise 3.57:* How many additions are performed when we compute + the nth Fibonacci number using the definition of `fibs' based on + the `add-streams' procedure? Show that the number of additions + would be exponentially greater if we had implemented `(delay + <EXP>)' simply as `(lambda () <EXP>)', without using the + optimization provided by the `memo-proc' procedure described in + section *Note 3-5-1::.(5) + + *Exercise 3.58:* Give an interpretation of the stream computed by + the following procedure: + + (define (expand num den radix) + (cons-stream + (quotient (* num radix) den) + (expand (remainder (* num radix) den) den radix))) + + (`Quotient' is a primitive that returns the integer quotient of two + integers.) What are the successive elements produced by `(expand + 1 7 10)'? What is produced by `(expand 3 8 10)'? + + *Exercise 3.59:* In section *Note 2-5-3:: we saw how to implement + a polynomial arithmetic system representing polynomials as lists + of terms. In a similar way, we can work with "power series", such + as + + x^2 x^3 x^4 + e^x = 1 + x + ----- + ----- + --------- + ... + 2 3 * 2 4 * 3 * 2 + + x^2 x^4 + cos x = 1 - ----- + --------- - ... + 2 4 * 3 * 2 + + x^3 x^5 + sin x = x - ----- + ------------- - ... + 3 * 2 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 + + represented as infinite streams. We will represent the series a_0 + + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 + a_3 x^3 + ... as the stream whose elements are + the coefficients a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3, .... + + a. The integral of the series a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 + a_3 x^3 + + ... is the series + + 1 1 1 + c + a_0 x + --- x_1 r^2 + --- a_2 r^3 + --- a_3 r^4 + ... + 2 3 4 + + where c is any constant. Define a procedure + `integrate-series' that takes as input a stream a_0, a_1, + a_2, ... representing a power series and returns the stream + a_0, (1/2)a_1, (1/3)a_2, ... of coefficients of the + non-constant terms of the integral of the series. (Since the + result has no constant term, it doesn't represent a power + series; when we use `integrate-series', we will `cons' on the + appropriate constant.) + + b. The function x |-> e^x is its own derivative. This implies + that e^x and the integral of e^x are the same series, except + for the constant term, which is e^0 = 1. Accordingly, we can + generate the series for e^x as + + (define exp-series + (cons-stream 1 (integrate-series exp-series))) + + Show how to generate the series for sine and cosine, starting + from the facts that the derivative of sine is cosine and the + derivative of cosine is the negative of sine: + + (define cosine-series + (cons-stream 1 <??>)) + + (define sine-series + (cons-stream 0 <??>)) + + *Exercise 3.60:* With power series represented as streams of + coefficients as in *Note Exercise 3-59::, adding series is + implemented by `add-streams'. Complete the definition of the + following procedure for multiplying series: + + (define (mul-series s1 s2) + (cons-stream <??> (add-streams <??> <??>))) + + You can test your procedure by verifying that sin^2 x + cos^2 x = + 1, using the series from *Note Exercise 3-59::. + + *Exercise 3.61:* Let S be a power series (*Note Exercise 3-59::) + whose constant term is 1. Suppose we want to find the power + series 1/S, that is, the series X such that S * X = 1. Write S = + 1 + S_R where S_R is the part of S after the constant term. Then + we can solve for X as follows: + + S * X = 1 + (1 + S_R) * X = 1 + X + S_R * X = 1 + X = 1 - S_R * X + + In other words, X is the power series whose constant term is 1 and + whose higher-order terms are given by the negative of S_R times X. + Use this idea to write a procedure `invert-unit-series' that + computes 1/S for a power series S with constant term 1. You will + need to use `mul-series' from *Note Exercise 3-60::. + + *Exercise 3.62:* Use the results of *Note Exercise 3-60:: and + *Note Exercise 3-61:: to define a procedure `div-series' that + divides two power series. `Div-series' should work for any two + series, provided that the denominator series begins with a nonzero + constant term. (If the denominator has a zero constant term, then + `div-series' should signal an error.) Show how to use + `div-series' together with the result of *Note Exercise 3-59:: to + generate the power series for tangent. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Eratosthenes, a third-century B.C. Alexandrian Greek +philosopher, is famous for giving the first accurate estimate of the +circumference of the Earth, which he computed by observing shadows cast +at noon on the day of the summer solstice. Eratosthenes's sieve method, +although ancient, has formed the basis for special-purpose hardware +"sieves" that, until recently, were the most powerful tools in +existence for locating large primes. Since the 70s, however, these +methods have been superseded by outgrowths of the probabilistic +techniques discussed in section *Note 1-2-6::. + + (2) We have named these figures after Peter Henderson, who was the +first person to show us diagrams of this sort as a way of thinking +about stream processing. Each solid line represents a stream of values +being transmitted. The dashed line from the `car' to the `cons' and +the `filter' indicates that this is a single value rather than a stream. + + (3) This uses the generalized version of `stream-map' from *Note +Exercise 3-50::. + + (4) This last point is very subtle and relies on the fact that +p_(n+1) <= p_n^2. (Here, p_k denotes the kth prime.) Estimates such +as these are very difficult to establish. The ancient proof by Euclid +that there are an infinite number of primes shows that p_(n+1)<= p_1 +p_2...p_n + 1, and no substantially better result was proved until +1851, when the Russian mathematician P. L. Chebyshev established that +p_(n+1)<= 2p_n for all n. This result, originally conjectured in 1845, +is known as hypothesis "Bertrand's hypothesis". A proof can be found +in section 22.3 of Hardy and Wright 1960. + + (5) This exercise shows how call-by-need is closely related to +ordinary memoization as described in *Note Exercise 3-27::. In that +exercise, we used assignment to explicitly construct a local table. +Our call-by-need stream optimization effectively constructs such a +table automatically, storing values in the previously forced parts of +the stream. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-5-3, Next: 3-5-4, Prev: 3-5-2, Up: 3-5 + +3.5.3 Exploiting the Stream Paradigm +------------------------------------ + +Streams with delayed evaluation can be a powerful modeling tool, +providing many of the benefits of local state and assignment. +Moreover, they avoid some of the theoretical tangles that accompany the +introduction of assignment into a programming language. + + The stream approach can be illuminating because it allows us to +build systems with different module boundaries than systems organized +around assignment to state variables. For example, we can think of an +entire time series (or signal) as a focus of interest, rather than the +values of the state variables at individual moments. This makes it +convenient to combine and compare components of state from different +moments. + +Formulating iterations as stream processes +.......................................... + +In section *Note 1-2-1::, we introduced iterative processes, which +proceed by updating state variables. We know now that we can represent +state as a "timeless" stream of values rather than as a set of +variables to be updated. Let's adopt this perspective in revisiting +the square-root procedure from section *Note 1-1-7::. Recall that the +idea is to generate a sequence of better and better guesses for the +square root of x by applying over and over again the procedure that +improves guesses: + + (define (sqrt-improve guess x) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + + In our original `sqrt' procedure, we made these guesses be the +successive values of a state variable. Instead we can generate the +infinite stream of guesses, starting with an initial guess of 1:(1) + + (define (sqrt-stream x) + (define guesses + (cons-stream 1.0 + (stream-map (lambda (guess) + (sqrt-improve guess x)) + guesses))) + guesses) + + (display-stream (sqrt-stream 2)) + 1. + 1.5 + 1.4166666666666665 + 1.4142156862745097 + 1.4142135623746899 + ... + + We can generate more and more terms of the stream to get better and +better guesses. If we like, we can write a procedure that keeps +generating terms until the answer is good enough. (See *Note Exercise +3-64::.) + + Another iteration that we can treat in the same way is to generate an +approximation to [pi], based upon the alternating series that we saw in +section *Note 1-3-1::: + + [pi] 1 1 1 + ---- = 1 - --- + --- - --- + ... + 4 3 5 7 + + We first generate the stream of summands of the series (the +reciprocals of the odd integers, with alternating signs). Then we take +the stream of sums of more and more terms (using the `partial-sums' +procedure of *Note Exercise 3-55::) and scale the result by 4: + + (define (pi-summands n) + (cons-stream (/ 1.0 n) + (stream-map - (pi-summands (+ n 2))))) + + (define pi-stream + (scale-stream (partial-sums (pi-summands 1)) 4)) + + (display-stream pi-stream) + 4. + 2.666666666666667 + 3.466666666666667 + 2.8952380952380956 + 3.3396825396825403 + 2.9760461760461765 + 3.2837384837384844 + 3.017071817071818 + ... + + This gives us a stream of better and better approximations to [pi], +although the approximations converge rather slowly. Eight terms of the +sequence bound the value of [pi] between 3.284 and 3.017. + + So far, our use of the stream of states approach is not much +different from updating state variables. But streams give us an +opportunity to do some interesting tricks. For example, we can +transform a stream with a "sequence accelerator" that converts a +sequence of approximations to a new sequence that converges to the same +value as the original, only faster. + + One such accelerator, due to the eighteenth-century Swiss +mathematician Leonhard Euler, works well with sequences that are +partial sums of alternating series (series of terms with alternating +signs). In Euler's technique, if S_n is the nth term of the original +sum sequence, then the accelerated sequence has terms + + (S_(n+1) - S_n)^2 + S_(n+1) - ------------------------ + S_(n-1) - 2S_n + S_(n+1) + + Thus, if the original sequence is represented as a stream of values, +the transformed sequence is given by + + (define (euler-transform s) + (let ((s0 (stream-ref s 0)) ; S_(n-1) + (s1 (stream-ref s 1)) ; S_n + (s2 (stream-ref s 2))) ; S_(n+1) + (cons-stream (- s2 (/ (square (- s2 s1)) + (+ s0 (* -2 s1) s2))) + (euler-transform (stream-cdr s))))) + + We can demonstrate Euler acceleration with our sequence of +approximations to [pi]: + + (display-stream (euler-transform pi-stream)) + 3.166666666666667 + 3.1333333333333337 + 3.1452380952380956 + 3.13968253968254 + 3.1427128427128435 + 3.1408813408813416 + 3.142071817071818 + 3.1412548236077655 + ... + + Even better, we can accelerate the accelerated sequence, and +recursively accelerate that, and so on. Namely, we create a stream of +streams (a structure we'll call a "tableau") in which each stream is +the transform of the preceding one: + + (define (make-tableau transform s) + (cons-stream s + (make-tableau transform + (transform s)))) + + The tableau has the form + + s_00 s_01 s_02 s_03 s_04 ... + s_10 s_11 s_12 s_13 ... + s_20 s_21 s_22 ... + ... + + Finally, we form a sequence by taking the first term in each row of +the tableau: + + (define (accelerated-sequence transform s) + (stream-map stream-car + (make-tableau transform s))) + + We can demonstrate this kind of "super-acceleration" of the [pi] +sequence: + + (display-stream (accelerated-sequence euler-transform + pi-stream)) + 4. + 3.166666666666667 + 3.142105263157895 + 3.141599357319005 + 3.1415927140337785 + 3.1415926539752927 + 3.1415926535911765 + 3.141592653589778 + ... + + The result is impressive. Taking eight terms of the sequence yields +the correct value of [pi] to 14 decimal places. If we had used only the +original [pi] sequence, we would need to compute on the order of 10^13 +terms (i.e., expanding the series far enough so that the individual +terms are less then 10^(-13)) to get that much accuracy! + + We could have implemented these acceleration techniques without +using streams. But the stream formulation is particularly elegant and +convenient because the entire sequence of states is available to us as +a data structure that can be manipulated with a uniform set of +operations. + + *Exercise 3.63:* Louis Reasoner asks why the `sqrt-stream' + procedure was not written in the following more straightforward + way, without the local variable `guesses': + + (define (sqrt-stream x) + (cons-stream 1.0 + (stream-map (lambda (guess) + (sqrt-improve guess x)) + (sqrt-stream x)))) + + Alyssa P. Hacker replies that this version of the procedure is + considerably less efficient because it performs redundant + computation. Explain Alyssa's answer. Would the two versions + still differ in efficiency if our implementation of `delay' used + only `(lambda () <EXP>)' without using the optimization provided + by `memo-proc' (section *Note 3-5-1::)? + + *Exercise 3.64:* Write a procedure `stream-limit' that takes as + arguments a stream and a number (the tolerance). It should + examine the stream until it finds two successive elements that + differ in absolute value by less than the tolerance, and return + the second of the two elements. Using this, we could compute + square roots up to a given tolerance by + + (define (sqrt x tolerance) + (stream-limit (sqrt-stream x) tolerance)) + + *Exercise 3.65:* Use the series + + 1 1 1 + ln 2 = 1 - --- + --- - --- + ... + 2 3 4 + + to compute three sequences of approximations to the natural + logarithm of 2, in the same way we did above for [pi]. How + rapidly do these sequences converge? + +Infinite streams of pairs +......................... + +In section *Note 2-2-3::, we saw how the sequence paradigm handles +traditional nested loops as processes defined on sequences of pairs. +If we generalize this technique to infinite streams, then we can write +programs that are not easily represented as loops, because the +"looping" must range over an infinite set. + + For example, suppose we want to generalize the `prime-sum-pairs' +procedure of section *Note 2-2-3:: to produce the stream of pairs of +_all_ integers (i,j) with i <= j such that i + j is prime. If +`int-pairs' is the sequence of all pairs of integers (i,j) with i <= j, +then our required stream is simply(2) + + (stream-filter (lambda (pair) + (prime? (+ (car pair) (cadr pair)))) + int-pairs) + + Our problem, then, is to produce the stream `int-pairs'. More +generally, suppose we have two streams S = (S_i) and T = (T_j), and +imagine the infinite rectangular array + + (S_0, T_0) (S_0, T_1) (S_0, T_2) ... + (S_1, T_0) (S_1, T_1) (S_1, T_2) ... + (S_2, T_0) (S_2, T_1) (S_2, T_2) ... + ... + + We wish to generate a stream that contains all the pairs in the +array that lie on or above the diagonal, i.e., the pairs + + (S_0, T_0) (S_0, T_1) (S_0, T_2) ... + (S_1, T_1) (S_1, T_2) ... + (S_2, T_2) ... + ... + +(If we take both S and T to be the stream of integers, then this will +be our desired stream `int-pairs'.) + + Call the general stream of pairs `(pairs S T)', and consider it to be +composed of three parts: the pair (S_0,T_0), the rest of the pairs in +the first row, and the remaining pairs:(3) + + (S_0, T_0) | (S_0, T_1) (S_0, T_2) ... + -----------+----------------------------- + | (S_1, T_1) (S_1, T_2) ... + | (S_2, T_2) ... + | ... + + Observe that the third piece in this decomposition (pairs that are +not in the first row) is (recursively) the pairs formed from +`(stream-cdr S)' and `(stream-cdr T)'. Also note that the second piece +(the rest of the first row) is + + (stream-map (lambda (x) (list (stream-car s) x)) + (stream-cdr t)) + + Thus we can form our stream of pairs as follows: + + (define (pairs s t) + (cons-stream + (list (stream-car s) (stream-car t)) + (<COMBINE-IN-SOME-WAY> + (stream-map (lambda (x) (list (stream-car s) x)) + (stream-cdr t)) + (pairs (stream-cdr s) (stream-cdr t))))) + + In order to complete the procedure, we must choose some way to +combine the two inner streams. One idea is to use the stream analog of +the `append' procedure from section *Note 2-2-1::: + + (define (stream-append s1 s2) + (if (stream-null? s1) + s2 + (cons-stream (stream-car s1) + (stream-append (stream-cdr s1) s2)))) + + This is unsuitable for infinite streams, however, because it takes +all the elements from the first stream before incorporating the second +stream. In particular, if we try to generate all pairs of positive +integers using + + (pairs integers integers) + +our stream of results will first try to run through all pairs with the +first integer equal to 1, and hence will never produce pairs with any +other value of the first integer. + + To handle infinite streams, we need to devise an order of +combination that ensures that every element will eventually be reached +if we let our program run long enough. An elegant way to accomplish +this is with the following `interleave' procedure:(4) + + (define (interleave s1 s2) + (if (stream-null? s1) + s2 + (cons-stream (stream-car s1) + (interleave s2 (stream-cdr s1))))) + + Since `interleave' takes elements alternately from the two streams, +every element of the second stream will eventually find its way into +the interleaved stream, even if the first stream is infinite. + + We can thus generate the required stream of pairs as + + (define (pairs s t) + (cons-stream + (list (stream-car s) (stream-car t)) + (interleave + (stream-map (lambda (x) (list (stream-car s) x)) + (stream-cdr t)) + (pairs (stream-cdr s) (stream-cdr t))))) + + *Exercise 3.66:* Examine the stream `(pairs integers integers)'. + Can you make any general comments about the order in which the + pairs are placed into the stream? For example, about how many + pairs precede the pair (1,100)? the pair (99,100)? the pair + (100,100)? (If you can make precise mathematical statements here, + all the better. But feel free to give more qualitative answers if + you find yourself getting bogged down.) + + *Exercise 3.67:* Modify the `pairs' procedure so that `(pairs + integers integers)' will produce the stream of _all_ pairs of + integers (i,j) (without the condition i <= j). Hint: You will + need to mix in an additional stream. + + *Exercise 3.68:* Louis Reasoner thinks that building a stream of + pairs from three parts is unnecessarily complicated. Instead of + separating the pair (S_0,T_0) from the rest of the pairs in the + first row, he proposes to work with the whole first row, as + follows: + + (define (pairs s t) + (interleave + (stream-map (lambda (x) (list (stream-car s) x)) + t) + (pairs (stream-cdr s) (stream-cdr t)))) + + Does this work? Consider what happens if we evaluate `(pairs + integers integers)' using Louis's definition of `pairs'. + + *Exercise 3.69:* Write a procedure `triples' that takes three + infinite streams, S, T, and U, and produces the stream of triples + (S_i,T_j,U_k) such that i <= j <= k. Use `triples' to generate + the stream of all Pythagorean triples of positive integers, i.e., + the triples (i,j,k) such that i <= j and i^2 + j^2 = k^2. + + *Exercise 3.70:* It would be nice to be able to generate streams + in which the pairs appear in some useful order, rather than in the + order that results from an _ad hoc_ interleaving process. We can + use a technique similar to the `merge' procedure of *Note Exercise + 3-56::, if we define a way to say that one pair of integers is + "less than" another. One way to do this is to define a "weighting + function" W(i,j) and stipulate that (i_1,j_1) is less than + (i_2,j_2) if W(i_1,j_1) < W(i_2,j_2). Write a procedure + `merge-weighted' that is like `merge', except that + `merge-weighted' takes an additional argument `weight', which is a + procedure that computes the weight of a pair, and is used to + determine the order in which elements should appear in the + resulting merged stream.(5) Using this, generalize `pairs' to a + procedure `weighted-pairs' that takes two streams, together with a + procedure that computes a weighting function, and generates the + stream of pairs, ordered according to weight. Use your procedure + to generate + + a. the stream of all pairs of positive integers (i,j) with i <= j + ordered according to the sum i + j + + b. the stream of all pairs of positive integers (i,j) with i <= + j, where neither i nor j is divisible by 2, 3, or 5, and the + pairs are ordered according to the sum 2 i + 3 j + 5 i j. + + + *Exercise 3.71:* Numbers that can be expressed as the sum of two + cubes in more than one way are sometimes called "Ramanujan + numbers", in honor of the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.(6) + Ordered streams of pairs provide an elegant solution to the + problem of computing these numbers. To find a number that can be + written as the sum of two cubes in two different ways, we need + only generate the stream of pairs of integers (i,j) weighted + according to the sum i^3 + j^3 (see *Note Exercise 3-70::), then + search the stream for two consecutive pairs with the same weight. + Write a procedure to generate the Ramanujan numbers. The first + such number is 1,729. What are the next five? + + *Exercise 3.72:* In a similar way to *Note Exercise 3-71:: + generate a stream of all numbers that can be written as the sum of + two squares in three different ways (showing how they can be so + written). + +Streams as signals +.................. + +We began our discussion of streams by describing them as computational +analogs of the "signals" in signal-processing systems. In fact, we can +use streams to model signal-processing systems in a very direct way, +representing the values of a signal at successive time intervals as +consecutive elements of a stream. For instance, we can implement an "integrator" +or "summer" that, for an input stream x = (x_i), an initial value C, +and a small increment dt, accumulates the sum + + i + --- + S_i = C + > x_j dt + --- + j=1 + +and returns the stream of values S = (S_i). The following `integral' +procedure is reminiscent of the "implicit style" definition of the +stream of integers (section *Note 3-5-2::): + + (define (integral integrand initial-value dt) + (define int + (cons-stream initial-value + (add-streams (scale-stream integrand dt) + int))) + int) + + *Note Figure 3-32:: is a picture of a signal-processing system that +corresponds to the `integral' procedure. The input stream is scaled by +dt and passed through an adder, whose output is passed back through the +same adder. The self-reference in the definition of `int' is reflected +in the figure by the feedback loop that connects the output of the +adder to one of the inputs. + + *Figure 3.32:* The `integral' procedure viewed as a + signal-processing system. + + initial-value + | + +-----------+ | |\__ + input | | |\__ +-->| \_ integral + ------>| scale: dt +----->| \_ |cons_>--*-------> + | | | add_>---->| __/ | + +-----------+ +-->| __/ |/ | + | |/ | + | | + +------------------------+ + + *Exercise 3.73:* We can model electrical circuits using streams to + represent the values of currents or voltages at a sequence of + times. For instance, suppose we have an "RC circuit" consisting + of a resistor of resistance R and a capacitor of capacitance C in + series. The voltage response v of the circuit to an injected + current i is determined by the formula in *Note Figure 3-33::, + whose structure is shown by the accompanying signal-flow diagram. + + Write a procedure `RC' that models this circuit. `RC' should take + as inputs the values of R, C, and dt and should return a procedure + that takes as inputs a stream representing the current i and an + initial value for the capacitor voltage v_0 and produces as output + the stream of voltages v. For example, you should be able to use + `RC' to model an RC circuit with R = 5 ohms, C = 1 farad, and a + 0.5-second time step by evaluating `(define RC1 (RC 5 1 0.5))'. + This defines `RC1' as a procedure that takes a stream representing + the time sequence of currents and an initial capacitor voltage and + produces the output stream of voltages. + + *Figure 3.33:* An RC circuit and the associated signal-flow + diagram. + + + - + ->----'\/\/\,---| |--- + i C + + / t + | i + v = v + | dt + R i + 0 | + / 0 + + +--------------+ + +-->| scale: R |---------------------+ |\_ + | +--------------+ | | \_ + | +-->| \ v + i | +--------------+ +------------+ | add >---> + ----+-->| scale: 1/C |---->| integral |----->| _/ + +--------------+ +------------+ | _/ + |/ + + *Exercise 3.74:* Alyssa P. Hacker is designing a system to process + signals coming from physical sensors. One important feature she + wishes to produce is a signal that describes the "zero crossings" + of the input signal. That is, the resulting signal should be + 1 + whenever the input signal changes from negative to positive, - 1 + whenever the input signal changes from positive to negative, and 0 + otherwise. (Assume that the sign of a 0 input is positive.) For + example, a typical input signal with its associated zero-crossing + signal would be + + ... 1 2 1.5 1 0.5 -0.1 -2 -3 -2 -0.5 0.2 3 4 ... + ... 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ... + + In Alyssa's system, the signal from the sensor is represented as a + stream `sense-data' and the stream `zero-crossings' is the + corresponding stream of zero crossings. Alyssa first writes a + procedure `sign-change-detector' that takes two values as + arguments and compares the signs of the values to produce an + appropriate 0, 1, or - 1. She then constructs her zero-crossing + stream as follows: + + (define (make-zero-crossings input-stream last-value) + (cons-stream + (sign-change-detector (stream-car input-stream) last-value) + (make-zero-crossings (stream-cdr input-stream) + (stream-car input-stream)))) + + (define zero-crossings (make-zero-crossings sense-data 0)) + + Alyssa's boss, Eva Lu Ator, walks by and suggests that this + program is approximately equivalent to the following one, which + uses the generalized version of `stream-map' from *Note Exercise + 3-50::: + + (define zero-crossings + (stream-map sign-change-detector sense-data <EXPRESSION>)) + + Complete the program by supplying the indicated <EXPRESSION>. + + *Exercise 3.75:* Unfortunately, Alyssa's zero-crossing detector in + *Note Exercise 3-74:: proves to be insufficient, because the noisy + signal from the sensor leads to spurious zero crossings. Lem E. + Tweakit, a hardware specialist, suggests that Alyssa smooth the + signal to filter out the noise before extracting the zero + crossings. Alyssa takes his advice and decides to extract the + zero crossings from the signal constructed by averaging each value + of the sense data with the previous value. She explains the + problem to her assistant, Louis Reasoner, who attempts to + implement the idea, altering Alyssa's program as follows: + + (define (make-zero-crossings input-stream last-value) + (let ((avpt (/ (+ (stream-car input-stream) last-value) 2))) + (cons-stream (sign-change-detector avpt last-value) + (make-zero-crossings (stream-cdr input-stream) + avpt)))) + + This does not correctly implement Alyssa's plan. Find the bug + that Louis has installed and fix it without changing the structure + of the program. (Hint: You will need to increase the number of + arguments to `make-zero-crossings'.) + + *Exercise 3.76:* Eva Lu Ator has a criticism of Louis's approach + in *Note Exercise 3-75::. The program he wrote is not modular, + because it intermixes the operation of smoothing with the + zero-crossing extraction. For example, the extractor should not + have to be changed if Alyssa finds a better way to condition her + input signal. Help Louis by writing a procedure `smooth' that + takes a stream as input and produces a stream in which each + element is the average of two successive input stream elements. + Then use `smooth' as a component to implement the zero-crossing + detector in a more modular style. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We can't use `let' to bind the local variable `guesses', because +the value of `guesses' depends on `guesses' itself. *Note Exercise +3-63:: addresses why we want a local variable here. + + (2) As in section *Note 2-2-3::, we represent a pair of integers as +a list rather than a Lisp pair. + + (3) See *Note Exercise 3-68:: for some insight into why we chose +this decomposition. + + (4) The precise statement of the required property on the order of +combination is as follows: There should be a function f of two +arguments such that the pair corresponding to element i of the first +stream and element j of the second stream will appear as element number +f(i,j) of the output stream. The trick of using `interleave' to +accomplish this was shown to us by David Turner, who employed it in the +language KRC (Turner 1981). + + (5) We will require that the weighting function be such that the +weight of a pair increases as we move out along a row or down along a +column of the array of pairs. + + (6) To quote from G. H. Hardy's obituary of Ramanujan (Hardy 1921): +"It was Mr. Littlewood (I believe) who remarked that `every positive +integer was one of his friends.' I remember once going to see him when +he was lying ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi-cab No. 1729, and +remarked that the number seemed to me a rather dull one, and that I +hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. `No,' he replied, `it is a very +interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of +two cubes in two different ways.' " The trick of using weighted pairs +to generate the Ramanujan numbers was shown to us by Charles Leiserson. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-5-4, Next: 3-5-5, Prev: 3-5-3, Up: 3-5 + +3.5.4 Streams and Delayed Evaluation +------------------------------------ + +The `integral' procedure at the end of the preceding section shows how +we can use streams to model signal-processing systems that contain +feedback loops. The feedback loop for the adder shown in *Note Figure +3-32:: is modeled by the fact that `integral''s internal stream `int' +is defined in terms of itself: + + (define int + (cons-stream initial-value + (add-streams (scale-stream integrand dt) + int))) + + The interpreter's ability to deal with such an implicit definition +depends on the `delay' that is incorporated into `cons-stream'. +Without this `delay', the interpreter could not construct `int' before +evaluating both arguments to `cons-stream', which would require that +`int' already be defined. In general, `delay' is crucial for using +streams to model signal-processing systems that contain loops. Without +`delay', our models would have to be formulated so that the inputs to +any signal-processing component would be fully evaluated before the +output could be produced. This would outlaw loops. + + Unfortunately, stream models of systems with loops may require uses +of `delay' beyond the "hidden" `delay' supplied by `cons-stream'. For +instance, *Note Figure 3-34:: shows a signal-processing system for +solving the differential equation dy/dt = f(y) where f is a given +function. The figure shows a mapping component, which applies f to its +input signal, linked in a feedback loop to an integrator in a manner +very similar to that of the analog computer circuits that are actually +used to solve such equations. + + *Figure 3.34:* An "analog computer circuit" that solves the + equation dy/dt = f(y). + + y_0 + | + V + +----------+ dy +----------+ y + +-->| map: f +------>| integral +--*-----> + | +----------+ +----------+ | + | | + +------------------------------------+ + + Assuming we are given an initial value y_0 for y, we could try to +model this system using the procedure + + (define (solve f y0 dt) + (define y (integral dy y0 dt)) + (define dy (stream-map f y)) + y) + + This procedure does not work, because in the first line of `solve' +the call to `integral' requires that the input `dy' be defined, which +does not happen until the second line of `solve'. + + On the other hand, the intent of our definition does make sense, +because we can, in principle, begin to generate the `y' stream without +knowing `dy'. Indeed, `integral' and many other stream operations have +properties similar to those of `cons-stream', in that we can generate +part of the answer given only partial information about the arguments. +For `integral', the first element of the output stream is the specified +`initial-value'. Thus, we can generate the first element of the output +stream without evaluating the integrand `dy'. Once we know the first +element of `y', the `stream-map' in the second line of `solve' can +begin working to generate the first element of `dy', which will produce +the next element of `y', and so on. + + To take advantage of this idea, we will redefine `integral' to +expect the integrand stream to be a "delayed argument". `Integral' will +`force' the integrand to be evaluated only when it is required to +generate more than the first element of the output stream: + + (define (integral delayed-integrand initial-value dt) + (define int + (cons-stream initial-value + (let ((integrand (force delayed-integrand))) + (add-streams (scale-stream integrand dt) + int)))) + int) + + Now we can implement our `solve' procedure by delaying the +evaluation of `dy' in the definition of `y':(1) + + (define (solve f y0 dt) + (define y (integral (delay dy) y0 dt)) + (define dy (stream-map f y)) + y) + + In general, every caller of `integral' must now `delay' the integrand +argument. We can demonstrate that the `solve' procedure works by +approximating eapprox 2.718 by computing the value at y = 1 of the +solution to the differential equation dy/dt = y with initial condition +y(0) = 1: + + (stream-ref (solve (lambda (y) y) 1 0.001) 1000) + 2.716924 + + *Exercise 3.77:* The `integral' procedure used above was analogous + to the "implicit" definition of the infinite stream of integers in + section *Note 3-5-2::. Alternatively, we can give a definition of + `integral' that is more like `integers-starting-from' (also in + section *Note 3-5-2::): + + (define (integral integrand initial-value dt) + (cons-stream initial-value + (if (stream-null? integrand) + the-empty-stream + (integral (stream-cdr integrand) + (+ (* dt (stream-car integrand)) + initial-value) + dt)))) + + When used in systems with loops, this procedure has the same + problem as does our original version of `integral'. Modify the + procedure so that it expects the `integrand' as a delayed argument + and hence can be used in the `solve' procedure shown above. + + *Figure 3.35:* Signal-flow diagram for the solution to a + second-order linear differential equation. + + dy_0 y_0 + | | + V V + ddy +----------+ dy +----------+ y + +--------->| integral +-----*--+ integral +--*---> + | +----------+ | +----------+ | + | | | + | +----------+ | | + | __/|<--+ scale: a |<--+ | + | _/ | +----------+ | + +--<_add | | + \__ | +----------+ | + \|<--+ scale: b |<-------------------+ + +----------+ + + *Exercise 3.78:* Consider the problem of designing a + signal-processing system to study the homogeneous second-order + linear differential equation + + d^2 y d y + ----- - a ----- - by = 0 + d t^2 d t + + The output stream, modeling y, is generated by a network that + contains a loop. This is because the value of d^2y/dt^2 depends + upon the values of y and dy/dt and both of these are determined by + integrating d^2y/dt^2. The diagram we would like to encode is + shown in *Note Figure 3-35::. Write a procedure `solve-2nd' that + takes as arguments the constants a, b, and dt and the initial + values y_0 and dy_0 for y and dy/dt and generates the stream of + successive values of y. + + *Exercise 3.79:* Generalize the `solve-2nd' procedure of *Note + Exercise 3-78:: so that it can be used to solve general + second-order differential equations d^2 y/dt^2 = f(dy/dt, y). + + *Exercise 3.80:* A "series RLC circuit" consists of a resistor, a + capacitor, and an inductor connected in series, as shown in *Note + Figure 3-36::. If R, L, and C are the resistance, inductance, and + capacitance, then the relations between voltage (v) and current + (i) for the three components are described by the equations + + v_R = i_R R + + d_(i L) + v_L = L --------- + d t + + d v_C + i_C = C ------- + d t + + and the circuit connections dictate the relations + + i_R = i_L = -i_C + + v_C = v_L + v_R + + Combining these equations shows that the state of the circuit + (summarized by v_C, the voltage across the capacitor, and i_L, the + current in the inductor) is described by the pair of differential + equations + + d v_C i_L + ----- = - --- + d t C + + d i_L 1 R + ----- = --- v_C - --- i_L + d t L L + + The signal-flow diagram representing this system of differential + equations is shown in *Note Figure 3-37::. + + *Figure 3.36:* A series RLC circuit. + + v_R - + i_R + +--->----'\/\/\,--------+ + | | i_L + \|/ R \|/ + + | i_C |_ + + -+- __) + v_C -+- C (_) v_L + | __) + - | | - + +-----------------------+ + + *Figure 3.37:* A signal-flow diagram for the solution to a series + RLC circuit. + + +-------------+ + +----------------+ scale: l/L |<--+ + | +-------------+ | + | | + | +-------------+ | v_C + | dv_C +-->| integral +---*------> + | | +-------------+ + | | ^ + | | | v_(C_0) + | | + | | +-------------+ + | +---+ scale: -l/C |<--+ + | +-------------+ | + | |\__ | + +->| \_ di_L +-------------+ | i_L + | add_>------>| integral +---*------> + +->| __/ +-------------+ | + | |/ ^ | + | | i_(L_0) | + | | + | +-------------+ | + +----------------+ scale: -R/L |<--+ + +-------------+ + + Write a procedure `RLC' that takes as arguments the parameters R, L, +and C of the circuit and the time increment dt. In a manner similar to +that of the `RC' procedure of *Note Exercise 3-73::, `RLC' should +produce a procedure that takes the initial values of the state +variables, v_(C_0) and i_(L_0), and produces a pair (using `cons') of +the streams of states v_C and i_L. Using `RLC', generate the pair of +streams that models the behavior of a series RLC circuit with R = 1 +ohm, C = 0.2 farad, L = 1 henry, dt = 0.1 second, and initial values +i_(L_0) = 0 amps and v_(C_0) = 10 volts. + +Normal-order evaluation +....................... + +The examples in this section illustrate how the explicit use of `delay' +and `force' provides great programming flexibility, but the same +examples also show how this can make our programs more complex. Our +new `integral' procedure, for instance, gives us the power to model +systems with loops, but we must now remember that `integral' should be +called with a delayed integrand, and every procedure that uses +`integral' must be aware of this. In effect, we have created two +classes of procedures: ordinary procedures and procedures that take +delayed arguments. In general, creating separate classes of procedures +forces us to create separate classes of higher-order procedures as +well.(2) + + One way to avoid the need for two different classes of procedures is +to make all procedures take delayed arguments. We could adopt a model +of evaluation in which all arguments to procedures are automatically +delayed and arguments are forced only when they are actually needed +(for example, when they are required by a primitive operation). This +would transform our language to use normal-order evaluation, which we +first described when we introduced the substitution model for +evaluation in section *Note 1-1-5::. Converting to normal-order +evaluation provides a uniform and elegant way to simplify the use of +delayed evaluation, and this would be a natural strategy to adopt if we +were concerned only with stream processing. In section *Note 4-2::, +after we have studied the evaluator, we will see how to transform our +language in just this way. Unfortunately, including delays in +procedure calls wreaks havoc with our ability to design programs that +depend on the order of events, such as programs that use assignment, +mutate data, or perform input or output. Even the single `delay' in +`cons-stream' can cause great confusion, as illustrated by *Note +Exercise 3-51:: and *Note Exercise 3-52::. As far as anyone knows, +mutability and delayed evaluation do not mix well in programming +languages, and devising ways to deal with both of these at once is an +active area of research. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This procedure is not guaranteed to work in all Scheme +implementations, although for any implementation there is a simple +variation that will work. The problem has to do with subtle +differences in the ways that Scheme implementations handle internal +definitions. (See section *Note 4-1-6::.) + + (2) This is a small reflection, in Lisp, of the difficulties that +conventional strongly typed languages such as Pascal have in coping with +higher-order procedures. In such languages, the programmer must +specify the data types of the arguments and the result of each +procedure: number, logical value, sequence, and so on. Consequently, +we could not express an abstraction such as "map a given procedure +`proc' over all the elements in a sequence" by a single higher-order +procedure such as `stream-map'. Rather, we would need a different +mapping procedure for each different combination of argument and result +data types that might be specified for a `proc'. Maintaining a +practical notion of "data type" in the presence of higher-order +procedures raises many difficult issues. One way of dealing with this +problem is illustrated by the language ML (Gordon, Milner, and +Wadsworth 1979), whose "polymorphic data types" include templates for +higher-order transformations between data types. Moreover, data types +for most procedures in ML are never explicitly declared by the +programmer. Instead, ML includes a "type-inferencing" mechanism that +uses information in the environment to deduce the data types for newly +defined procedures. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 3-5-5, Prev: 3-5-4, Up: 3-5 + +3.5.5 Modularity of Functional Programs and Modularity of Objects +----------------------------------------------------------------- + +As we saw in section *Note 3-1-2::, one of the major benefits of +introducing assignment is that we can increase the modularity of our +systems by encapsulating, or "hiding," parts of the state of a large +system within local variables. Stream models can provide an equivalent +modularity without the use of assignment. As an illustration, we can +reimplement the Monte Carlo estimation of [pi], which we examined in +section *Note 3-1-2::, from a stream-processing point of view. + + The key modularity issue was that we wished to hide the internal +state of a random-number generator from programs that used random +numbers. We began with a procedure `rand-update', whose successive +values furnished our supply of random numbers, and used this to produce +a random-number generator: + + (define rand + (let ((x random-init)) + (lambda () + (set! x (rand-update x)) + x))) + + In the stream formulation there is no random-number generator _per +se_, just a stream of random numbers produced by successive calls to +`rand-update': + + (define random-numbers + (cons-stream random-init + (stream-map rand-update random-numbers))) + + We use this to construct the stream of outcomes of the Cesa`ro +experiment performed on consecutive pairs in the `random-numbers' +stream: + + (define cesaro-stream + (map-successive-pairs (lambda (r1 r2) (= (gcd r1 r2) 1)) + random-numbers)) + + (define (map-successive-pairs f s) + (cons-stream + (f (stream-car s) (stream-car (stream-cdr s))) + (map-successive-pairs f (stream-cdr (stream-cdr s))))) + + The `cesaro-stream' is now fed to a `monte-carlo' procedure, which +produces a stream of estimates of probabilities. The results are then +converted into a stream of estimates of [pi]. This version of the +program doesn't need a parameter telling how many trials to perform. +Better estimates of [pi] (from performing more experiments) are +obtained by looking farther into the `pi' stream: + + (define (monte-carlo experiment-stream passed failed) + (define (next passed failed) + (cons-stream + (/ passed (+ passed failed)) + (monte-carlo + (stream-cdr experiment-stream) passed failed))) + (if (stream-car experiment-stream) + (next (+ passed 1) failed) + (next passed (+ failed 1)))) + + (define pi + (stream-map (lambda (p) (sqrt (/ 6 p))) + (monte-carlo cesaro-stream 0 0))) + + There is considerable modularity in this approach, because we still +can formulate a general `monte-carlo' procedure that can deal with +arbitrary experiments. Yet there is no assignment or local state. + + *Exercise 3.81:* *Note Exercise 3-6:: discussed generalizing the + random-number generator to allow one to reset the random-number + sequence so as to produce repeatable sequences of "random" + numbers. Produce a stream formulation of this same generator that + operates on an input stream of requests to `generate' a new random + number or to `reset' the sequence to a specified value and that + produces the desired stream of random numbers. Don't use + assignment in your solution. + + *Exercise 3.82:* Redo *Note Exercise 3-5:: on Monte Carlo + integration in terms of streams. The stream version of + `estimate-integral' will not have an argument telling how many + trials to perform. Instead, it will produce a stream of estimates + based on successively more trials. + +A functional-programming view of time +..................................... + +Let us now return to the issues of objects and state that were raised +at the beginning of this chapter and examine them in a new light. We +introduced assignment and mutable objects to provide a mechanism for +modular construction of programs that model systems with state. We +constructed computational objects with local state variables and used +assignment to modify these variables. We modeled the temporal behavior +of the objects in the world by the temporal behavior of the +corresponding computational objects. + + Now we have seen that streams provide an alternative way to model +objects with local state. We can model a changing quantity, such as +the local state of some object, using a stream that represents the time +history of successive states. In essence, we represent time +explicitly, using streams, so that we decouple time in our simulated +world from the sequence of events that take place during evaluation. +Indeed, because of the presence of `delay' there may be little relation +between simulated time in the model and the order of events during the +evaluation. + + In order to contrast these two approaches to modeling, let us +reconsider the implementation of a "withdrawal processor" that monitors +the balance in a bank account. In section *Note 3-1-3:: we implemented +a simplified version of such a processor: + + (define (make-simplified-withdraw balance) + (lambda (amount) + (set! balance (- balance amount)) + balance)) + + Calls to `make-simplified-withdraw' produce computational objects, +each with a local state variable `balance' that is decremented by +successive calls to the object. The object takes an `amount' as an +argument and returns the new balance. We can imagine the user of a +bank account typing a sequence of inputs to such an object and +observing the sequence of returned values shown on a display screen. + + Alternatively, we can model a withdrawal processor as a procedure +that takes as input a balance and a stream of amounts to withdraw and +produces the stream of successive balances in the account: + + (define (stream-withdraw balance amount-stream) + (cons-stream + balance + (stream-withdraw (- balance (stream-car amount-stream)) + (stream-cdr amount-stream)))) + + `Stream-withdraw' implements a well-defined mathematical function +whose output is fully determined by its input. Suppose, however, that +the input `amount-stream' is the stream of successive values typed by +the user and that the resulting stream of balances is displayed. Then, +from the perspective of the user who is typing values and watching +results, the stream process has the same behavior as the object created +by `make-simplified-withdraw'. However, with the stream version, there +is no assignment, no local state variable, and consequently none of the +theoretical difficulties that we encountered in section *Note 3-1-3::. +Yet the system has state! + + This is really remarkable. Even though `stream-withdraw' implements +a well-defined mathematical function whose behavior does not change, +the user's perception here is one of interacting with a system that has +a changing state. One way to resolve this paradox is to realize that +it is the user's temporal existence that imposes state on the system. +If the user could step back from the interaction and think in terms of +streams of balances rather than individual transactions, the system +would appear stateless.(1) + + From the point of view of one part of a complex process, the other +parts appear to change with time. They have hidden time-varying local +state. If we wish to write programs that model this kind of natural +decomposition in our world (as we see it from our viewpoint as a part +of that world) with structures in our computer, we make computational +objects that are not functional--they must change with time. We model +state with local state variables, and we model the changes of state +with assignments to those variables. By doing this we make the time of +execution of a computation model time in the world that we are part of, +and thus we get "objects" in our computer. + + Modeling with objects is powerful and intuitive, largely because +this matches the perception of interacting with a world of which we are +part. However, as we've seen repeatedly throughout this chapter, these +models raise thorny problems of constraining the order of events and of +synchronizing multiple processes. The possibility of avoiding these +problems has stimulated the development of "functional programming +languages", which do not include any provision for assignment or +mutable data. In such a language, all procedures implement +well-defined mathematical functions of their arguments, whose behavior +does not change. The functional approach is extremely attractive for +dealing with concurrent systems.(2) + + On the other hand, if we look closely, we can see time-related +problems creeping into functional models as well. One particularly +troublesome area arises when we wish to design interactive systems, +especially ones that model interactions between independent entities. +For instance, consider once more the implementation a banking system +that permits joint bank accounts. In a conventional system using +assignment and objects, we would model the fact that Peter and Paul +share an account by having both Peter and Paul send their transaction +requests to the same bank-account object, as we saw in section *Note +3-1-3::. From the stream point of view, where there are no "objects" +_per se_, we have already indicated that a bank account can be modeled +as a process that operates on a stream of transaction requests to +produce a stream of responses. Accordingly, we could model the fact +that Peter and Paul have a joint bank account by merging Peter's stream +of transaction requests with Paul's stream of requests and feeding the +result to the bank-account stream process, as shown in *Note Figure +3-38::. + + *Figure 3.38:* A joint bank account, modeled by merging two + streams of transaction requests. + + Peter's requests +---------+ +---------+ + ------------------>| | | | + Paul's requests | merge |---->| bank |----> + ------------------>| | | account | + +---------+ +---------+ + + The trouble with this formulation is in the notion of "merge". It +will not do to merge the two streams by simply taking alternately one +request from Peter and one request from Paul. Suppose Paul accesses the +account only very rarely. We could hardly force Peter to wait for Paul +to access the account before he could issue a second transaction. +However such a merge is implemented, it must interleave the two +transaction streams in some way that is constrained by "real time" as +perceived by Peter and Paul, in the sense that, if Peter and Paul meet, +they can agree that certain transactions were processed before the +meeting, and other transactions were processed after the meeting.(3) +This is precisely the same constraint that we had to deal with in +section *Note 3-4-1::, where we found the need to introduce explicit +synchronization to ensure a "correct" order of events in concurrent +processing of objects with state. Thus, in an attempt to support the +functional style, the need to merge inputs from different agents +reintroduces the same problems that the functional style was meant to +eliminate. + + We began this chapter with the goal of building computational models +whose structure matches our perception of the real world we are trying +to model. We can model the world as a collection of separate, +time-bound, interacting objects with state, or we can model the world +as a single, timeless, stateless unity. Each view has powerful +advantages, but neither view alone is completely satisfactory. A grand +unification has yet to emerge.(4) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Similarly in physics, when we observe a moving particle, we say +that the position (state) of the particle is changing. However, from +the perspective of the particle's world line in space-time there is no +change involved. + + (2) John Backus, the inventor of Fortran, gave high visibility to +functional programming when he was awarded the ACM Turing award in +1978. His acceptance speech (Backus 1978) strongly advocated the +functional approach. A good overview of functional programming is +given in Henderson 1980 and in Darlington, Henderson, and Turner 1982. + + (3) Observe that, for any two streams, there is in general more than +one acceptable order of interleaving. Thus, technically, "merge" is a +relation rather than a function--the answer is not a deterministic +function of the inputs. We already mentioned (*Note Footnote 39::) +that nondeterminism is essential when dealing with concurrency. The +merge relation illustrates the same essential nondeterminism, from the +functional perspective. In section *Note 4-3::, we will look at +nondeterminism from yet another point of view. + + (4) The object model approximates the world by dividing it into +separate pieces. The functional model does not modularize along object +boundaries. The object model is useful when the unshared state of the +"objects" is much larger than the state that they share. An example of +a place where the object viewpoint fails is quantum mechanics, where +thinking of things as individual particles leads to paradoxes and +confusions. Unifying the object view with the functional view may have +little to do with programming, but rather with fundamental +epistemological issues. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Chapter 4, Next: Chapter 5, Prev: Chapter 3, Up: Top + +4 Metalinguistic Abstraction +**************************** + + ... It's in words that the magic is--Abracadabra, Open Sesame, and + the rest--but the magic words in one story aren't magical in the + next. The real magic is to understand which words work, and when, + and for what; the trick is to learn the trick. + + ... And those words are made from the letters of our alphabet: a + couple-dozen squiggles we can draw with the pen. This is the key! + And the treasure, too, if we can only get our hands on it! It's + as if--as if the key to the treasure _is_ the treasure! + + --John Barth, `Chimera' + + In our study of program design, we have seen that expert programmers +control the complexity of their designs with the same general +techniques used by designers of all complex systems. They combine +primitive elements to form compound objects, they abstract compound +objects to form higher-level building blocks, and they preserve +modularity by adopting appropriate large-scale views of system +structure. In illustrating these techniques, we have used Lisp as a +language for describing processes and for constructing computational +data objects and processes to model complex phenomena in the real +world. However, as we confront increasingly complex problems, we will +find that Lisp, or indeed any fixed programming language, is not +sufficient for our needs. We must constantly turn to new languages in +order to express our ideas more effectively. Establishing new +languages is a powerful strategy for controlling complexity in +engineering design; we can often enhance our ability to deal with a +complex problem by adopting a new language that enables us to describe +(and hence to think about) the problem in a different way, using +primitives, means of combination, and means of abstraction that are +particularly well suited to the problem at hand.(1) + + Programming is endowed with a multitude of languages. There are +physical languages, such as the machine languages for particular +computers. These languages are concerned with the representation of +data and control in terms of individual bits of storage and primitive +machine instructions. The machine-language programmer is concerned +with using the given hardware to erect systems and utilities for the +efficient implementation of resource-limited computations. High-level +languages, erected on a machine-language substrate, hide concerns about +the representation of data as collections of bits and the +representation of programs as sequences of primitive instructions. +These languages have means of combination and abstraction, such as +procedure definition, that are appropriate to the larger-scale +organization of systems. + + "Metalinguistic abstraction"--establishing new languages--plays an +important role in all branches of engineering design. It is +particularly important to computer programming, because in programming +not only can we formulate new languages but we can also implement these +languages by constructing evaluators. An "evaluator" (or "interpreter") +for a programming language is a procedure that, when applied to an +expression of the language, performs the actions required to evaluate +that expression. + + It is no exaggeration to regard this as the most fundamental idea in +programming: + + The evaluator, which determines the meaning of expressions in a + programming language, is just another program. + + To appreciate this point is to change our images of ourselves as +programmers. We come to see ourselves as designers of languages, +rather than only users of languages designed by others. + + In fact, we can regard almost any program as the evaluator for some +language. For instance, the polynomial manipulation system of section +*Note 2-5-3:: embodies the rules of polynomial arithmetic and +implements them in terms of operations on list-structured data. If we +augment this system with procedures to read and print polynomial +expressions, we have the core of a special-purpose language for dealing +with problems in symbolic mathematics. The digital-logic simulator of +section *Note 3-3-4:: and the constraint propagator of section *Note +3-3-5:: are legitimate languages in their own right, each with its own +primitives, means of combination, and means of abstraction. Seen from +this perspective, the technology for coping with large-scale computer +systems merges with the technology for building new computer languages, +and computer science itself becomes no more (and no less) than the +discipline of constructing appropriate descriptive languages. + + We now embark on a tour of the technology by which languages are +established in terms of other languages. In this chapter we shall use +Lisp as a base, implementing evaluators as Lisp procedures. Lisp is +particularly well suited to this task, because of its ability to +represent and manipulate symbolic expressions. We will take the first +step in understanding how languages are implemented by building an +evaluator for Lisp itself. The language implemented by our evaluator +will be a subset of the Scheme dialect of Lisp that we use in this +book. Although the evaluator described in this chapter is written for a +particular dialect of Lisp, it contains the essential structure of an +evaluator for any expression-oriented language designed for writing +programs for a sequential machine. (In fact, most language processors +contain, deep within them, a little "Lisp" evaluator.) The evaluator +has been simplified for the purposes of illustration and discussion, +and some features have been left out that would be important to include +in a production-quality Lisp system. Nevertheless, this simple +evaluator is adequate to execute most of the programs in this book.(2) + + An important advantage of making the evaluator accessible as a Lisp +program is that we can implement alternative evaluation rules by +describing these as modifications to the evaluator program. One place +where we can use this power to good effect is to gain extra control +over the ways in which computational models embody the notion of time, +which was so central to the discussion in *Note Chapter 3::. There, we +mitigated some of the complexities of state and assignment by using +streams to decouple the representation of time in the world from time +in the computer. Our stream programs, however, were sometimes +cumbersome, because they were constrained by the applicative-order +evaluation of Scheme. In section *Note 4-2::, we'll change the +underlying language to provide for a more elegant approach, by +modifying the evaluator to provide for "normal-order evaluation". + + Section *Note 4-3:: implements a more ambitious linguistic change, +whereby expressions have many values, rather than just a single value. +In this language of "nondeterministic computing", it is natural to +express processes that generate all possible values for expressions and +then search for those values that satisfy certain constraints. In +terms of models of computation and time, this is like having time +branch into a set of "possible futures" and then searching for +appropriate time lines. With our nondeterministic evaluator, keeping +track of multiple values and performing searches are handled +automatically by the underlying mechanism of the language. + + In section *Note 4-4:: we implement a "logic-programming" language in +which knowledge is expressed in terms of relations, rather than in +terms of computations with inputs and outputs. Even though this makes +the language drastically different from Lisp, or indeed from any +conventional language, we will see that the logic-programming evaluator +shares the essential structure of the Lisp evaluator. + +* Menu: + +* 4-1:: The Metacircular Evaluator +* 4-2:: Variations on a Scheme -- Lazy Evaluation +* 4-3:: Variations on a Scheme -- Nondeterministic Computing +* 4-4:: Logic Programming + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The same idea is pervasive throughout all of engineering. For +example, electrical engineers use many different languages for +describing circuits. Two of these are the language of electrical "networks" +and the language of electrical "systems". The network language +emphasizes the physical modeling of devices in terms of discrete +electrical elements. The primitive objects of the network language are +primitive electrical components such as resistors, capacitors, +inductors, and transistors, which are characterized in terms of +physical variables called voltage and current. When describing +circuits in the network language, the engineer is concerned with the +physical characteristics of a design. In contrast, the primitive +objects of the system language are signal-processing modules such as +filters and amplifiers. Only the functional behavior of the modules is +relevant, and signals are manipulated without concern for their +physical realization as voltages and currents. The system language is +erected on the network language, in the sense that the elements of +signal-processing systems are constructed from electrical networks. +Here, however, the concerns are with the large-scale organization of +electrical devices to solve a given application problem; the physical +feasibility of the parts is assumed. This layered collection of +languages is another example of the stratified design technique +illustrated by the picture language of section *Note 2-2-4::. + + (2) The most important features that our evaluator leaves out are +mechanisms for handling errors and supporting debugging. For a more +extensive discussion of evaluators, see Friedman, Wand, and Haynes +1992, which gives an exposition of programming languages that proceeds +via a sequence of evaluators written in Scheme. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1, Next: 4-2, Prev: Chapter 4, Up: Chapter 4 + +4.1 The Metacircular Evaluator +============================== + +Our evaluator for Lisp will be implemented as a Lisp program. It may +seem circular to think about evaluating Lisp programs using an +evaluator that is itself implemented in Lisp. However, evaluation is a +process, so it is appropriate to describe the evaluation process using +Lisp, which, after all, is our tool for describing processes.(1) An +evaluator that is written in the same language that it evaluates is +said to be "metacircular". + + The metacircular evaluator is essentially a Scheme formulation of the +environment model of evaluation described in section *Note 3-2::. +Recall that the model has two basic parts: + + 1. To evaluate a combination (a compound expression other than a + special form), evaluate the subexpressions and then apply the + value of the operator subexpression to the values of the operand + subexpressions. + + 2. To apply a compound procedure to a set of arguments, evaluate the + body of the procedure in a new environment. To construct this + environment, extend the environment part of the procedure object + by a frame in which the formal parameters of the procedure are + bound to the arguments to which the procedure is applied. + + + These two rules describe the essence of the evaluation process, a +basic cycle in which expressions to be evaluated in environments are +reduced to procedures to be applied to arguments, which in turn are +reduced to new expressions to be evaluated in new environments, and so +on, until we get down to symbols, whose values are looked up in the +environment, and to primitive procedures, which are applied directly +(see *Note Figure 4-1::).(2) This evaluation cycle will be embodied by +the interplay between the two critical procedures in the evaluator, +`eval' and `apply', which are described in section *Note 4-1-1:: (see +*Note Figure 4-1::). + + The implementation of the evaluator will depend upon procedures that +define the "syntax" of the expressions to be evaluated. We will use +data abstraction to make the evaluator independent of the +representation of the language. For example, rather than committing to +a choice that an assignment is to be represented by a list beginning +with the symbol `set!' we use an abstract predicate `assignment?' to +test for an assignment, and we use abstract selectors +`assignment-variable' and `assignment-value' to access the parts of an +assignment. Implementation of expressions will be described in detail +in section *Note 4-1-2::. There are also operations, described in +section *Note 4-1-3::, that specify the representation of procedures +and environments. For example, `make-procedure' constructs compound +procedures, `lookup-variable-value' accesses the values of variables, +and `apply-primitive-procedure' applies a primitive procedure to a +given list of arguments. + +* Menu: + +* 4-1-1:: The Core of the Evaluator +* 4-1-2:: Representing Expressions +* 4-1-3:: Evaluator Data Structures +* 4-1-4:: Running the Evaluator as a Program +* 4-1-5:: Data as Programs +* 4-1-6:: Internal Definitions +* 4-1-7:: Separating Syntactic Analysis from Execution + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Even so, there will remain important aspects of the evaluation +process that are not elucidated by our evaluator. The most important +of these are the detailed mechanisms by which procedures call other +procedures and return values to their callers. We will address these +issues in *Note Chapter 5::, where we take a closer look at the +evaluation process by implementing the evaluator as a simple register +machine. + + (2) If we grant ourselves the ability to apply primitives, then what +remains for us to implement in the evaluator? The job of the evaluator +is not to specify the primitives of the language, but rather to provide +the connective tissue--the means of combination and the means of +abstraction--that binds a collection of primitives to form a language. +Specifically: + + * The evaluator enables us to deal with nested expressions. For + example, although simply applying primitives would suffice for + evaluating the expression `(+ 1 6)', it is not adequate for + handling `(+ 1 (* 2 3))'. As far as the primitive procedure `+' + is concerned, its arguments must be numbers, and it would choke if + we passed it the expression `(* 2 3)' as an argument. One + important role of the evaluator is to choreograph procedure + composition so that `(* 2 3)' is reduced to 6 before being passed + as an argument to `+'. + + * The evaluator allows us to use variables. For example, the + primitive procedure for addition has no way to deal with + expressions such as `(+ x 1)'. We need an evaluator to keep track + of variables and obtain their values before invoking the primitive + procedures. + + * The evaluator allows us to define compound procedures. This + involves keeping track of procedure definitions, knowing how to + use these definitions in evaluating expressions, and providing a + mechanism that enables procedures to accept arguments. + + * The evaluator provides the special forms, which must be evaluated + differently from procedure calls. + + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-1, Next: 4-1-2, Prev: 4-1, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.1 The Core of the Evaluator +------------------------------- + + *Figure 4.1:* The `eval'-`apply' cycle exposes the essence of a + computer language. + + .,ad88888888baa, + _ ,d8P""" ""9888ba. _ + / .a8" ,ad88888888888a |\ + / aP' ,88888888888888888a \ + / ,8" ,88888888888888888888, \ + | ,8' (888888888888888888888, | + / ,8' `8888888888888888888888 \ + | 8) `888888888888888888888, | + Procedure, | 8 "88888 Apply 8888888) | Expression + Arguments | 8 Eval `888888888888888888) | Environment + | 8) "8888888888888888 | + \ (b "88888888888888' / + | `8, 8888888888888) | + \ "8a ,888888888888) / + \ V8, d88888888888" / + _\| `8b, ,d8888888888P' _/ + `V8a, ,ad8888888888P' + ""88888888888888888P" + """""""""""" + + [graphic by Normand Veillux, modified] + +The evaluation process can be described as the interplay between two +procedures: `eval' and `apply'. + +Eval +.... + +`Eval' takes as arguments an expression and an environment. It +classifies the expression and directs its evaluation. `Eval' is +structured as a case analysis of the syntactic type of the expression +to be evaluated. In order to keep the procedure general, we express +the determination of the type of an expression abstractly, making no +commitment to any particular representation for the various types of +expressions. Each type of expression has a predicate that tests for it +and an abstract means for selecting its parts. This "abstract syntax" +makes it easy to see how we can change the syntax of the language by +using the same evaluator, but with a different collection of syntax +procedures. + +Primitive expressions + + * For self-evaluating expressions, such as numbers, `eval' returns + the expression itself. + + * `Eval' must look up variables in the environment to find their + values. + + +Special forms + + * For quoted expressions, `eval' returns the expression that was + quoted. + + * An assignment to (or a definition of) a variable must recursively + call `eval' to compute the new value to be associated with the + variable. The environment must be modified to change (or create) + the binding of the variable. + + * An `if' expression requires special processing of its parts, so as + to evaluate the consequent if the predicate is true, and otherwise + to evaluate the alternative. + + * A `lambda' expression must be transformed into an applicable + procedure by packaging together the parameters and body specified + by the `lambda' expression with the environment of the evaluation. + + * A `begin' expression requires evaluating its sequence of + expressions in the order in which they appear. + + * A case analysis (`cond') is transformed into a nest of `if' + expressions and then evaluated. + + +Combinations + + * For a procedure application, `eval' must recursively evaluate the + operator part and the operands of the combination. The resulting + procedure and arguments are passed to `apply', which handles the + actual procedure application. + + + Here is the definition of `eval': + + (define (eval exp env) + (cond ((self-evaluating? exp) exp) + ((variable? exp) (lookup-variable-value exp env)) + ((quoted? exp) (text-of-quotation exp)) + ((assignment? exp) (eval-assignment exp env)) + ((definition? exp) (eval-definition exp env)) + ((if? exp) (eval-if exp env)) + ((lambda? exp) + (make-procedure (lambda-parameters exp) + (lambda-body exp) + env)) + ((begin? exp) + (eval-sequence (begin-actions exp) env)) + ((cond? exp) (eval (cond->if exp) env)) + ((application? exp) + (apply (eval (operator exp) env) + (list-of-values (operands exp) env))) + (else + (error "Unknown expression type -- EVAL" exp)))) + + For clarity, `eval' has been implemented as a case analysis using +`cond'. The disadvantage of this is that our procedure handles only a +few distinguishable types of expressions, and no new ones can be +defined without editing the definition of `eval'. In most Lisp +implementations, dispatching on the type of an expression is done in a +data-directed style. This allows a user to add new types of +expressions that `eval' can distinguish, without modifying the +definition of `eval' itself. (See *Note Exercise 4-3::.) + +Apply +..... + +`Apply' takes two arguments, a procedure and a list of arguments to +which the procedure should be applied. `Apply' classifies procedures +into two kinds: It calls `apply-primitive-procedure' to apply +primitives; it applies compound procedures by sequentially evaluating +the expressions that make up the body of the procedure. The +environment for the evaluation of the body of a compound procedure is +constructed by extending the base environment carried by the procedure +to include a frame that binds the parameters of the procedure to the +arguments to which the procedure is to be applied. Here is the +definition of `apply': + + (define (apply procedure arguments) + (cond ((primitive-procedure? procedure) + (apply-primitive-procedure procedure arguments)) + ((compound-procedure? procedure) + (eval-sequence + (procedure-body procedure) + (extend-environment + (procedure-parameters procedure) + arguments + (procedure-environment procedure)))) + (else + (error + "Unknown procedure type -- APPLY" procedure)))) + +Procedure arguments +................... + +When `eval' processes a procedure application, it uses `list-of-values' +to produce the list of arguments to which the procedure is to be +applied. `List-of-values' takes as an argument the operands of the +combination. It evaluates each operand and returns a list of the +corresponding values:(1) + + (define (list-of-values exps env) + (if (no-operands? exps) + '() + (cons (eval (first-operand exps) env) + (list-of-values (rest-operands exps) env)))) + +Conditionals +............ + +`Eval-if' evaluates the predicate part of an `if' expression in the +given environment. If the result is true, `eval-if' evaluates the +consequent, otherwise it evaluates the alternative: + + (define (eval-if exp env) + (if (true? (eval (if-predicate exp) env)) + (eval (if-consequent exp) env) + (eval (if-alternative exp) env))) + + The use of `true?' in `eval-if' highlights the issue of the +connection between an implemented language and an implementation +language. The `if-predicate' is evaluated in the language being +implemented and thus yields a value in that language. The interpreter +predicate `true?' translates that value into a value that can be tested +by the `if' in the implementation language: The metacircular +representation of truth might not be the same as that of the underlying +Scheme.(2) + +Sequences +......... + +`Eval-sequence' is used by `apply' to evaluate the sequence of +expressions in a procedure body and by `eval' to evaluate the sequence +of expressions in a `begin' expression. It takes as arguments a +sequence of expressions and an environment, and evaluates the +expressions in the order in which they occur. The value returned is +the value of the final expression. + + (define (eval-sequence exps env) + (cond ((last-exp? exps) (eval (first-exp exps) env)) + (else (eval (first-exp exps) env) + (eval-sequence (rest-exps exps) env)))) + +Assignments and definitions +........................... + +The following procedure handles assignments to variables. It calls +`eval' to find the value to be assigned and transmits the variable and +the resulting value to `set-variable-value!' to be installed in the +designated environment. + + (define (eval-assignment exp env) + (set-variable-value! (assignment-variable exp) + (eval (assignment-value exp) env) + env) + 'ok) + +Definitions of variables are handled in a similar manner.(3) + + (define (eval-definition exp env) + (define-variable! (definition-variable exp) + (eval (definition-value exp) env) + env) + 'ok) + + We have chosen here to return the symbol `ok' as the value of an +assignment or a definition.(4) + + *Exercise 4.1:* Notice that we cannot tell whether the + metacircular evaluator evaluates operands from left to right or + from right to left. Its evaluation order is inherited from the + underlying Lisp: If the arguments to `cons' in `list-of-values' + are evaluated from left to right, then `list-of-values' will + evaluate operands from left to right; and if the arguments to + `cons' are evaluated from right to left, then `list-of-values' + will evaluate operands from right to left. + + Write a version of `list-of-values' that evaluates operands from + left to right regardless of the order of evaluation in the + underlying Lisp. Also write a version of `list-of-values' that + evaluates operands from right to left. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We could have simplified the `application?' clause in `eval' by +using `map' (and stipulating that `operands' returns a list) rather +than writing an explicit `list-of-values' procedure. We chose not to +use `map' here to emphasize the fact that the evaluator can be +implemented without any use of higher-order procedures (and thus could +be written in a language that doesn't have higher-order procedures), +even though the language that it supports will include higher-order +procedures. + + (2) In this case, the language being implemented and the +implementation language are the same. Contemplation of the meaning of +`true?' here yields expansion of consciousness without the abuse of +substance. + + (3) This implementation of `define' ignores a subtle issue in the +handling of internal definitions, although it works correctly in most +cases. We will see what the problem is and how to solve it in section +*Note 4-1-6::. + + (4) As we said when we introduced `define' and `set!', these values +are implementation-dependent in Scheme--that is, the implementor can +choose what value to return. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-2, Next: 4-1-3, Prev: 4-1-1, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.2 Representing Expressions +------------------------------ + +The evaluator is reminiscent of the symbolic differentiation program +discussed in section *Note 2-3-2::. Both programs operate on symbolic +expressions. In both programs, the result of operating on a compound +expression is determined by operating recursively on the pieces of the +expression and combining the results in a way that depends on the type +of the expression. In both programs we used data abstraction to +decouple the general rules of operation from the details of how +expressions are represented. In the differentiation program this meant +that the same differentiation procedure could deal with algebraic +expressions in prefix form, in infix form, or in some other form. For +the evaluator, this means that the syntax of the language being +evaluated is determined solely by the procedures that classify and +extract pieces of expressions. + + Here is the specification of the syntax of our language: + + * The only self-evaluating items are numbers and strings: + + (define (self-evaluating? exp) + (cond ((number? exp) true) + ((string? exp) true) + (else false))) + + * Variables are represented by symbols: + + (define (variable? exp) (symbol? exp)) + + * Quotations have the form `(quote <TEXT-OF-QUOTATION>)':(1) + + (define (quoted? exp) + (tagged-list? exp 'quote)) + + (define (text-of-quotation exp) (cadr exp)) + + `Quoted?' is defined in terms of the procedure `tagged-list?', + which identifies lists beginning with a designated symbol: + + (define (tagged-list? exp tag) + (if (pair? exp) + (eq? (car exp) tag) + false)) + + * Assignments have the form `(set! <VAR> <VALUE>)': + + (define (assignment? exp) + (tagged-list? exp 'set!)) + + (define (assignment-variable exp) (cadr exp)) + + (define (assignment-value exp) (caddr exp)) + + * Definitions have the form + + (define <VAR> <VALUE>) + + or the form + + (define (<VAR> <PARAMETER_1> ... <PARAMETER_N>) + <BODY>) + + The latter form (standard procedure definition) is syntactic sugar + for + + (define <VAR> + (lambda (<PARAMETER_1> ... <PARAMETER_N>) + <BODY>)) + + The corresponding syntax procedures are the following: + + (define (definition? exp) + (tagged-list? exp 'define)) + + (define (definition-variable exp) + (if (symbol? (cadr exp)) + (cadr exp) + (caadr exp))) + + (define (definition-value exp) + (if (symbol? (cadr exp)) + (caddr exp) + (make-lambda (cdadr exp) ; formal parameters + (cddr exp)))) ; body + + * `Lambda' expressions are lists that begin with the symbol `lambda': + + (define (lambda? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'lambda)) + + (define (lambda-parameters exp) (cadr exp)) + + (define (lambda-body exp) (cddr exp)) + + We also provide a constructor for `lambda' expressions, which is + used by `definition-value', above: + + (define (make-lambda parameters body) + (cons 'lambda (cons parameters body))) + + * Conditionals begin with `if' and have a predicate, a consequent, + and an (optional) alternative. If the expression has no + alternative part, we provide `false' as the alternative.(2) + + (define (if? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'if)) + + (define (if-predicate exp) (cadr exp)) + + (define (if-consequent exp) (caddr exp)) + + (define (if-alternative exp) + (if (not (null? (cdddr exp))) + (cadddr exp) + 'false)) + + We also provide a constructor for `if' expressions, to be used by + `cond->if' to transform `cond' expressions into `if' expressions: + + (define (make-if predicate consequent alternative) + (list 'if predicate consequent alternative)) + + * `Begin' packages a sequence of expressions into a single + expression. We include syntax operations on `begin' expressions + to extract the actual sequence from the `begin' expression, as + well as selectors that return the first expression and the rest of + the expressions in the sequence.(3) + + (define (begin? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'begin)) + + (define (begin-actions exp) (cdr exp)) + + (define (last-exp? seq) (null? (cdr seq))) + + (define (first-exp seq) (car seq)) + + (define (rest-exps seq) (cdr seq)) + + We also include a constructor `sequence->exp' (for use by + `cond->if') that transforms a sequence into a single expression, + using `begin' if necessary: + + (define (sequence->exp seq) + (cond ((null? seq) seq) + ((last-exp? seq) (first-exp seq)) + (else (make-begin seq)))) + + (define (make-begin seq) (cons 'begin seq)) + + * A procedure application is any compound expression that is not one + of the above expression types. The `car' of the expression is the + operator, and the `cdr' is the list of operands: + + (define (application? exp) (pair? exp)) + + (define (operator exp) (car exp)) + + (define (operands exp) (cdr exp)) + + (define (no-operands? ops) (null? ops)) + + (define (first-operand ops) (car ops)) + + (define (rest-operands ops) (cdr ops)) + + +Derived expressions +................... + +Some special forms in our language can be defined in terms of +expressions involving other special forms, rather than being +implemented directly. One example is `cond', which can be implemented +as a nest of `if' expressions. For example, we can reduce the problem +of evaluating the expression + + (cond ((> x 0) x) + ((= x 0) (display 'zero) 0) + (else (- x))) + +to the problem of evaluating the following expression involving `if' and +`begin' expressions: + + (if (> x 0) + x + (if (= x 0) + (begin (display 'zero) + 0) + (- x))) + + Implementing the evaluation of `cond' in this way simplifies the +evaluator because it reduces the number of special forms for which the +evaluation process must be explicitly specified. + + We include syntax procedures that extract the parts of a `cond' +expression, and a procedure `cond->if' that transforms `cond' +expressions into `if' expressions. A case analysis begins with `cond' +and has a list of predicate-action clauses. A clause is an `else' +clause if its predicate is the symbol `else'.(4) + + (define (cond? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'cond)) + + (define (cond-clauses exp) (cdr exp)) + + (define (cond-else-clause? clause) + (eq? (cond-predicate clause) 'else)) + + (define (cond-predicate clause) (car clause)) + + (define (cond-actions clause) (cdr clause)) + + (define (cond->if exp) + (expand-clauses (cond-clauses exp))) + + (define (expand-clauses clauses) + (if (null? clauses) + 'false ; no `else' clause + (let ((first (car clauses)) + (rest (cdr clauses))) + (if (cond-else-clause? first) + (if (null? rest) + (sequence->exp (cond-actions first)) + (error "ELSE clause isn't last -- COND->IF" + clauses)) + (make-if (cond-predicate first) + (sequence->exp (cond-actions first)) + (expand-clauses rest)))))) + + Expressions (such as `cond') that we choose to implement as syntactic +transformations are called "derived expressions". `Let' expressions +are also derived expressions (see *Note Exercise 4-6::).(5) + + *Exercise 4.2:* Louis Reasoner plans to reorder the `cond' clauses + in `eval' so that the clause for procedure applications appears + before the clause for assignments. He argues that this will make + the interpreter more efficient: Since programs usually contain more + applications than assignments, definitions, and so on, his + modified `eval' will usually check fewer clauses than the original + `eval' before identifying the type of an expression. + + a. What is wrong with Louis's plan? (Hint: What will Louis's + evaluator do with the expression `(define x 3)'?) + + b. Louis is upset that his plan didn't work. He is willing to + go to any lengths to make his evaluator recognize procedure + applications before it checks for most other kinds of + expressions. Help him by changing the syntax of the + evaluated language so that procedure applications start with + `call'. For example, instead of `(factorial 3)' we will now + have to write `(call factorial 3)' and instead of `(+ 1 2)' + we will have to write `(call + 1 2)'. + + + *Exercise 4.3:* Rewrite `eval' so that the dispatch is done in + data-directed style. Compare this with the data-directed + differentiation procedure of *Note Exercise 2-73::. (You may use + the `car' of a compound expression as the type of the expression, + as is appropriate for the syntax implemented in this section.) + + *Exercise 4.4:* Recall the definitions of the special forms `and' + and `or' from *Note Chapter 1::: + + * `and': The expressions are evaluated from left to right. If + any expression evaluates to false, false is returned; any + remaining expressions are not evaluated. If all the + expressions evaluate to true values, the value of the last + expression is returned. If there are no expressions then + true is returned. + + * `or': The expressions are evaluated from left to right. If + any expression evaluates to a true value, that value is + returned; any remaining expressions are not evaluated. If + all expressions evaluate to false, or if there are no + expressions, then false is returned. + + + Install `and' and `or' as new special forms for the evaluator by + defining appropriate syntax procedures and evaluation procedures + `eval-and' and `eval-or'. Alternatively, show how to implement + `and' and `or' as derived expressions. + + *Exercise 4.5:* Scheme allows an additional syntax for `cond' + clauses, `(<TEST> => <RECIPIENT>)'. If <TEST> evaluates to a true + value, then <RECIPIENT> is evaluated. Its value must be a + procedure of one argument; this procedure is then invoked on the + value of the <TEST>, and the result is returned as the value of + the `cond' expression. For example + + (cond ((assoc 'b '((a 1) (b 2))) => cadr) + (else false)) + + returns 2. Modify the handling of `cond' so that it supports this + extended syntax. + + *Exercise 4.6:* `Let' expressions are derived expressions, because + + (let ((<VAR_1> <EXP_1>) ... (<VAR_N> <EXP_N>)) + <BODY>) + + is equivalent to + + ((lambda (<VAR_1> ... <VAR_N>) + <BODY>) + <EXP_1> + ... + <EXP_N>) + + Implement a syntactic transformation `let->combination' that + reduces evaluating `let' expressions to evaluating combinations of + the type shown above, and add the appropriate clause to `eval' to + handle `let' expressions. + + *Exercise 4.7:* `Let*' is similar to `let', except that the + bindings of the `let' variables are performed sequentially from + left to right, and each binding is made in an environment in which + all of the preceding bindings are visible. For example + + (let* ((x 3) + (y (+ x 2)) + (z (+ x y 5))) + (* x z)) + + returns 39. Explain how a `let*' expression can be rewritten as a + set of nested `let' expressions, and write a procedure + `let*->nested-lets' that performs this transformation. If we have + already implemented `let' (*Note Exercise 4-6::) and we want to + extend the evaluator to handle `let*', is it sufficient to add a + clause to `eval' whose action is + + (eval (let*->nested-lets exp) env) + + or must we explicitly expand `let*' in terms of non-derived + expressions? + + *Exercise 4.8:* "Named `let'" is a variant of `let' that has the + form + + (let <VAR> <BINDINGS> <BODY>) + + The <BINDINGS> and <BODY> are just as in ordinary `let', except + that <VAR> is bound within <BODY> to a procedure whose body is + <BODY> and whose parameters are the variables in the <BINDINGS>. + Thus, one can repeatedly execute the <BODY> by invoking the + procedure named <VAR>. For example, the iterative Fibonacci + procedure (section *Note 1-2-2::) can be rewritten using named + `let' as follows: + + (define (fib n) + (let fib-iter ((a 1) + (b 0) + (count n)) + (if (= count 0) + b + (fib-iter (+ a b) a (- count 1))))) + + Modify `let->combination' of *Note Exercise 4-6:: to also support + named `let'. + + *Exercise 4.9:* Many languages support a variety of iteration + constructs, such as `do', `for', `while', and `until'. In Scheme, + iterative processes can be expressed in terms of ordinary + procedure calls, so special iteration constructs provide no + essential gain in computational power. On the other hand, such + constructs are often convenient. Design some iteration + constructs, give examples of their use, and show how to implement + them as derived expressions. + + *Exercise 4.10:* By using data abstraction, we were able to write + an `eval' procedure that is independent of the particular syntax + of the language to be evaluated. To illustrate this, design and + implement a new syntax for Scheme by modifying the procedures in + this section, without changing `eval' or `apply'. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) As mentioned in section *Note 2-3-1::, the evaluator sees a +quoted expression as a list beginning with `quote', even if the +expression is typed with the quotation mark. For example, the +expression `'a' would be seen by the evaluator as `(quote a)'. See +*Note Exercise 2-55::. + + (2) The value of an `if' expression when the predicate is false and +there is no alternative is unspecified in Scheme; we have chosen here +to make it false. We will support the use of the variables `true' and +`false' in expressions to be evaluated by binding them in the global +environment. See section *Note 4-1-4::. + + (3) These selectors for a list of expressions--and the corresponding +ones for a list of operands--are not intended as a data abstraction. +They are introduced as mnemonic names for the basic list operations in +order to make it easier to understand the explicit-control evaluator in +section *Note 5-4::. + + (4) The value of a `cond' expression when all the predicates are +false and there is no `else' clause is unspecified in Scheme; we have +chosen here to make it false. + + (5) Practical Lisp systems provide a mechanism that allows a user to +add new derived expressions and specify their implementation as +syntactic transformations without modifying the evaluator. Such a +user-defined transformation is called a "macro". Although it is easy +to add an elementary mechanism for defining macros, the resulting +language has subtle name-conflict problems. There has been much +research on mechanisms for macro definition that do not cause these +difficulties. See, for example, Kohlbecker 1986, Clinger and Rees +1991, and Hanson 1991. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-3, Next: 4-1-4, Prev: 4-1-2, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.3 Evaluator Data Structures +------------------------------- + +In addition to defining the external syntax of expressions, the +evaluator implementation must also define the data structures that the +evaluator manipulates internally, as part of the execution of a +program, such as the representation of procedures and environments and +the representation of true and false. + +Testing of predicates +..................... + +For conditionals, we accept anything to be true that is not the explicit +`false' object. + + (define (true? x) + (not (eq? x false))) + + (define (false? x) + (eq? x false)) + +Representing procedures +....................... + +To handle primitives, we assume that we have available the following +procedures: + + * `(apply-primitive-procedure <PROC> <ARGS>)' + + applies the given primitive procedure to the argument values in + the list <ARGS> and returns the result of the application. + + * `(primitive-procedure? <PROC>)' + + tests whether <PROC> is a primitive procedure. + + + These mechanisms for handling primitives are further described in +section *Note 4-1-4::. + + Compound procedures are constructed from parameters, procedure +bodies, and environments using the constructor `make-procedure': + + (define (make-procedure parameters body env) + (list 'procedure parameters body env)) + + (define (compound-procedure? p) + (tagged-list? p 'procedure)) + + (define (procedure-parameters p) (cadr p)) + + (define (procedure-body p) (caddr p)) + + (define (procedure-environment p) (cadddr p)) + +Operations on Environments +.......................... + +The evaluator needs operations for manipulating environments. As +explained in section *Note 3-2::, an environment is a sequence of +frames, where each frame is a table of bindings that associate +variables with their corresponding values. We use the following +operations for manipulating environments: + + * `(lookup-variable-value <VAR> <ENV>)' + + returns the value that is bound to the symbol <VAR> in the + environment <ENV>, or signals an error if the variable is unbound. + + * `(extend-environment <VARIABLES> <VALUES> <BASE-ENV>)' + + returns a new environment, consisting of a new frame in which the + symbols in the list <VARIABLES> are bound to the corresponding + elements in the list <VALUES>, where the enclosing environment is + the environment <BASE-ENV>. + + * `(define-variable! <VAR> <VALUE> <ENV>)' + + adds to the first frame in the environment <ENV> a new binding that + associates the variable <VAR> with the value <VALUE>. + + * `(set-variable-value! <VAR> <VALUE> <ENV>)' + + changes the binding of the variable <VAR> in the environment <ENV> + so that the variable is now bound to the value <VALUE>, or signals + an error if the variable is unbound. + + + To implement these operations we represent an environment as a list +of frames. The enclosing environment of an environment is the `cdr' of +the list. The empty environment is simply the empty list. + + (define (enclosing-environment env) (cdr env)) + + (define (first-frame env) (car env)) + + (define the-empty-environment '()) + + Each frame of an environment is represented as a pair of lists: a +list of the variables bound in that frame and a list of the associated +values.(1) + + (define (make-frame variables values) + (cons variables values)) + + (define (frame-variables frame) (car frame)) + + (define (frame-values frame) (cdr frame)) + + (define (add-binding-to-frame! var val frame) + (set-car! frame (cons var (car frame))) + (set-cdr! frame (cons val (cdr frame)))) + + To extend an environment by a new frame that associates variables +with values, we make a frame consisting of the list of variables and +the list of values, and we adjoin this to the environment. We signal +an error if the number of variables does not match the number of values. + + (define (extend-environment vars vals base-env) + (if (= (length vars) (length vals)) + (cons (make-frame vars vals) base-env) + (if (< (length vars) (length vals)) + (error "Too many arguments supplied" vars vals) + (error "Too few arguments supplied" vars vals)))) + + To look up a variable in an environment, we scan the list of +variables in the first frame. If we find the desired variable, we +return the corresponding element in the list of values. If we do not +find the variable in the current frame, we search the enclosing +environment, and so on. If we reach the empty environment, we signal +an "unbound variable" error. + + (define (lookup-variable-value var env) + (define (env-loop env) + (define (scan vars vals) + (cond ((null? vars) + (env-loop (enclosing-environment env))) + ((eq? var (car vars)) + (car vals)) + (else (scan (cdr vars) (cdr vals))))) + (if (eq? env the-empty-environment) + (error "Unbound variable" var) + (let ((frame (first-frame env))) + (scan (frame-variables frame) + (frame-values frame))))) + (env-loop env)) + + To set a variable to a new value in a specified environment, we scan +for the variable, just as in `lookup-variable-value', and change the +corresponding value when we find it. + + (define (set-variable-value! var val env) + (define (env-loop env) + (define (scan vars vals) + (cond ((null? vars) + (env-loop (enclosing-environment env))) + ((eq? var (car vars)) + (set-car! vals val)) + (else (scan (cdr vars) (cdr vals))))) + (if (eq? env the-empty-environment) + (error "Unbound variable -- SET!" var) + (let ((frame (first-frame env))) + (scan (frame-variables frame) + (frame-values frame))))) + (env-loop env)) + + To define a variable, we search the first frame for a binding for +the variable, and change the binding if it exists (just as in +`set-variable-value!'). If no such binding exists, we adjoin one to +the first frame. + + (define (define-variable! var val env) + (let ((frame (first-frame env))) + (define (scan vars vals) + (cond ((null? vars) + (add-binding-to-frame! var val frame)) + ((eq? var (car vars)) + (set-car! vals val)) + (else (scan (cdr vars) (cdr vals))))) + (scan (frame-variables frame) + (frame-values frame)))) + + The method described here is only one of many plausible ways to +represent environments. Since we used data abstraction to isolate the +rest of the evaluator from the detailed choice of representation, we +could change the environment representation if we wanted to. (See +*Note Exercise 4-11::.) In a production-quality Lisp system, the speed +of the evaluator's environment operations--especially that of variable +lookup--has a major impact on the performance of the system. The +representation described here, although conceptually simple, is not +efficient and would not ordinarily be used in a production system.(2) + + *Exercise 4.11:* Instead of representing a frame as a pair of + lists, we can represent a frame as a list of bindings, where each + binding is a name-value pair. Rewrite the environment operations + to use this alternative representation. + + *Exercise 4.12:* The procedures `set-variable-value!', + `define-variable!', and `lookup-variable-value' can be expressed + in terms of more abstract procedures for traversing the + environment structure. Define abstractions that capture the + common patterns and redefine the three procedures in terms of these + abstractions. + + *Exercise 4.13:* Scheme allows us to create new bindings for + variables by means of `define', but provides no way to get rid of + bindings. Implement for the evaluator a special form + `make-unbound!' that removes the binding of a given symbol from the + environment in which the `make-unbound!' expression is evaluated. + This problem is not completely specified. For example, should we + remove only the binding in the first frame of the environment? + Complete the specification and justify any choices you make. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Frames are not really a data abstraction in the following code: +`Set-variable-value!' and `define-variable!' use `set-car!' to +directly modify the values in a frame. The purpose of the frame +procedures is to make the environment-manipulation procedures easy to +read. + + (2) The drawback of this representation (as well as the variant in +*Note Exercise 4-11::) is that the evaluator may have to search through +many frames in order to find the binding for a given variable. (Such +an approach is referred to as "deep binding".) One way to avoid this +inefficiency is to make use of a strategy called "lexical addressing", +which will be discussed in section *Note 5-5-6::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-4, Next: 4-1-5, Prev: 4-1-3, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.4 Running the Evaluator as a Program +---------------------------------------- + +Given the evaluator, we have in our hands a description (expressed in +Lisp) of the process by which Lisp expressions are evaluated. One +advantage of expressing the evaluator as a program is that we can run +the program. This gives us, running within Lisp, a working model of +how Lisp itself evaluates expressions. This can serve as a framework +for experimenting with evaluation rules, as we shall do later in this +chapter. + + Our evaluator program reduces expressions ultimately to the +application of primitive procedures. Therefore, all that we need to +run the evaluator is to create a mechanism that calls on the underlying +Lisp system to model the application of primitive procedures. + + There must be a binding for each primitive procedure name, so that +when `eval' evaluates the operator of an application of a primitive, it +will find an object to pass to `apply'. We thus set up a global +environment that associates unique objects with the names of the +primitive procedures that can appear in the expressions we will be +evaluating. The global environment also includes bindings for the +symbols `true' and `false', so that they can be used as variables in +expressions to be evaluated. + + (define (setup-environment) + (let ((initial-env + (extend-environment (primitive-procedure-names) + (primitive-procedure-objects) + the-empty-environment))) + (define-variable! 'true true initial-env) + (define-variable! 'false false initial-env) + initial-env)) + + (define the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + + It does not matter how we represent the primitive procedure objects, +so long as `apply' can identify and apply them by using the procedures +`primitive-procedure?' and `apply-primitive-procedure'. We have chosen +to represent a primitive procedure as a list beginning with the symbol +`primitive' and containing a procedure in the underlying Lisp that +implements that primitive. + + (define (primitive-procedure? proc) + (tagged-list? proc 'primitive)) + + (define (primitive-implementation proc) (cadr proc)) + + `Setup-environment' will get the primitive names and implementation +procedures from a list:(1) + + (define primitive-procedures + (list (list 'car car) + (list 'cdr cdr) + (list 'cons cons) + (list 'null? null?) + <MORE PRIMITIVES> + )) + + (define (primitive-procedure-names) + (map car + primitive-procedures)) + + (define (primitive-procedure-objects) + (map (lambda (proc) (list 'primitive (cadr proc))) + primitive-procedures)) + + To apply a primitive procedure, we simply apply the implementation +procedure to the arguments, using the underlying Lisp system:(2) + + (define (apply-primitive-procedure proc args) + (apply-in-underlying-scheme + (primitive-implementation proc) args)) + + For convenience in running the metacircular evaluator, we provide a "driver +loop" that models the read-eval-print loop of the underlying Lisp +system. It prints a "prompt", reads an input expression, evaluates +this expression in the global environment, and prints the result. We +precede each printed result by an "output prompt" so as to distinguish +the value of the expression from other output that may be printed.(3) + + (define input-prompt ";;; M-Eval input:") + (define output-prompt ";;; M-Eval value:") + + (define (driver-loop) + (prompt-for-input input-prompt) + (let ((input (read))) + (let ((output (eval input the-global-environment))) + (announce-output output-prompt) + (user-print output))) + (driver-loop)) + + (define (prompt-for-input string) + (newline) (newline) (display string) (newline)) + + (define (announce-output string) + (newline) (display string) (newline)) + + We use a special printing procedure, `user-print', to avoid printing +the environment part of a compound procedure, which may be a very long +list (or may even contain cycles). + + (define (user-print object) + (if (compound-procedure? object) + (display (list 'compound-procedure + (procedure-parameters object) + (procedure-body object) + '<procedure-env>)) + (display object))) + + Now all we need to do to run the evaluator is to initialize the +global environment and start the driver loop. Here is a sample +interaction: + + (define the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + + (driver-loop) + + ;;; M-Eval input: + (define (append x y) + (if (null? x) + y + (cons (car x) + (append (cdr x) y)))) + ;;; M-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; M-Eval input: + (append '(a b c) '(d e f)) + ;;; M-Eval value: + (a b c d e f) + + *Exercise 4.14:* Eva Lu Ator and Louis Reasoner are each + experimenting with the metacircular evaluator. Eva types in the + definition of `map', and runs some test programs that use it. + They work fine. Louis, in contrast, has installed the system + version of `map' as a primitive for the metacircular evaluator. + When he tries it, things go terribly wrong. Explain why Louis's + `map' fails even though Eva's works. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Any procedure defined in the underlying Lisp can be used as a +primitive for the metacircular evaluator. The name of a primitive +installed in the evaluator need not be the same as the name of its +implementation in the underlying Lisp; the names are the same here +because the metacircular evaluator implements Scheme itself. Thus, for +example, we could put `(list 'first car)' or `(list 'square (lambda (x) +(* x x)))' in the list of `primitive-procedures'. + + (2) `Apply-in-underlying-scheme' is the `apply' procedure we have +used in earlier chapters. The metacircular evaluator's `apply' +procedure (section *Note 4-1-1::) models the working of this primitive. +Having two different things called `apply' leads to a technical +problem in running the metacircular evaluator, because defining the +metacircular evaluator's `apply' will mask the definition of the +primitive. One way around this is to rename the metacircular `apply' to +avoid conflict with the name of the primitive procedure. We have +assumed instead that we have saved a reference to the underlying +`apply' by doing + + (define apply-in-underlying-scheme apply) + +before defining the metacircular `apply'. This allows us to access the +original version of `apply' under a different name. + + (3) The primitive procedure `read' waits for input from the user, +and returns the next complete expression that is typed. For example, +if the user types `(+ 23 x)', `read' returns a three-element list +containing the symbol `+', the number 23, and the symbol `x'. If the +user types `'x', `read' returns a two-element list containing the +symbol `quote' and the symbol `x'. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-5, Next: 4-1-6, Prev: 4-1-4, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.5 Data as Programs +---------------------- + +In thinking about a Lisp program that evaluates Lisp expressions, an +analogy might be helpful. One operational view of the meaning of a +program is that a program is a description of an abstract (perhaps +infinitely large) machine. For example, consider the familiar program +to compute factorials: + + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) + + We may regard this program as the description of a machine +containing parts that decrement, multiply, and test for equality, +together with a two-position switch and another factorial machine. (The +factorial machine is infinite because it contains another factorial +machine within it.) *Note Figure 4-2:: is a flow diagram for the +factorial machine, showing how the parts are wired together. + + *Figure 4.2:* The factorial program, viewed as an abstract machine. + + +-----------------------------------+ + | factorial |1 | + | |1 V | + | | +-----+ | + | V | # | | + | +-----+ | | | + 6 --------*-----| = |------->| #-+-----> 720 + | | +-----+ | / | | + | | | # | | + | | +-----+ | + | | ^ | + | | | | + | | +--+--+ | + | *------------------->| * | | + | | +-----+ | + | V ^ | + | +-----+ +-----------+ | | + | | - +--->| factorial +---+ | + | +-----+ +-----------+ | + | ^ | + | |1 | + +-----------------------------------+ + + In a similar way, we can regard the evaluator as a very special +machine that takes as input a description of a machine. Given this +input, the evaluator configures itself to emulate the machine +described. For example, if we feed our evaluator the definition of +`factorial', as shown in *Note Figure 4-3::, the evaluator will be able +to compute factorials. + + *Figure 4.3:* The evaluator emulating a factorial machine. + + +--------+ + 6 ---->| eval |----> 720 + +--------+ + / + . . . / . . . + . . . ../. . . + . .. + . (define (factorial n) . . . + . (if (= n 1) . . + . 1 . + . (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) . + . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . + . .. + + From this perspective, our evaluator is seen to be a machine +"universal machine". It mimics other machines when these are described +as Lisp programs.(1) This is striking. Try to imagine an analogous +evaluator for electrical circuits. This would be a circuit that takes +as input a signal encoding the plans for some other circuit, such as a +filter. Given this input, the circuit evaluator would then behave like +a filter with the same description. Such a universal electrical +circuit is almost unimaginably complex. It is remarkable that the +program evaluator is a rather simple program.(2) + + Another striking aspect of the evaluator is that it acts as a bridge +between the data objects that are manipulated by our programming +language and the programming language itself. Imagine that the +evaluator program (implemented in Lisp) is running, and that a user is +typing expressions to the evaluator and observing the results. From +the perspective of the user, an input expression such as `(* x x)' is +an expression in the programming language, which the evaluator should +execute. From the perspective of the evaluator, however, the +expression is simply a list (in this case, a list of three symbols: `*', +`x', and `x') that is to be manipulated according to a well-defined set +of rules. + + That the user's programs are the evaluator's data need not be a +source of confusion. In fact, it is sometimes convenient to ignore +this distinction, and to give the user the ability to explicitly +evaluate a data object as a Lisp expression, by making `eval' available +for use in programs. Many Lisp dialects provide a primitive `eval' +procedure that takes as arguments an expression and an environment and +evaluates the expression relative to the environment.(3) Thus, + + (eval '(* 5 5) user-initial-environment) + +and + + (eval (cons '* (list 5 5)) user-initial-environment) + +will both return 25.(4) + + *Exercise 4.15:* Given a one-argument procedure `p' and an object + `a', `p' is said to "halt" on `a' if evaluating the expression `(p + a)' returns a value (as opposed to terminating with an error + message or running forever). Show that it is impossible to write + a procedure `halts?' that correctly determines whether `p' halts + on `a' for any procedure `p' and object `a'. Use the following + reasoning: If you had such a procedure `halts?', you could + implement the following program: + + (define (run-forever) (run-forever)) + + (define (try p) + (if (halts? p p) + (run-forever) + 'halted)) + + Now consider evaluating the expression `(try try)' and show that + any possible outcome (either halting or running forever) violates + the intended behavior of `halts?'.(5) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The fact that the machines are described in Lisp is inessential. +If we give our evaluator a Lisp program that behaves as an evaluator +for some other language, say C, the Lisp evaluator will emulate the C +evaluator, which in turn can emulate any machine described as a C +program. Similarly, writing a Lisp evaluator in C produces a C program +that can execute any Lisp program. The deep idea here is that any +evaluator can emulate any other. Thus, the notion of "what can in +principle be computed" (ignoring practicalities of time and memory +required) is independent of the language or the computer, and instead +reflects an underlying notion of "computability". This was first +demonstrated in a clear way by Alan M. Turing (1912-1954), whose 1936 +paper laid the foundations for theoretical computer science. In the +paper, Turing presented a simple computational model--now known as a "Turing +machine"--and argued that any "effective process" can be formulated as +a program for such a machine. (This argument is known as the "Church-Turing +thesis".) Turing then implemented a universal machine, i.e., a Turing +machine that behaves as an evaluator for Turing-machine programs. He +used this framework to demonstrate that there are well-posed problems +that cannot be computed by Turing machines (see *Note Exercise 4-15::), +and so by implication cannot be formulated as "effective processes." +Turing went on to make fundamental contributions to practical computer +science as well. For example, he invented the idea of structuring +programs using general-purpose subroutines. See Hodges 1983 for a +biography of Turing. + + (2) Some people find it counterintuitive that an evaluator, which is +implemented by a relatively simple procedure, can emulate programs that +are more complex than the evaluator itself. The existence of a +universal evaluator machine is a deep and wonderful property of +computation. theory "Recursion theory", a branch of mathematical +logic, is concerned with logical limits of computation. Douglas +Hofstadter's beautiful book `Go"del, Escher, Bach' (1979) explores some +of these ideas. + + (3) Warning: This `eval' primitive is not identical to the `eval' +procedure we implemented in section *Note 4-1-1::, because it uses +_actual_ Scheme environments rather than the sample environment +structures we built in section *Note 4-1-3::. These actual +environments cannot be manipulated by the user as ordinary lists; they +must be accessed via `eval' or other special operations. Similarly, +the `apply' primitive we saw earlier is not identical to the +metacircular `apply', because it uses actual Scheme procedures rather +than the procedure objects we constructed in sections *Note 4-1-3:: and +*Note 4-1-4::. + + (4) The MIT implementation of Scheme includes `eval', as well as a +symbol `user-initial-environment' that is bound to the initial +environment in which the user's input expressions are evaluated. + + (5) Although we stipulated that `halts?' is given a procedure +object, notice that this reasoning still applies even if `halts?' can +gain access to the procedure's text and its environment. This is +Turing's celebrated "Halting Theorem", which gave the first clear +example of a "non-computable" problem, i.e., a well-posed task that +cannot be carried out as a computational procedure. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-6, Next: 4-1-7, Prev: 4-1-5, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.6 Internal Definitions +-------------------------- + +Our environment model of evaluation and our metacircular evaluator +execute definitions in sequence, extending the environment frame one +definition at a time. This is particularly convenient for interactive +program development, in which the programmer needs to freely mix the +application of procedures with the definition of new procedures. +However, if we think carefully about the internal definitions used to +implement block structure (introduced in section *Note 1-1-8::), we +will find that name-by-name extension of the environment may not be the +best way to define local variables. + + Consider a procedure with internal definitions, such as + + (define (f x) + (define (even? n) + (if (= n 0) + true + (odd? (- n 1)))) + (define (odd? n) + (if (= n 0) + false + (even? (- n 1)))) + <REST OF BODY OF `F'>) + + Our intention here is that the name `odd?' in the body of the +procedure `even?' should refer to the procedure `odd?' that is defined +after `even?'. The scope of the name `odd?' is the entire body of `f', +not just the portion of the body of `f' starting at the point where the +`define' for `odd?' occurs. Indeed, when we consider that `odd?' is +itself defined in terms of `even?'--so that `even?' and `odd?' are +mutually recursive procedures--we see that the only satisfactory +interpretation of the two `define's is to regard them as if the names +`even?' and `odd?' were being added to the environment simultaneously. +More generally, in block structure, the scope of a local name is the +entire procedure body in which the `define' is evaluated. + + As it happens, our interpreter will evaluate calls to `f' correctly, +but for an "accidental" reason: Since the definitions of the internal +procedures come first, no calls to these procedures will be evaluated +until all of them have been defined. Hence, `odd?' will have been +defined by the time `even?' is executed. In fact, our sequential +evaluation mechanism will give the same result as a mechanism that +directly implements simultaneous definition for any procedure in which +the internal definitions come first in a body and evaluation of the +value expressions for the defined variables doesn't actually use any of +the defined variables. (For an example of a procedure that doesn't +obey these restrictions, so that sequential definition isn't equivalent +to simultaneous definition, see *Note Exercise 4-19::.)(1) + + There is, however, a simple way to treat definitions so that +internally defined names have truly simultaneous scope--just create all +local variables that will be in the current environment before +evaluating any of the value expressions. One way to do this is by a +syntax transformation on `lambda' expressions. Before evaluating the +body of a `lambda' expression, we "scan out" and eliminate all the +internal definitions in the body. The internally defined variables +will be created with a `let' and then set to their values by +assignment. For example, the procedure + + (lambda <VARS> + (define u <E1>) + (define v <E2>) + <E3>) + +would be transformed into + + (lambda <VARS> + (let ((u '*unassigned*) + (v '*unassigned*)) + (set! u <E1>) + (set! v <E2>) + <E3>)) + +where `*unassigned*' is a special symbol that causes looking up a +variable to signal an error if an attempt is made to use the value of +the not-yet-assigned variable. + + An alternative strategy for scanning out internal definitions is +shown in *Note Exercise 4-18::. Unlike the transformation shown above, +this enforces the restriction that the defined variables' values can be +evaluated without using any of the variables' values.(2) + + *Exercise 4.16:* In this exercise we implement the method just + described for interpreting internal definitions. We assume that + the evaluator supports `let' (see *Note Exercise 4-6::). + + a. Change `lookup-variable-value' (section *Note 4-1-3::) to + signal an error if the value it finds is the symbol + `*unassigned*'. + + b. Write a procedure `scan-out-defines' that takes a procedure + body and returns an equivalent one that has no internal + definitions, by making the transformation described above. + + c. Install `scan-out-defines' in the interpreter, either in + `make-procedure' or in `procedure-body' (see section *Note + 4-1-3::). Which place is better? Why? + + + *Exercise 4.17:* Draw diagrams of the environment in effect when + evaluating the expression <E3> in the procedure in the text, + comparing how this will be structured when definitions are + interpreted sequentially with how it will be structured if + definitions are scanned out as described. Why is there an extra + frame in the transformed program? Explain why this difference in + environment structure can never make a difference in the behavior + of a correct program. Design a way to make the interpreter + implement the "simultaneous" scope rule for internal definitions + without constructing the extra frame. + + *Exercise 4.18:* Consider an alternative strategy for scanning out + definitions that translates the example in the text to + + (lambda <VARS> + (let ((u '*unassigned*) + (v '*unassigned*)) + (let ((a <E1>) + (b <E2>)) + (set! u a) + (set! v b)) + <E3>)) + + Here `a' and `b' are meant to represent new variable names, created + by the interpreter, that do not appear in the user's program. + Consider the `solve' procedure from section *Note 3-5-4::: + + (define (solve f y0 dt) + (define y (integral (delay dy) y0 dt)) + (define dy (stream-map f y)) + y) + + Will this procedure work if internal definitions are scanned out + as shown in this exercise? What if they are scanned out as shown + in the text? Explain. + + *Exercise 4.19:* Ben Bitdiddle, Alyssa P. Hacker, and Eva Lu Ator + are arguing about the desired result of evaluating the expression + + (let ((a 1)) + (define (f x) + (define b (+ a x)) + (define a 5) + (+ a b)) + (f 10)) + + Ben asserts that the result should be obtained using the + sequential rule for `define': `b' is defined to be 11, then `a' is + defined to be 5, so the result is 16. Alyssa objects that mutual + recursion requires the simultaneous scope rule for internal + procedure definitions, and that it is unreasonable to treat + procedure names differently from other names. Thus, she argues + for the mechanism implemented in *Note Exercise 4-16::. This + would lead to `a' being unassigned at the time that the value for + `b' is to be computed. Hence, in Alyssa's view the procedure + should produce an error. Eva has a third opinion. She says that + if the definitions of `a' and `b' are truly meant to be + simultaneous, then the value 5 for `a' should be used in + evaluating `b'. Hence, in Eva's view `a' should be 5, `b' should + be 15, and the result should be 20. Which (if any) of these + viewpoints do you support? Can you devise a way to implement + internal definitions so that they behave as Eva prefers?(3) + + *Exercise 4.20:* Because internal definitions look sequential but + are actually simultaneous, some people prefer to avoid them + entirely, and use the special form `letrec' instead. `Letrec' + looks like `let', so it is not surprising that the variables it + binds are bound simultaneously and have the same scope as each + other. The sample procedure `f' above can be written without + internal definitions, but with exactly the same meaning, as + + (define (f x) + (letrec ((even? + (lambda (n) + (if (= n 0) + true + (odd? (- n 1))))) + (odd? + (lambda (n) + (if (= n 0) + false + (even? (- n 1)))))) + <REST OF BODY OF `F'>)) + + `Letrec' expressions, which have the form + + (letrec ((<VAR_1> <EXP_1>) ... (<VAR_N> <EXP_N>)) + <BODY>) + + are a variation on `let' in which the expressions <EXP_K> that + provide the initial values for the variables <VAR_K> are evaluated + in an environment that includes all the `letrec' bindings. This + permits recursion in the bindings, such as the mutual recursion of + `even?' and `odd?' in the example above, or the evaluation of 10 + factorial with + + (letrec ((fact + (lambda (n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* n (fact (- n 1))))))) + (fact 10)) + + a. Implement `letrec' as a derived expression, by transforming a + `letrec' expression into a `let' expression as shown in the + text above or in *Note Exercise 4-18::. That is, the + `letrec' variables should be created with a `let' and then be + assigned their values with `set!'. + + b. Louis Reasoner is confused by all this fuss about internal + definitions. The way he sees it, if you don't like to use + `define' inside a procedure, you can just use `let'. + Illustrate what is loose about his reasoning by drawing an + environment diagram that shows the environment in which the + <REST OF BODY OF `F'> is evaluated during evaluation of the + expression `(f 5)', with `f' defined as in this exercise. + Draw an environment diagram for the same evaluation, but with + `let' in place of `letrec' in the definition of `f'. + + + *Exercise 4.21:* Amazingly, Louis's intuition in *Note Exercise + 4-20:: is correct. It is indeed possible to specify recursive + procedures without using `letrec' (or even `define'), although the + method for accomplishing this is much more subtle than Louis + imagined. The following expression computes 10 factorial by + applying a recursive factorial procedure:(4) + + ((lambda (n) + ((lambda (fact) + (fact fact n)) + (lambda (ft k) + (if (= k 1) + 1 + (* k (ft ft (- k 1))))))) + 10) + + a. Check (by evaluating the expression) that this really does + compute factorials. Devise an analogous expression for + computing Fibonacci numbers. + + b. Consider the following procedure, which includes mutually + recursive internal definitions: + + (define (f x) + (define (even? n) + (if (= n 0) + true + (odd? (- n 1)))) + (define (odd? n) + (if (= n 0) + false + (even? (- n 1)))) + (even? x)) + + Fill in the missing expressions to complete an alternative + definition of `f', which uses neither internal definitions + nor `letrec': + + (define (f x) + ((lambda (even? odd?) + (even? even? odd? x)) + (lambda (ev? od? n) + (if (= n 0) true (od? <??> <??> <??>))) + (lambda (ev? od? n) + (if (= n 0) false (ev? <??> <??> <??>))))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Wanting programs to not depend on this evaluation mechanism is +the reason for the "management is not responsible" remark in *Note +Footnote 28:: of *Note Chapter 1::. By insisting that internal +definitions come first and do not use each other while the definitions +are being evaluated, the IEEE standard for Scheme leaves implementors +some choice in the mechanism used to evaluate these definitions. The +choice of one evaluation rule rather than another here may seem like a +small issue, affecting only the interpretation of "badly formed" +programs. However, we will see in section *Note 5-5-6:: that moving to +a model of simultaneous scoping for internal definitions avoids some +nasty difficulties that would otherwise arise in implementing a +compiler. + + (2) The IEEE standard for Scheme allows for different implementation +strategies by specifying that it is up to the programmer to obey this +restriction, not up to the implementation to enforce it. Some Scheme +implementations, including MIT Scheme, use the transformation shown +above. Thus, some programs that don't obey this restriction will in +fact run in such implementations. + + (3) The MIT implementors of Scheme support Alyssa on the following +grounds: Eva is in principle correct - the definitions should be +regarded as simultaneous. But it seems difficult to implement a +general, efficient mechanism that does what Eva requires. In the +absence of such a mechanism, it is better to generate an error in the +difficult cases of simultaneous definitions (Alyssa's notion) than to +produce an incorrect answer (as Ben would have it). + + (4) This example illustrates a programming trick for formulating +recursive procedures without using `define'. The most general trick of +this sort is the Y "operator", which can be used to give a "pure +[lambda]-calculus" implementation of recursion. (See Stoy 1977 for +details on the [lambda] calculus, and Gabriel 1988 for an exposition of +the Y operator in Scheme.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-1-7, Prev: 4-1-6, Up: 4-1 + +4.1.7 Separating Syntactic Analysis from Execution +-------------------------------------------------- + +The evaluator implemented above is simple, but it is very inefficient, +because the syntactic analysis of expressions is interleaved with their +execution. Thus if a program is executed many times, its syntax is +analyzed many times. Consider, for example, evaluating `(factorial 4)' +using the following definition of `factorial': + + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) + + Each time `factorial' is called, the evaluator must determine that +the body is an `if' expression and extract the predicate. Only then +can it evaluate the predicate and dispatch on its value. Each time it +evaluates the expression `(* (factorial (- n 1)) n)', or the +subexpressions `(factorial (- n 1))' and `(- n 1)', the evaluator must +perform the case analysis in `eval' to determine that the expression is +an application, and must extract its operator and operands. This +analysis is expensive. Performing it repeatedly is wasteful. + + We can transform the evaluator to be significantly more efficient by +arranging things so that syntactic analysis is performed only once.(1) +We split `eval', which takes an expression and an environment, into two +parts. The procedure `analyze' takes only the expression. It performs +the syntactic analysis and returns a new procedure, the "execution +procedure", that encapsulates the work to be done in executing the +analyzed expression. The execution procedure takes an environment as +its argument and completes the evaluation. This saves work because +`analyze' will be called only once on an expression, while the +execution procedure may be called many times. + + With the separation into analysis and execution, `eval' now becomes + + (define (eval exp env) + ((analyze exp) env)) + + The result of calling `analyze' is the execution procedure to be +applied to the environment. The `analyze' procedure is the same case +analysis as performed by the original `eval' of section *Note 4-1-1::, +except that the procedures to which we dispatch perform only analysis, +not full evaluation: + + (define (analyze exp) + (cond ((self-evaluating? exp) + (analyze-self-evaluating exp)) + ((quoted? exp) (analyze-quoted exp)) + ((variable? exp) (analyze-variable exp)) + ((assignment? exp) (analyze-assignment exp)) + ((definition? exp) (analyze-definition exp)) + ((if? exp) (analyze-if exp)) + ((lambda? exp) (analyze-lambda exp)) + ((begin? exp) (analyze-sequence (begin-actions exp))) + ((cond? exp) (analyze (cond->if exp))) + ((application? exp) (analyze-application exp)) + (else + (error "Unknown expression type -- ANALYZE" exp)))) + + Here is the simplest syntactic analysis procedure, which handles +self-evaluating expressions. It returns an execution procedure that +ignores its environment argument and just returns the expression: + + (define (analyze-self-evaluating exp) + (lambda (env) exp)) + + For a quoted expression, we can gain a little efficiency by +extracting the text of the quotation only once, in the analysis phase, +rather than in the execution phase. + + (define (analyze-quoted exp) + (let ((qval (text-of-quotation exp))) + (lambda (env) qval))) + + Looking up a variable value must still be done in the execution +phase, since this depends upon knowing the environment.(2) + + (define (analyze-variable exp) + (lambda (env) (lookup-variable-value exp env))) + + `Analyze-assignment' also must defer actually setting the variable +until the execution, when the environment has been supplied. However, +the fact that the `assignment-value' expression can be analyzed +(recursively) during analysis is a major gain in efficiency, because +the `assignment-value' expression will now be analyzed only once. The +same holds true for definitions. + + (define (analyze-assignment exp) + (let ((var (assignment-variable exp)) + (vproc (analyze (assignment-value exp)))) + (lambda (env) + (set-variable-value! var (vproc env) env) + 'ok))) + + (define (analyze-definition exp) + (let ((var (definition-variable exp)) + (vproc (analyze (definition-value exp)))) + (lambda (env) + (define-variable! var (vproc env) env) + 'ok))) + + For `if' expressions, we extract and analyze the predicate, +consequent, and alternative at analysis time. + + (define (analyze-if exp) + (let ((pproc (analyze (if-predicate exp))) + (cproc (analyze (if-consequent exp))) + (aproc (analyze (if-alternative exp)))) + (lambda (env) + (if (true? (pproc env)) + (cproc env) + (aproc env))))) + + Analyzing a `lambda' expression also achieves a major gain in +efficiency: We analyze the `lambda' body only once, even though +procedures resulting from evaluation of the `lambda' may be applied +many times. + + (define (analyze-lambda exp) + (let ((vars (lambda-parameters exp)) + (bproc (analyze-sequence (lambda-body exp)))) + (lambda (env) (make-procedure vars bproc env)))) + + Analysis of a sequence of expressions (as in a `begin' or the body +of a `lambda' expression) is more involved.(3) Each expression in the +sequence is analyzed, yielding an execution procedure. These execution +procedures are combined to produce an execution procedure that takes an +environment as argument and sequentially calls each individual execution +procedure with the environment as argument. + + (define (analyze-sequence exps) + (define (sequentially proc1 proc2) + (lambda (env) (proc1 env) (proc2 env))) + (define (loop first-proc rest-procs) + (if (null? rest-procs) + first-proc + (loop (sequentially first-proc (car rest-procs)) + (cdr rest-procs)))) + (let ((procs (map analyze exps))) + (if (null? procs) + (error "Empty sequence -- ANALYZE")) + (loop (car procs) (cdr procs)))) + + To analyze an application, we analyze the operator and operands and +construct an execution procedure that calls the operator execution +procedure (to obtain the actual procedure to be applied) and the +operand execution procedures (to obtain the actual arguments). We then +pass these to `execute-application', which is the analog of `apply' in +section *Note 4-1-1::. `Execute-application' differs from `apply' in +that the procedure body for a compound procedure has already been +analyzed, so there is no need to do further analysis. Instead, we just +call the execution procedure for the body on the extended environment. + + (define (analyze-application exp) + (let ((fproc (analyze (operator exp))) + (aprocs (map analyze (operands exp)))) + (lambda (env) + (execute-application (fproc env) + (map (lambda (aproc) (aproc env)) + aprocs))))) + + (define (execute-application proc args) + (cond ((primitive-procedure? proc) + (apply-primitive-procedure proc args)) + ((compound-procedure? proc) + ((procedure-body proc) + (extend-environment (procedure-parameters proc) + args + (procedure-environment proc)))) + (else + (error + "Unknown procedure type -- EXECUTE-APPLICATION" + proc)))) + + Our new evaluator uses the same data structures, syntax procedures, +and run-time support procedures as in sections *Note 4-1-2::, *Note +4-1-3::, and *Note 4-1-4::. + + *Exercise 4.22:* Extend the evaluator in this section to support + the special form `let'. (See *Note Exercise 4-6::.) + + *Exercise 4.23:* Alyssa P. Hacker doesn't understand why + `analyze-sequence' needs to be so complicated. All the other + analysis procedures are straightforward transformations of the + corresponding evaluation procedures (or `eval' clauses) in section + *Note 4-1-1::. She expected `analyze-sequence' to look like this: + + (define (analyze-sequence exps) + (define (execute-sequence procs env) + (cond ((null? (cdr procs)) ((car procs) env)) + (else ((car procs) env) + (execute-sequence (cdr procs) env)))) + (let ((procs (map analyze exps))) + (if (null? procs) + (error "Empty sequence -- ANALYZE")) + (lambda (env) (execute-sequence procs env)))) + + Eva Lu Ator explains to Alyssa that the version in the text does + more of the work of evaluating a sequence at analysis time. + Alyssa's sequence-execution procedure, rather than having the + calls to the individual execution procedures built in, loops + through the procedures in order to call them: In effect, although + the individual expressions in the sequence have been analyzed, the + sequence itself has not been. + + Compare the two versions of `analyze-sequence'. For example, + consider the common case (typical of procedure bodies) where the + sequence has just one expression. What work will the execution + procedure produced by Alyssa's program do? What about the + execution procedure produced by the program in the text above? + How do the two versions compare for a sequence with two + expressions? + + *Exercise 4.24:* Design and carry out some experiments to compare + the speed of the original metacircular evaluator with the version + in this section. Use your results to estimate the fraction of time + that is spent in analysis versus execution for various procedures. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This technique is an integral part of the compilation process, +which we shall discuss in *Note Chapter 5::. Jonathan Rees wrote a +Scheme interpreter like this in about 1982 for the T project (Rees and +Adams 1982). Marc Feeley (1986) (see also Feeley and Lapalme 1987) +independently invented this technique in his master's thesis. + + (2) There is, however, an important part of the variable search that +_can_ be done as part of the syntactic analysis. As we will show in +section *Note 5-5-6::, one can determine the position in the +environment structure where the value of the variable will be found, +thus obviating the need to scan the environment for the entry that +matches the variable. + + (3) See *Note Exercise 4-23:: for some insight into the processing +of sequences. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-2, Next: 4-3, Prev: 4-1, Up: Chapter 4 + +4.2 Variations on a Scheme - Lazy Evaluation +============================================ + +Now that we have an evaluator expressed as a Lisp program, we can +experiment with alternative choices in language design simply by +modifying the evaluator. Indeed, new languages are often invented by +first writing an evaluator that embeds the new language within an +existing high-level language. For example, if we wish to discuss some +aspect of a proposed modification to Lisp with another member of the +Lisp community, we can supply an evaluator that embodies the change. +The recipient can then experiment with the new evaluator and send back +comments as further modifications. Not only does the high-level +implementation base make it easier to test and debug the evaluator; in +addition, the embedding enables the designer to snarf(1) features from +the underlying language, just as our embedded Lisp evaluator uses +primitives and control structure from the underlying Lisp. Only later +(if ever) need the designer go to the trouble of building a complete +implementation in a low-level language or in hardware. In this section +and the next we explore some variations on Scheme that provide +significant additional expressive power. + +* Menu: + +* 4-2-1:: Normal Order and Applicative Order +* 4-2-2:: An Interpreter with Lazy Evaluation +* 4-2-3:: Streams as Lazy Lists + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Snarf: "To grab, especially a large document or file for the +purpose of using it either with or without the owner's permission." +Snarf down: "To snarf, sometimes with the connotation of absorbing, +processing, or understanding." (These definitions were snarfed from +Steele et al. 1983. See also Raymond 1993.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-2-1, Next: 4-2-2, Prev: 4-2, Up: 4-2 + +4.2.1 Normal Order and Applicative Order +---------------------------------------- + +In section *Note 1-1::, where we began our discussion of models of +evaluation, we noted that Scheme is an "applicative-order" language, +namely, that all the arguments to Scheme procedures are evaluated when +the procedure is applied. In contrast, "normal-order" languages delay +evaluation of procedure arguments until the actual argument values are +needed. Delaying evaluation of procedure arguments until the last +possible moment (e.g., until they are required by a primitive +operation) is called evaluation "lazy evaluation".(1) Consider the +procedure + + (define (try a b) + (if (= a 0) 1 b)) + + Evaluating `(try 0 (/ 1 0))' generates an error in Scheme. With lazy +evaluation, there would be no error. Evaluating the expression would +return 1, because the argument `(/ 1 0)' would never be evaluated. + + An example that exploits lazy evaluation is the definition of a +procedure `unless' + + (define (unless condition usual-value exceptional-value) + (if condition exceptional-value usual-value)) + +that can be used in expressions such as + + (unless (= b 0) + (/ a b) + (begin (display "exception: returning 0") + 0)) + + This won't work in an applicative-order language because both the +usual value and the exceptional value will be evaluated before `unless' +is called (compare *Note Exercise 1-6::). An advantage of lazy +evaluation is that some procedures, such as `unless', can do useful +computation even if evaluation of some of their arguments would produce +errors or would not terminate. + + If the body of a procedure is entered before an argument has been +evaluated we say that the procedure is "non-strict" in that argument. +If the argument is evaluated before the body of the procedure is +entered we say that the procedure is "strict" in that argument.(2) In +a purely applicative-order language, all procedures are strict in each +argument. In a purely normal-order language, all compound procedures +are non-strict in each argument, and primitive procedures may be either +strict or non-strict. There are also languages (see *Note Exercise +4-31::) that give programmers detailed control over the strictness of +the procedures they define. + + A striking example of a procedure that can usefully be made +non-strict is `cons' (or, in general, almost any constructor for data +structures). One can do useful computation, combining elements to form +data structures and operating on the resulting data structures, even if +the values of the elements are not known. It makes perfect sense, for +instance, to compute the length of a list without knowing the values of +the individual elements in the list. We will exploit this idea in +section *Note 4-2-3:: to implement the streams of *Note Chapter 3:: as +lists formed of non-strict `cons' pairs. + + *Exercise 4.25:* Suppose that (in ordinary applicative-order + Scheme) we define `unless' as shown above and then define + `factorial' in terms of `unless' as + + (define (factorial n) + (unless (= n 1) + (* n (factorial (- n 1))) + 1)) + + What happens if we attempt to evaluate `(factorial 5)'? Will our + definitions work in a normal-order language? + + *Exercise 4.26:* Ben Bitdiddle and Alyssa P. Hacker disagree over + the importance of lazy evaluation for implementing things such as + `unless'. Ben points out that it's possible to implement `unless' + in applicative order as a special form. Alyssa counters that, if + one did that, `unless' would be merely syntax, not a procedure + that could be used in conjunction with higher-order procedures. + Fill in the details on both sides of the argument. Show how to + implement `unless' as a derived expression (like `cond' or `let'), + and give an example of a situation where it might be useful to + have `unless' available as a procedure, rather than as a special + form. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The difference between the "lazy" terminology and the +"normal-order" terminology is somewhat fuzzy. Generally, "lazy" refers +to the mechanisms of particular evaluators, while "normal-order" refers +to the semantics of languages, independent of any particular evaluation +strategy. But this is not a hard-and-fast distinction, and the two +terminologies are often used interchangeably. + + (2) The "strict" versus "non-strict" terminology means essentially +the same thing as "applicative-order" versus "normal-order," except +that it refers to individual procedures and arguments rather than to +the language as a whole. At a conference on programming languages you +might hear someone say, "The normal-order language Hassle has certain +strict primitives. Other procedures take their arguments by lazy +evaluation." + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-2-2, Next: 4-2-3, Prev: 4-2-1, Up: 4-2 + +4.2.2 An Interpreter with Lazy Evaluation +----------------------------------------- + +In this section we will implement a normal-order language that is the +same as Scheme except that compound procedures are non-strict in each +argument. Primitive procedures will still be strict. It is not +difficult to modify the evaluator of section *Note 4-1-1:: so that the +language it interprets behaves this way. Almost all the required +changes center around procedure application. + + The basic idea is that, when applying a procedure, the interpreter +must determine which arguments are to be evaluated and which are to be +delayed. The delayed arguments are not evaluated; instead, they are +transformed into objects called "thunks".(1) The thunk must contain the +information required to produce the value of the argument when it is +needed, as if it had been evaluated at the time of the application. +Thus, the thunk must contain the argument expression and the +environment in which the procedure application is being evaluated. + + The process of evaluating the expression in a thunk is called "forcing".(2) +In general, a thunk will be forced only when its value is needed: when +it is passed to a primitive procedure that will use the value of the +thunk; when it is the value of a predicate of a conditional; and when +it is the value of an operator that is about to be applied as a +procedure. One design choice we have available is whether or not to "memoize" +thunks, as we did with delayed objects in section *Note 3-5-1::. With +memoization, the first time a thunk is forced, it stores the value that +is computed. Subsequent forcings simply return the stored value +without repeating the computation. We'll make our interpreter memoize, +because this is more efficient for many applications. There are tricky +considerations here, however.(3) + +Modifying the evaluator +....................... + +The main difference between the lazy evaluator and the one in section +*Note 4-1:: is in the handling of procedure applications in `eval' and +`apply'. + + The `application?' clause of `eval' becomes + + ((application? exp) + (apply (actual-value (operator exp) env) + (operands exp) + env)) + + This is almost the same as the `application?' clause of `eval' in +section *Note 4-1-1::. For lazy evaluation, however, we call `apply' +with the operand expressions, rather than the arguments produced by +evaluating them. Since we will need the environment to construct +thunks if the arguments are to be delayed, we must pass this as well. +We still evaluate the operator, because `apply' needs the actual +procedure to be applied in order to dispatch on its type (primitive +versus compound) and apply it. + + Whenever we need the actual value of an expression, we use + + (define (actual-value exp env) + (force-it (eval exp env))) + +instead of just `eval', so that if the expression's value is a thunk, it +will be forced. + + Our new version of `apply' is also almost the same as the version in +section *Note 4-1-1::. The difference is that `eval' has passed in +unevaluated operand expressions: For primitive procedures (which are +strict), we evaluate all the arguments before applying the primitive; +for compound procedures (which are non-strict) we delay all the +arguments before applying the procedure. + + (define (apply procedure arguments env) + (cond ((primitive-procedure? procedure) + (apply-primitive-procedure + procedure + (list-of-arg-values arguments env))) ; changed + ((compound-procedure? procedure) + (eval-sequence + (procedure-body procedure) + (extend-environment + (procedure-parameters procedure) + (list-of-delayed-args arguments env) ; changed + (procedure-environment procedure)))) + (else + (error + "Unknown procedure type -- APPLY" procedure)))) + + The procedures that process the arguments are just like +`list-of-values' from section *Note 4-1-1::, except that +`list-of-delayed-args' delays the arguments instead of evaluating them, +and `list-of-arg-values' uses `actual-value' instead of `eval': + + (define (list-of-arg-values exps env) + (if (no-operands? exps) + '() + (cons (actual-value (first-operand exps) env) + (list-of-arg-values (rest-operands exps) + env)))) + + (define (list-of-delayed-args exps env) + (if (no-operands? exps) + '() + (cons (delay-it (first-operand exps) env) + (list-of-delayed-args (rest-operands exps) + env)))) + + The other place we must change the evaluator is in the handling of +`if', where we must use `actual-value' instead of `eval' to get the +value of the predicate expression before testing whether it is true or +false: + + (define (eval-if exp env) + (if (true? (actual-value (if-predicate exp) env)) + (eval (if-consequent exp) env) + (eval (if-alternative exp) env))) + + Finally, we must change the `driver-loop' procedure (section *Note +4-1-4::) to use `actual-value' instead of `eval', so that if a delayed +value is propagated back to the read-eval-print loop, it will be forced +before being printed. We also change the prompts to indicate that this +is the lazy evaluator: + + (define input-prompt ";;; L-Eval input:") + (define output-prompt ";;; L-Eval value:") + + (define (driver-loop) + (prompt-for-input input-prompt) + (let ((input (read))) + (let ((output + (actual-value input the-global-environment))) + (announce-output output-prompt) + (user-print output))) + (driver-loop)) + + With these changes made, we can start the evaluator and test it. The +successful evaluation of the `try' expression discussed in section +*Note 4-2-1:: indicates that the interpreter is performing lazy +evaluation: + + (define the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + + (driver-loop) + + ;;; L-Eval input: + (define (try a b) + (if (= a 0) 1 b)) + ;;; L-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; L-Eval input: + (try 0 (/ 1 0)) + ;;; L-Eval value: + 1 + +Representing thunks +................... + +Our evaluator must arrange to create thunks when procedures are applied +to arguments and to force these thunks later. A thunk must package an +expression together with the environment, so that the argument can be +produced later. To force the thunk, we simply extract the expression +and environment from the thunk and evaluate the expression in the +environment. We use `actual-value' rather than `eval' so that in case +the value of the expression is itself a thunk, we will force that, and +so on, until we reach something that is not a thunk: + + (define (force-it obj) + (if (thunk? obj) + (actual-value (thunk-exp obj) (thunk-env obj)) + obj)) + + One easy way to package an expression with an environment is to make +a list containing the expression and the environment. Thus, we create +a thunk as follows: + + (define (delay-it exp env) + (list 'thunk exp env)) + + (define (thunk? obj) + (tagged-list? obj 'thunk)) + + (define (thunk-exp thunk) (cadr thunk)) + + (define (thunk-env thunk) (caddr thunk)) + + Actually, what we want for our interpreter is not quite this, but +rather thunks that have been memoized. When a thunk is forced, we will +turn it into an evaluated thunk by replacing the stored expression with +its value and changing the `thunk' tag so that it can be recognized as +already evaluated.(4) + + (define (evaluated-thunk? obj) + (tagged-list? obj 'evaluated-thunk)) + + (define (thunk-value evaluated-thunk) (cadr evaluated-thunk)) + + (define (force-it obj) + (cond ((thunk? obj) + (let ((result (actual-value + (thunk-exp obj) + (thunk-env obj)))) + (set-car! obj 'evaluated-thunk) + (set-car! (cdr obj) result) ; replace `exp' with its value + (set-cdr! (cdr obj) '()) ; forget unneeded `env' + result)) + ((evaluated-thunk? obj) + (thunk-value obj)) + (else obj))) + + Notice that the same `delay-it' procedure works both with and without +memoization. + + *Exercise 4.27:* Suppose we type in the following definitions to + the lazy evaluator: + + (define count 0) + + (define (id x) + (set! count (+ count 1)) + x) + + Give the missing values in the following sequence of interactions, + and explain your answers.(5) + + (define w (id (id 10))) + + ;;; L-Eval input: + count + ;;; L-Eval value: + <RESPONSE> + + ;;; L-Eval input: + w + ;;; L-Eval value: + <RESPONSE> + + ;;; L-Eval input: + count + ;;; L-Eval value: + <RESPONSE> + + *Exercise 4.28:* `Eval' uses `actual-value' rather than `eval' to + evaluate the operator before passing it to `apply', in order to + force the value of the operator. Give an example that + demonstrates the need for this forcing. + + *Exercise 4.29:* Exhibit a program that you would expect to run + much more slowly without memoization than with memoization. Also, + consider the following interaction, where the `id' procedure is + defined as in *Note Exercise 4-27:: and `count' starts at 0: + + (define (square x) + (* x x)) + + ;;; L-Eval input: + (square (id 10)) + ;;; L-Eval value: + <RESPONSE> + + ;;; L-Eval input: + count + ;;; L-Eval value: + <RESPONSE> + + Give the responses both when the evaluator memoizes and when it + does not. + + *Exercise 4.30:* Cy D. Fect, a reformed C programmer, is worried + that some side effects may never take place, because the lazy + evaluator doesn't force the expressions in a sequence. Since the + value of an expression in a sequence other than the last one is + not used (the expression is there only for its effect, such as + assigning to a variable or printing), there can be no subsequent + use of this value (e.g., as an argument to a primitive procedure) + that will cause it to be forced. Cy thus thinks that when + evaluating sequences, we must force all expressions in the + sequence except the final one. He proposes to modify + `eval-sequence' from section *Note 4-1-1:: to use `actual-value' + rather than `eval': + + (define (eval-sequence exps env) + (cond ((last-exp? exps) (eval (first-exp exps) env)) + (else (actual-value (first-exp exps) env) + (eval-sequence (rest-exps exps) env)))) + + a. Ben Bitdiddle thinks Cy is wrong. He shows Cy the `for-each' + procedure described in *Note Exercise 2-23::, which gives an + important example of a sequence with side effects: + + (define (for-each proc items) + (if (null? items) + 'done + (begin (proc (car items)) + (for-each proc (cdr items))))) + + He claims that the evaluator in the text (with the original + `eval-sequence') handles this correctly: + + ;;; L-Eval input: + (for-each (lambda (x) (newline) (display x)) + (list 57 321 88)) + 57 + 321 + 88 + ;;; L-Eval value: + done + + Explain why Ben is right about the behavior of `for-each'. + + b. Cy agrees that Ben is right about the `for-each' example, but + says that that's not the kind of program he was thinking + about when he proposed his change to `eval-sequence'. He + defines the following two procedures in the lazy evaluator: + + (define (p1 x) + (set! x (cons x '(2))) + x) + + (define (p2 x) + (define (p e) + e + x) + (p (set! x (cons x '(2))))) + + What are the values of `(p1 1)' and `(p2 1)' with the original + `eval-sequence'? What would the values be with Cy's proposed + change to `eval-sequence'? + + c. Cy also points out that changing `eval-sequence' as he + proposes does not affect the behavior of the example in part + a. Explain why this is true. + + d. How do you think sequences ought to be treated in the lazy + evaluator? Do you like Cy's approach, the approach in the + text, or some other approach? + + + *Exercise 4.31:* The approach taken in this section is somewhat + unpleasant, because it makes an incompatible change to Scheme. It + might be nicer to implement lazy evaluation as an "upward-compatible + extension", that is, so that ordinary Scheme programs will work as + before. We can do this by extending the syntax of procedure + declarations to let the user control whether or not arguments are + to be delayed. While we're at it, we may as well also give the + user the choice between delaying with and without memoization. + For example, the definition + + (define (f a (b lazy) c (d lazy-memo)) + ...) + + would define `f' to be a procedure of four arguments, where the + first and third arguments are evaluated when the procedure is + called, the second argument is delayed, and the fourth argument is + both delayed and memoized. Thus, ordinary procedure definitions + will produce the same behavior as ordinary Scheme, while adding + the `lazy-memo' declaration to each parameter of every compound + procedure will produce the behavior of the lazy evaluator defined + in this section. Design and implement the changes required to + produce such an extension to Scheme. You will have to implement + new syntax procedures to handle the new syntax for `define'. You + must also arrange for `eval' or `apply' to determine when + arguments are to be delayed, and to force or delay arguments + accordingly, and you must arrange for forcing to memoize or not, + as appropriate. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The word "thunk" was invented by an informal working group that +was discussing the implementation of call-by-name in Algol 60. They +observed that most of the analysis of ("thinking about") the expression +could be done at compile time; thus, at run time, the expression would +already have been "thunk" about (Ingerman et al. 1960). + + (2) This is analogous to the use of `force' on the delayed objects +that were introduced in *Note Chapter 3:: to represent streams. The +critical difference between what we are doing here and what we did in +*Note Chapter 3:: is that we are building delaying and forcing into the +evaluator, and thus making this uniform and automatic throughout the +language. + + (3) Lazy evaluation combined with memoization is sometimes referred +to as "call-by-need" argument passing, in contrast to "call-by-name" +argument passing. (Call-by-name, introduced in Algol 60, is similar to +non-memoized lazy evaluation.) As language designers, we can build our +evaluator to memoize, not to memoize, or leave this an option for +programmers (*Note Exercise 4-31::). As you might expect from *Note +Chapter 3::, these choices raise issues that become both subtle and +confusing in the presence of assignments. (See *Note Exercise 4-27:: +and *Note Exercise 4-29::.) An excellent article by Clinger (1982) +attempts to clarify the multiple dimensions of confusion that arise +here. + + (4) Notice that we also erase the `env' from the thunk once the +expression's value has been computed. This makes no difference in the +values returned by the interpreter. It does help save space, however, +because removing the reference from the thunk to the `env' once it is +no longer needed allows this structure to be "garbage-collected" and +its space recycled, as we will discuss in section *Note 5-3::. + + Similarly, we could have allowed unneeded environments in the +memoized delayed objects of section *Note 3-5-1:: to be +garbage-collected, by having `memo-proc' do something like `(set! proc +'())' to discard the procedure `proc' (which includes the environment +in which the `delay' was evaluated) after storing its value. + + (5) This exercise demonstrates that the interaction between lazy +evaluation and side effects can be very confusing. This is just what +you might expect from the discussion in *Note Chapter 3::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-2-3, Prev: 4-2-2, Up: 4-2 + +4.2.3 Streams as Lazy Lists +--------------------------- + +In section *Note 3-5-1::, we showed how to implement streams as delayed +lists. We introduced special forms `delay' and `cons-stream', which +allowed us to construct a "promise" to compute the `cdr' of a stream, +without actually fulfilling that promise until later. We could use +this general technique of introducing special forms whenever we need +more control over the evaluation process, but this is awkward. For one +thing, a special form is not a first-class object like a procedure, so +we cannot use it together with higher-order procedures.(1) +Additionally, we were forced to create streams as a new kind of data +object similar but not identical to lists, and this required us to +reimplement many ordinary list operations (`map', `append', and so on) +for use with streams. + + With lazy evaluation, streams and lists can be identical, so there +is no need for special forms or for separate list and stream +operations. All we need to do is to arrange matters so that `cons' is +non-strict. One way to accomplish this is to extend the lazy evaluator +to allow for non-strict primitives, and to implement `cons' as one of +these. An easier way is to recall (section *Note 2-1-3::) that there +is no fundamental need to implement `cons' as a primitive at all. +Instead, we can represent pairs as procedures:(2) + + (define (cons x y) + (lambda (m) (m x y))) + + (define (car z) + (z (lambda (p q) p))) + + (define (cdr z) + (z (lambda (p q) q))) + + In terms of these basic operations, the standard definitions of the +list operations will work with infinite lists (streams) as well as +finite ones, and the stream operations can be implemented as list +operations. Here are some examples: + + (define (list-ref items n) + (if (= n 0) + (car items) + (list-ref (cdr items) (- n 1)))) + + (define (map proc items) + (if (null? items) + '() + (cons (proc (car items)) + (map proc (cdr items))))) + + (define (scale-list items factor) + (map (lambda (x) (* x factor)) + items)) + + (define (add-lists list1 list2) + (cond ((null? list1) list2) + ((null? list2) list1) + (else (cons (+ (car list1) (car list2)) + (add-lists (cdr list1) (cdr list2)))))) + + (define ones (cons 1 ones)) + + (define integers (cons 1 (add-lists ones integers))) + + ;;; L-Eval input: + (list-ref integers 17) + ;;; L-Eval value: + 18 + + Note that these lazy lists are even lazier than the streams of *Note +Chapter 3::: The `car' of the list, as well as the `cdr', is +delayed.(3) In fact, even accessing the `car' or `cdr' of a lazy pair +need not force the value of a list element. The value will be forced +only when it is really needed - e.g., for use as the argument of a +primitive, or to be printed as an answer. + + Lazy pairs also help with the problem that arose with streams in +section *Note 3-5-4::, where we found that formulating stream models of +systems with loops may require us to sprinkle our programs with +explicit `delay' operations, beyond the ones supplied by `cons-stream'. +With lazy evaluation, all arguments to procedures are delayed +uniformly. For instance, we can implement procedures to integrate +lists and solve differential equations as we originally intended in +section *Note 3-5-4::: + + (define (integral integrand initial-value dt) + (define int + (cons initial-value + (add-lists (scale-list integrand dt) + int))) + int) + + (define (solve f y0 dt) + (define y (integral dy y0 dt)) + (define dy (map f y)) + y) + + ;;; L-Eval input: + (list-ref (solve (lambda (x) x) 1 0.001) 1000) + ;;; L-Eval value: + 2.716924 + + *Exercise 4.32:* Give some examples that illustrate the difference + between the streams of *Note Chapter 3:: and the "lazier" lazy + lists described in this section. How can you take advantage of + this extra laziness? + + *Exercise 4.33:* Ben Bitdiddle tests the lazy list implementation + given above by evaluating the expression + + (car '(a b c)) + + To his surprise, this produces an error. After some thought, he + realizes that the "lists" obtained by reading in quoted + expressions are different from the lists manipulated by the new + definitions of `cons', `car', and `cdr'. Modify the evaluator's + treatment of quoted expressions so that quoted lists typed at the + driver loop will produce true lazy lists. + + *Exercise 4.34:* Modify the driver loop for the evaluator so that + lazy pairs and lists will print in some reasonable way. (What are + you going to do about infinite lists?) You may also need to modify + the representation of lazy pairs so that the evaluator can + identify them in order to print them. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This is precisely the issue with the `unless' procedure, as in +*Note Exercise 4-26::. + + (2) This is the procedural representation described in *Note +Exercise 2-4::. Essentially any procedural representation (e.g., a +message-passing implementation) would do as well. Notice that we can +install these definitions in the lazy evaluator simply by typing them +at the driver loop. If we had originally included `cons', `car', and +`cdr' as primitives in the global environment, they will be redefined. +(Also see *Note Exercise 4-33:: and *Note Exercise 4-34::.) + + (3) This permits us to create delayed versions of more general kinds +of list structures, not just sequences. Hughes 1990 discusses some +applications of "lazy trees." + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-3, Next: 4-4, Prev: 4-2, Up: Chapter 4 + +4.3 Variations on a Scheme - Nondeterministic Computing +======================================================= + +In this section, we extend the Scheme evaluator to support a programming +paradigm called "nondeterministic computing" by building into the +evaluator a facility to support automatic search. This is a much more +profound change to the language than the introduction of lazy +evaluation in section *Note 4-2::. + + Nondeterministic computing, like stream processing, is useful for +"generate and test" applications. Consider the task of starting with +two lists of positive integers and finding a pair of integers--one from +the first list and one from the second list--whose sum is prime. We +saw how to handle this with finite sequence operations in section *Note +2-2-3:: and with infinite streams in section *Note 3-5-3::. Our +approach was to generate the sequence of all possible pairs and filter +these to select the pairs whose sum is prime. Whether we actually +generate the entire sequence of pairs first as in *Note Chapter 2::, or +interleave the generating and filtering as in *Note Chapter 3::, is +immaterial to the essential image of how the computation is organized. + + The nondeterministic approach evokes a different image. Imagine +simply that we choose (in some way) a number from the first list and a +number from the second list and require (using some mechanism) that +their sum be prime. This is expressed by following procedure: + + (define (prime-sum-pair list1 list2) + (let ((a (an-element-of list1)) + (b (an-element-of list2))) + (require (prime? (+ a b))) + (list a b))) + + It might seem as if this procedure merely restates the problem, +rather than specifying a way to solve it. Nevertheless, this is a +legitimate nondeterministic program.(1) + + The key idea here is that expressions in a nondeterministic language +can have more than one possible value. For instance, `an-element-of' +might return any element of the given list. Our nondeterministic +program evaluator will work by automatically choosing a possible value +and keeping track of the choice. If a subsequent requirement is not +met, the evaluator will try a different choice, and it will keep trying +new choices until the evaluation succeeds, or until we run out of +choices. Just as the lazy evaluator freed the programmer from the +details of how values are delayed and forced, the nondeterministic +program evaluator will free the programmer from the details of how +choices are made. + + It is instructive to contrast the different images of time evoked by +nondeterministic evaluation and stream processing. Stream processing +uses lazy evaluation to decouple the time when the stream of possible +answers is assembled from the time when the actual stream elements are +produced. The evaluator supports the illusion that all the possible +answers are laid out before us in a timeless sequence. With +nondeterministic evaluation, an expression represents the exploration +of a set of possible worlds, each determined by a set of choices. Some +of the possible worlds lead to dead ends, while others have useful +values. The nondeterministic program evaluator supports the illusion +that time branches, and that our programs have different possible +execution histories. When we reach a dead end, we can revisit a +previous choice point and proceed along a different branch. + + The nondeterministic program evaluator implemented below is called +the `amb' evaluator because it is based on a new special form called +`amb'. We can type the above definition of `prime-sum-pair' at the +`amb' evaluator driver loop (along with definitions of `prime?', +`an-element-of', and `require') and run the procedure as follows: + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + (prime-sum-pair '(1 3 5 8) '(20 35 110)) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (3 20) + + The value returned was obtained after the evaluator repeatedly chose +elements from each of the lists, until a successful choice was made. + + Section *Note 4-3-1:: introduces `amb' and explains how it supports +nondeterminism through the evaluator's automatic search mechanism. +Section *Note 4-3-2:: presents examples of nondeterministic programs, +and section *Note 4-3-3:: gives the details of how to implement the +`amb' evaluator by modifying the ordinary Scheme evaluator. + +* Menu: + +* 4-3-1:: Amb and Search +* 4-3-2:: Examples of Nondeterministic Programs +* 4-3-3:: Implementing the `Amb' Evaluator + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We assume that we have previously defined a procedure `prime?' +that tests whether numbers are prime. Even with `prime?' defined, the +`prime-sum-pair' procedure may look suspiciously like the unhelpful +"pseudo-Lisp" attempt to define the square-root function, which we +described at the beginning of section *Note 1-1-7::. In fact, a +square-root procedure along those lines can actually be formulated as a +nondeterministic program. By incorporating a search mechanism into the +evaluator, we are eroding the distinction between purely declarative +descriptions and imperative specifications of how to compute answers. +We'll go even farther in this direction in section *Note 4-4::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-3-1, Next: 4-3-2, Prev: 4-3, Up: 4-3 + +4.3.1 Amb and Search +-------------------- + +To extend Scheme to support nondeterminism, we introduce a new special +form called `amb'.(1) The expression + + (amb <E_1> <E_2> ... <E_N>) + +returns the value of one of the n expressions <E_I> "ambiguously." For +example, the expression + + (list (amb 1 2 3) (amb 'a 'b)) + +can have six possible values: + + `(1 a)' `(1 b)' `(2 a)' `(2 b)' `(3 a)' `(3 b)' + + `Amb' with a single choice produces an ordinary (single) value. + + `Amb' with no choices--the expression `(amb)'--is an expression with +no acceptable values. Operationally, we can think of `(amb)' as an +expression that when evaluated causes the computation to "fail": The +computation aborts and no value is produced. Using this idea, we can +express the requirement that a particular predicate expression `p' must +be true as follows: + + (define (require p) + (if (not p) (amb))) + + With `amb' and `require', we can implement the `an-element-of' +procedure used above: + + (define (an-element-of items) + (require (not (null? items))) + (amb (car items) (an-element-of (cdr items)))) + + `An-element-of' fails if the list is empty. Otherwise it ambiguously +returns either the first element of the list or an element chosen from +the rest of the list. + + We can also express infinite ranges of choices. The following +procedure potentially returns any integer greater than or equal to some +given n: + + (define (an-integer-starting-from n) + (amb n (an-integer-starting-from (+ n 1)))) + + This is like the stream procedure `integers-starting-from' described +in section *Note 3-5-2::, but with an important difference: The stream +procedure returns an object that represents the sequence of all +integers beginning with n, whereas the `amb' procedure returns a single +integer.(2) + + Abstractly, we can imagine that evaluating an `amb' expression +causes time to split into branches, where the computation continues on +each branch with one of the possible values of the expression. We say +that `amb' represents a "nondeterministic choice point". If we had a +machine with a sufficient number of processors that could be +dynamically allocated, we could implement the search in a +straightforward way. Execution would proceed as in a sequential +machine, until an `amb' expression is encountered. At this point, more +processors would be allocated and initialized to continue all of the +parallel executions implied by the choice. Each processor would proceed +sequentially as if it were the only choice, until it either terminates +by encountering a failure, or it further subdivides, or it finishes.(3) + + On the other hand, if we have a machine that can execute only one +process (or a few concurrent processes), we must consider the +alternatives sequentially. One could imagine modifying an evaluator to +pick at random a branch to follow whenever it encounters a choice +point. Random choice, however, can easily lead to failing values. We +might try running the evaluator over and over, making random choices +and hoping to find a non-failing value, but it is better to "systematically +search" all possible execution paths. The `amb' evaluator that we will +develop and work with in this section implements a systematic search as +follows: When the evaluator encounters an application of `amb', it +initially selects the first alternative. This selection may itself +lead to a further choice. The evaluator will always initially choose +the first alternative at each choice point. If a choice results in a +failure, then the evaluator automagically(4) "backtracks" to the most +recent choice point and tries the next alternative. If it runs out of +alternatives at any choice point, the evaluator will back up to the +previous choice point and resume from there. This process leads to a +search strategy known as "depth-first search" or backtracking +"chronological backtracking".(5) + +Driver loop +........... + +The driver loop for the `amb' evaluator has some unusual properties. It +reads an expression and prints the value of the first non-failing +execution, as in the `prime-sum-pair' example shown above. If we want +to see the value of the next successful execution, we can ask the +interpreter to backtrack and attempt to generate a second non-failing +execution. This is signaled by typing the symbol `try-again'. If any +expression except `try-again' is given, the interpreter will start a +new problem, discarding the unexplored alternatives in the previous +problem. Here is a sample interaction: + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + (prime-sum-pair '(1 3 5 8) '(20 35 110)) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (3 20) + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + try-again + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (3 110) + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + try-again + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (8 35) + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + try-again + ;;; There are no more values of + (prime-sum-pair (quote (1 3 5 8)) (quote (20 35 110))) + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + (prime-sum-pair '(19 27 30) '(11 36 58)) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (30 11) + + *Exercise 4.35:* Write a procedure `an-integer-between' that + returns an integer between two given bounds. This can be used to + implement a procedure that finds Pythagorean triples, i.e., + triples of integers (i,j,k) between the given bounds such that i + <= j and i^2 + j^2 = k^2, as follows: + + (define (a-pythagorean-triple-between low high) + (let ((i (an-integer-between low high))) + (let ((j (an-integer-between i high))) + (let ((k (an-integer-between j high))) + (require (= (+ (* i i) (* j j)) (* k k))) + (list i j k))))) + + *Exercise 4.36:* *Note Exercise 3-69:: discussed how to generate + the stream of _all_ Pythagorean triples, with no upper bound on + the size of the integers to be searched. Explain why simply + replacing `an-integer-between' by `an-integer-starting-from' in + the procedure in *Note Exercise 4-35:: is not an adequate way to + generate arbitrary Pythagorean triples. Write a procedure that + actually will accomplish this. (That is, write a procedure for + which repeatedly typing `try-again' would in principle eventually + generate all Pythagorean triples.) + + *Exercise 4.37:* Ben Bitdiddle claims that the following method + for generating Pythagorean triples is more efficient than the one + in *Note Exercise 4-35::. Is he correct? (Hint: Consider the + number of possibilities that must be explored.) + + (define (a-pythagorean-triple-between low high) + (let ((i (an-integer-between low high)) + (hsq (* high high))) + (let ((j (an-integer-between i high))) + (let ((ksq (+ (* i i) (* j j)))) + (require (>= hsq ksq)) + (let ((k (sqrt ksq))) + (require (integer? k)) + (list i j k)))))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) The idea of `amb' for nondeterministic programming was first +described in 1961 by John McCarthy (see McCarthy 1967). + + (2) In actuality, the distinction between nondeterministically +returning a single choice and returning all choices depends somewhat on +our point of view. From the perspective of the code that uses the +value, the nondeterministic choice returns a single value. From the +perspective of the programmer designing the code, the nondeterministic +choice potentially returns all possible values, and the computation +branches so that each value is investigated separately. + + (3) One might object that this is a hopelessly inefficient +mechanism. It might require millions of processors to solve some +easily stated problem this way, and most of the time most of those +processors would be idle. This objection should be taken in the +context of history. Memory used to be considered just such an +expensive commodity. In 1964 a megabyte of RAM cost about $400,000. +Now every personal computer has many megabytes of RAM, and most of the +time most of that RAM is unused. It is hard to underestimate the cost +of mass-produced electronics. + + (4) Automagically: "Automatically, but in a way which, for some +reason (typically because it is too complicated, or too ugly, or +perhaps even too trivial), the speaker doesn't feel like explaining." +(Steele 1983, Raymond 1993) + + (5) [Footnote 4.47] The integration of automatic search strategies +into programming languages has had a long and checkered history. The +first suggestions that nondeterministic algorithms might be elegantly +encoded in a programming language with search and automatic +backtracking came from Robert Floyd (1967). Carl Hewitt (1969) +invented a programming language called Planner that explicitly +supported automatic chronological backtracking, providing for a +built-in depth-first search strategy. Sussman, Winograd, and Charniak +(1971) implemented a subset of this language, called MicroPlanner, +which was used to support work in problem solving and robot planning. +Similar ideas, arising from logic and theorem proving, led to the +genesis in Edinburgh and Marseille of the elegant language Prolog +(which we will discuss in section *Note 4-4::). After sufficient +frustration with automatic search, McDermott and Sussman (1972) +developed a language called Conniver, which included mechanisms for +placing the search strategy under programmer control. This proved +unwieldy, however, and Sussman and Stallman (1975) found a more +tractable approach while investigating methods of symbolic analysis for +electrical circuits. They developed a non-chronological backtracking +scheme that was based on tracing out the logical dependencies +connecting facts, a technique that has come to be known as "dependency-directed +backtracking". Although their method was complex, it produced +reasonably efficient programs because it did little redundant search. +Doyle (1979) and McAllester (1978, 1980) generalized and clarified the +methods of Stallman and Sussman, developing a new paradigm for +formulating search that is now called "truth maintenance". Modern +problem-solving systems all use some form of truth-maintenance system +as a substrate. See Forbus and deKleer 1993 for a discussion of +elegant ways to build truth-maintenance systems and applications using +truth maintenance. Zabih, McAllester, and Chapman 1987 describes a +nondeterministic extension to Scheme that is based on `amb'; it is +similar to the interpreter described in this section, but more +sophisticated, because it uses dependency-directed backtracking rather +than chronological backtracking. Winston 1992 gives an introduction to +both kinds of backtracking. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-3-2, Next: 4-3-3, Prev: 4-3-1, Up: 4-3 + +4.3.2 Examples of Nondeterministic Programs +------------------------------------------- + +Section *Note 4-3-3:: describes the implementation of the `amb' +evaluator. First, however, we give some examples of how it can be +used. The advantage of nondeterministic programming is that we can +suppress the details of how search is carried out, thereby expressing +our programs at a higher level of abstraction. + +Logic Puzzles +............. + +The following puzzle (taken from Dinesman 1968) is typical of a large +class of simple logic puzzles: + + Baker, Cooper, Fletcher, Miller, and Smith live on different + floors of an apartment house that contains only five floors. + Baker does not live on the top floor. Cooper does not live on the + bottom floor. Fletcher does not live on either the top or the + bottom floor. Miller lives on a higher floor than does Cooper. + Smith does not live on a floor adjacent to Fletcher's. Fletcher + does not live on a floor adjacent to Cooper's. Where does + everyone live? + + We can determine who lives on each floor in a straightforward way by +enumerating all the possibilities and imposing the given +restrictions:(1) + + (define (multiple-dwelling) + (let ((baker (amb 1 2 3 4 5)) + (cooper (amb 1 2 3 4 5)) + (fletcher (amb 1 2 3 4 5)) + (miller (amb 1 2 3 4 5)) + (smith (amb 1 2 3 4 5))) + (require + (distinct? (list baker cooper fletcher miller smith))) + (require (not (= baker 5))) + (require (not (= cooper 1))) + (require (not (= fletcher 5))) + (require (not (= fletcher 1))) + (require (> miller cooper)) + (require (not (= (abs (- smith fletcher)) 1))) + (require (not (= (abs (- fletcher cooper)) 1))) + (list (list 'baker baker) + (list 'cooper cooper) + (list 'fletcher fletcher) + (list 'miller miller) + (list 'smith smith)))) + + Evaluating the expression `(multiple-dwelling)' produces the result + + ((baker 3) (cooper 2) (fletcher 4) (miller 5) (smith 1)) + + Although this simple procedure works, it is very slow. *Note +Exercise 4-39:: and *Note Exercise 4-40:: discuss some possible +improvements. + + *Exercise 4.38:* Modify the multiple-dwelling procedure to omit + the requirement that Smith and Fletcher do not live on adjacent + floors. How many solutions are there to this modified puzzle? + + *Exercise 4.39:* Does the order of the restrictions in the + multiple-dwelling procedure affect the answer? Does it affect the + time to find an answer? If you think it matters, demonstrate a + faster program obtained from the given one by reordering the + restrictions. If you think it does not matter, argue your case. + + *Exercise 4.40:* In the multiple dwelling problem, how many sets + of assignments are there of people to floors, both before and + after the requirement that floor assignments be distinct? It is + very inefficient to generate all possible assignments of people to + floors and then leave it to backtracking to eliminate them. For + example, most of the restrictions depend on only one or two of the + person-floor variables, and can thus be imposed before floors have + been selected for all the people. Write and demonstrate a much + more efficient nondeterministic procedure that solves this problem + based upon generating only those possibilities that are not already + ruled out by previous restrictions. (Hint: This will require a + nest of `let' expressions.) + + *Exercise 4.41:* Write an ordinary Scheme program to solve the + multiple dwelling puzzle. + + *Exercise 4.42:* Solve the following "Liars" puzzle (from Phillips + 1934): + + Five schoolgirls sat for an examination. Their parents--so they + thought--showed an undue degree of interest in the result. They + therefore agreed that, in writing home about the examination, each + girl should make one true statement and one untrue one. The + following are the relevant passages from their letters: + + * Betty: "Kitty was second in the examination. I was only + third." + + * Ethel: "You'll be glad to hear that I was on top. Joan was + second." + + * Joan: "I was third, and poor old Ethel was bottom." + + * Kitty: "I came out second. Mary was only fourth." + + * Mary: "I was fourth. Top place was taken by Betty." + + + What in fact was the order in which the five girls were placed? + + *Exercise 4.43:* Use the `amb' evaluator to solve the following + puzzle:(2) + + Mary Ann Moore's father has a yacht and so has each of his + four friends: Colonel Downing, Mr. Hall, Sir Barnacle Hood, + and Dr. Parker. Each of the five also has one daughter and + each has named his yacht after a daughter of one of the + others. Sir Barnacle's yacht is the Gabrielle, Mr. Moore + owns the Lorna; Mr. Hall the Rosalind. The Melissa, owned by + Colonel Downing, is named after Sir Barnacle's daughter. + Gabrielle's father owns the yacht that is named after Dr. + Parker's daughter. Who is Lorna's father? + + Try to write the program so that it runs efficiently (see *Note + Exercise 4-40::). Also determine how many solutions there are if + we are not told that Mary Ann's last name is Moore. + + *Exercise 4.44:* *Note Exercise 2-42:: described the "eight-queens + puzzle" of placing queens on a chessboard so that no two attack + each other. Write a nondeterministic program to solve this puzzle. + +Parsing natural language +........................ + +Programs designed to accept natural language as input usually start by +attempting to "parse" the input, that is, to match the input against +some grammatical structure. For example, we might try to recognize +simple sentences consisting of an article followed by a noun followed +by a verb, such as "The cat eats." To accomplish such an analysis, we +must be able to identify the parts of speech of individual words. We +could start with some lists that classify various words:(3) + + (define nouns '(noun student professor cat class)) + + (define verbs '(verb studies lectures eats sleeps)) + + (define articles '(article the a)) + + We also need a "grammar", that is, a set of rules describing how +grammatical elements are composed from simpler elements. A very simple +grammar might stipulate that a sentence always consists of two +pieces--a noun phrase followed by a verb--and that a noun phrase +consists of an article followed by a noun. With this grammar, the +sentence "The cat eats" is parsed as follows: + + (sentence (noun-phrase (article the) (noun cat)) + (verb eats)) + + We can generate such a parse with a simple program that has separate +procedures for each of the grammatical rules. To parse a sentence, we +identify its two constituent pieces and return a list of these two +elements, tagged with the symbol `sentence': + + (define (parse-sentence) + (list 'sentence + (parse-noun-phrase) + (parse-word verbs))) + + A noun phrase, similarly, is parsed by finding an article followed +by a noun: + + (define (parse-noun-phrase) + (list 'noun-phrase + (parse-word articles) + (parse-word nouns))) + + At the lowest level, parsing boils down to repeatedly checking that +the next unparsed word is a member of the list of words for the +required part of speech. To implement this, we maintain a global +variable `*unparsed*', which is the input that has not yet been parsed. +Each time we check a word, we require that `*unparsed*' must be +non-empty and that it should begin with a word from the designated +list. If so, we remove that word from `*unparsed*' and return the word +together with its part of speech (which is found at the head of the +list):(4) + + (define (parse-word word-list) + (require (not (null? *unparsed*))) + (require (memq (car *unparsed*) (cdr word-list))) + (let ((found-word (car *unparsed*))) + (set! *unparsed* (cdr *unparsed*)) + (list (car word-list) found-word))) + + To start the parsing, all we need to do is set `*unparsed*' to be the +entire input, try to parse a sentence, and check that nothing is left +over: + + (define *unparsed* '()) + + (define (parse input) + (set! *unparsed* input) + (let ((sent (parse-sentence))) + (require (null? *unparsed*)) + sent)) + + We can now try the parser and verify that it works for our simple +test sentence: + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + (parse '(the cat eats)) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (sentence (noun-phrase (article the) (noun cat)) (verb eats)) + + The `amb' evaluator is useful here because it is convenient to +express the parsing constraints with the aid of `require'. Automatic +search and backtracking really pay off, however, when we consider more +complex grammars where there are choices for how the units can be +decomposed. + + Let's add to our grammar a list of prepositions: + + (define prepositions '(prep for to in by with)) + +and define a prepositional phrase (e.g., "for the cat") to be a +preposition followed by a noun phrase: + + (define (parse-prepositional-phrase) + (list 'prep-phrase + (parse-word prepositions) + (parse-noun-phrase))) + + Now we can define a sentence to be a noun phrase followed by a verb +phrase, where a verb phrase can be either a verb or a verb phrase +extended by a prepositional phrase:(5) + + (define (parse-sentence) + (list 'sentence + (parse-noun-phrase) + (parse-verb-phrase))) + + (define (parse-verb-phrase) + (define (maybe-extend verb-phrase) + (amb verb-phrase + (maybe-extend (list 'verb-phrase + verb-phrase + (parse-prepositional-phrase))))) + (maybe-extend (parse-word verbs))) + + While we're at it, we can also elaborate the definition of noun +phrases to permit such things as "a cat in the class." What we used to +call a noun phrase, we'll now call a simple noun phrase, and a noun +phrase will now be either a simple noun phrase or a noun phrase +extended by a prepositional phrase: + + (define (parse-simple-noun-phrase) + (list 'simple-noun-phrase + (parse-word articles) + (parse-word nouns))) + + (define (parse-noun-phrase) + (define (maybe-extend noun-phrase) + (amb noun-phrase + (maybe-extend (list 'noun-phrase + noun-phrase + (parse-prepositional-phrase))))) + (maybe-extend (parse-simple-noun-phrase))) + + Our new grammar lets us parse more complex sentences. For example + + (parse '(the student with the cat sleeps in the class)) + +produces + + (sentence + (noun-phrase + (simple-noun-phrase (article the) (noun student)) + (prep-phrase (prep with) + (simple-noun-phrase + (article the) (noun cat)))) + (verb-phrase + (verb sleeps) + (prep-phrase (prep in) + (simple-noun-phrase + (article the) (noun class))))) + + Observe that a given input may have more than one legal parse. In +the sentence "The professor lectures to the student with the cat," it +may be that the professor is lecturing with the cat, or that the +student has the cat. Our nondeterministic program finds both +possibilities: + + (parse '(the professor lectures to the student with the cat)) + +produces + + (sentence + (simple-noun-phrase (article the) (noun professor)) + (verb-phrase + (verb-phrase + (verb lectures) + (prep-phrase (prep to) + (simple-noun-phrase + (article the) (noun student)))) + (prep-phrase (prep with) + (simple-noun-phrase + (article the) (noun cat))))) + + Asking the evaluator to try again yields + + (sentence + (simple-noun-phrase (article the) (noun professor)) + (verb-phrase + (verb lectures) + (prep-phrase (prep to) + (noun-phrase + (simple-noun-phrase + (article the) (noun student)) + (prep-phrase (prep with) + (simple-noun-phrase + (article the) (noun cat))))))) + + *Exercise 4.45:* With the grammar given above, the following + sentence can be parsed in five different ways: "The professor + lectures to the student in the class with the cat." Give the five + parses and explain the differences in shades of meaning among them. + + *Exercise 4.46:* The evaluators in sections *Note 4-1:: and *Note + 4-2:: do not determine what order operands are evaluated in. We + will see that the `amb' evaluator evaluates them from left to + right. Explain why our parsing program wouldn't work if the + operands were evaluated in some other order. + + *Exercise 4.47:* Louis Reasoner suggests that, since a verb phrase + is either a verb or a verb phrase followed by a prepositional + phrase, it would be much more straightforward to define the + procedure `parse-verb-phrase' as follows (and similarly for noun + phrases): + + (define (parse-verb-phrase) + (amb (parse-word verbs) + (list 'verb-phrase + (parse-verb-phrase) + (parse-prepositional-phrase)))) + + Does this work? Does the program's behavior change if we + interchange the order of expressions in the `amb' + + *Exercise 4.48:* Extend the grammar given above to handle more + complex sentences. For example, you could extend noun phrases and + verb phrases to include adjectives and adverbs, or you could + handle compound sentences.(6) + + *Exercise 4.49:* Alyssa P. Hacker is more interested in generating + interesting sentences than in parsing them. She reasons that by + simply changing the procedure `parse-word' so that it ignores the + "input sentence" and instead always succeeds and generates an + appropriate word, we can use the programs we had built for parsing + to do generation instead. Implement Alyssa's idea, and show the + first half-dozen or so sentences generated.(7) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Our program uses the following procedure to determine if the +elements of a list are distinct: + + (define (distinct? items) + (cond ((null? items) true) + ((null? (cdr items)) true) + ((member (car items) (cdr items)) false) + (else (distinct? (cdr items))))) + + `Member' is like `memq' except that it uses `equal?' instead of +`eq?' to test for equality. + + (2) This is taken from a booklet called "Problematical Recreations," +published in the 1960s by Litton Industries, where it is attributed to +the `Kansas State Engineer'. + + (3) Here we use the convention that the first element of each list +designates the part of speech for the rest of the words in the list. + + (4) Notice that `parse-word' uses `set!' to modify the unparsed +input list. For this to work, our `amb' evaluator must undo the +effects of `set!' operations when it backtracks. + + (5) Observe that this definition is recursive--a verb may be +followed by any number of prepositional phrases. + + (6) This kind of grammar can become arbitrarily complex, but it is +only a toy as far as real language understanding is concerned. Real +natural-language understanding by computer requires an elaborate +mixture of syntactic analysis and interpretation of meaning. On the +other hand, even toy parsers can be useful in supporting flexible +command languages for programs such as information-retrieval systems. +Winston 1992 discusses computational approaches to real language +understanding and also the applications of simple grammars to command +languages. + + (7) Although Alyssa's idea works just fine (and is surprisingly +simple), the sentences that it generates are a bit boring--they don't +sample the possible sentences of this language in a very interesting +way. In fact, the grammar is highly recursive in many places, and +Alyssa's technique "falls into" one of these recursions and gets stuck. +See *Note Exercise 4-50:: for a way to deal with this. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-3-3, Prev: 4-3-2, Up: 4-3 + +4.3.3 Implementing the `Amb' Evaluator +-------------------------------------- + +The evaluation of an ordinary Scheme expression may return a value, may +never terminate, or may signal an error. In nondeterministic Scheme +the evaluation of an expression may in addition result in the discovery +of a dead end, in which case evaluation must backtrack to a previous +choice point. The interpretation of nondeterministic Scheme is +complicated by this extra case. + + We will construct the `amb' evaluator for nondeterministic Scheme by +modifying the analyzing evaluator of section *Note 4-1-7::.(1) As in +the analyzing evaluator, evaluation of an expression is accomplished by +calling an execution procedure produced by analysis of that expression. +The difference between the interpretation of ordinary Scheme and the +interpretation of nondeterministic Scheme will be entirely in the +execution procedures. + +Execution procedures and continuations +...................................... + +Recall that the execution procedures for the ordinary evaluator take one +argument: the environment of execution. In contrast, the execution +procedures in the `amb' evaluator take three arguments: the +environment, and two procedures called "continuation procedures". The +evaluation of an expression will finish by calling one of these two +continuations: If the evaluation results in a value, the "success +continuation" is called with that value; if the evaluation results in +the discovery of a dead end, the "failure continuation" is called. +Constructing and calling appropriate continuations is the mechanism by +which the nondeterministic evaluator implements backtracking. + + It is the job of the success continuation to receive a value and +proceed with the computation. Along with that value, the success +continuation is passed another failure continuation, which is to be +called subsequently if the use of that value leads to a dead end. + + It is the job of the failure continuation to try another branch of +the nondeterministic process. The essence of the nondeterministic +language is in the fact that expressions may represent choices among +alternatives. The evaluation of such an expression must proceed with +one of the indicated alternative choices, even though it is not known +in advance which choices will lead to acceptable results. To deal with +this, the evaluator picks one of the alternatives and passes this value +to the success continuation. Together with this value, the evaluator +constructs and passes along a failure continuation that can be called +later to choose a different alternative. + + A failure is triggered during evaluation (that is, a failure +continuation is called) when a user program explicitly rejects the +current line of attack (for example, a call to `require' may result in +execution of `(amb)', an expression that always fails--see section +*Note 4-3-1::). The failure continuation in hand at that point will +cause the most recent choice point to choose another alternative. If +there are no more alternatives to be considered at that choice point, a +failure at an earlier choice point is triggered, and so on. Failure +continuations are also invoked by the driver loop in response to a +`try-again' request, to find another value of the expression. + + In addition, if a side-effect operation (such as assignment to a +variable) occurs on a branch of the process resulting from a choice, it +may be necessary, when the process finds a dead end, to undo the side +effect before making a new choice. This is accomplished by having the +side-effect operation produce a failure continuation that undoes the +side effect and propagates the failure. + + In summary, failure continuations are constructed by + + * `amb' expressions--to provide a mechanism to make alternative + choices if the current choice made by the `amb' expression leads + to a dead end; + + * the top-level driver--to provide a mechanism to report failure + when the choices are exhausted; + + * assignments--to intercept failures and undo assignments during + backtracking. + + + Failures are initiated only when a dead end is encountered. This +occurs + + * if the user program executes `(amb)'; + + * if the user types `try-again' at the top-level driver. + + + Failure continuations are also called during processing of a failure: + + * When the failure continuation created by an assignment finishes + undoing a side effect, it calls the failure continuation it + intercepted, in order to propagate the failure back to the choice + point that led to this assignment or to the top level. + + * When the failure continuation for an `amb' runs out of choices, it + calls the failure continuation that was originally given to the + `amb', in order to propagate the failure back to the previous + choice point or to the top level. + + +Structure of the evaluator +.......................... + +The syntax- and data-representation procedures for the `amb' evaluator, +and also the basic `analyze' procedure, are identical to those in the +evaluator of section *Note 4-1-7::, except for the fact that we need +additional syntax procedures to recognize the `amb' special form:(2) + + (define (amb? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'amb)) + + (define (amb-choices exp) (cdr exp)) + + We must also add to the dispatch in `analyze' a clause that will +recognize this special form and generate an appropriate execution +procedure: + + ((amb? exp) (analyze-amb exp)) + + The top-level procedure `ambeval' (similar to the version of `eval' +given in section *Note 4-1-7::) analyzes the given expression and +applies the resulting execution procedure to the given environment, +together with two given continuations: + + (define (ambeval exp env succeed fail) + ((analyze exp) env succeed fail)) + + A success continuation is a procedure of two arguments: the value +just obtained and another failure continuation to be used if that value +leads to a subsequent failure. A failure continuation is a procedure of +no arguments. So the general form of an execution procedure is + + (lambda (env succeed fail) + ;; `succeed' is `(lambda (value fail) ...)' + ;; `fail' is `(lambda () ...)' + ...) + + For example, executing + + (ambeval <EXP> + the-global-environment + (lambda (value fail) value) + (lambda () 'failed)) + +will attempt to evaluate the given expression and will return either the +expression's value (if the evaluation succeeds) or the symbol `failed' +(if the evaluation fails). The call to `ambeval' in the driver loop +shown below uses much more complicated continuation procedures, which +continue the loop and support the `try-again' request. + + Most of the complexity of the `amb' evaluator results from the +mechanics of passing the continuations around as the execution +procedures call each other. In going through the following code, you +should compare each of the execution procedures with the corresponding +procedure for the ordinary evaluator given in section *Note 4-1-7::. + +Simple expressions +.................. + +The execution procedures for the simplest kinds of expressions are +essentially the same as those for the ordinary evaluator, except for +the need to manage the continuations. The execution procedures simply +succeed with the value of the expression, passing along the failure +continuation that was passed to them. + + (define (analyze-self-evaluating exp) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (succeed exp fail))) + + (define (analyze-quoted exp) + (let ((qval (text-of-quotation exp))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (succeed qval fail)))) + + (define (analyze-variable exp) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (succeed (lookup-variable-value exp env) + fail))) + + (define (analyze-lambda exp) + (let ((vars (lambda-parameters exp)) + (bproc (analyze-sequence (lambda-body exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (succeed (make-procedure vars bproc env) + fail)))) + + Notice that looking up a variable always "succeeds." If +`lookup-variable-value' fails to find the variable, it signals an error, +as usual. Such a "failure" indicates a program bug--a reference to an +unbound variable; it is not an indication that we should try another +nondeterministic choice instead of the one that is currently being +tried. + +Conditionals and sequences +.......................... + +Conditionals are also handled in a similar way as in the ordinary +evaluator. The execution procedure generated by `analyze-if' invokes +the predicate execution procedure `pproc' with a success continuation +that checks whether the predicate value is true and goes on to execute +either the consequent or the alternative. If the execution of `pproc' +fails, the original failure continuation for the `if' expression is +called. + + (define (analyze-if exp) + (let ((pproc (analyze (if-predicate exp))) + (cproc (analyze (if-consequent exp))) + (aproc (analyze (if-alternative exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (pproc env + ;; success continuation for evaluating the predicate + ;; to obtain `pred-value' + (lambda (pred-value fail2) + (if (true? pred-value) + (cproc env succeed fail2) + (aproc env succeed fail2))) + ;; failure continuation for evaluating the predicate + fail)))) + + Sequences are also handled in the same way as in the previous +evaluator, except for the machinations in the subprocedure +`sequentially' that are required for passing the continuations. +Namely, to sequentially execute `a' and then `b', we call `a' with a +success continuation that calls `b'. + + (define (analyze-sequence exps) + (define (sequentially a b) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (a env + ;; success continuation for calling `a' + (lambda (a-value fail2) + (b env succeed fail2)) + ;; failure continuation for calling `a' + fail))) + (define (loop first-proc rest-procs) + (if (null? rest-procs) + first-proc + (loop (sequentially first-proc (car rest-procs)) + (cdr rest-procs)))) + (let ((procs (map analyze exps))) + (if (null? procs) + (error "Empty sequence -- ANALYZE")) + (loop (car procs) (cdr procs)))) + +Definitions and assignments +........................... + +Definitions are another case where we must go to some trouble to manage +the continuations, because it is necessary to evaluate the +definition-value expression before actually defining the new variable. +To accomplish this, the definition-value execution procedure `vproc' is +called with the environment, a success continuation, and the failure +continuation. If the execution of `vproc' succeeds, obtaining a value +`val' for the defined variable, the variable is defined and the success +is propagated: + + (define (analyze-definition exp) + (let ((var (definition-variable exp)) + (vproc (analyze (definition-value exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (vproc env + (lambda (val fail2) + (define-variable! var val env) + (succeed 'ok fail2)) + fail)))) + + Assignments are more interesting. This is the first place where we +really use the continuations, rather than just passing them around. +The execution procedure for assignments starts out like the one for +definitions. It first attempts to obtain the new value to be assigned +to the variable. If this evaluation of `vproc' fails, the assignment +fails. + + If `vproc' succeeds, however, and we go on to make the assignment, +we must consider the possibility that this branch of the computation +might later fail, which will require us to backtrack out of the +assignment. Thus, we must arrange to undo the assignment as part of +the backtracking process.(3) + + This is accomplished by giving `vproc' a success continuation +(marked with the comment "*1*" below) that saves the old value of the +variable before assigning the new value to the variable and proceeding +from the assignment. The failure continuation that is passed along +with the value of the assignment (marked with the comment "*2*" below) +restores the old value of the variable before continuing the failure. +That is, a successful assignment provides a failure continuation that +will intercept a subsequent failure; whatever failure would otherwise +have called `fail2' calls this procedure instead, to undo the +assignment before actually calling `fail2'. + + (define (analyze-assignment exp) + (let ((var (assignment-variable exp)) + (vproc (analyze (assignment-value exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (vproc env + (lambda (val fail2) ; *1* + (let ((old-value + (lookup-variable-value var env))) + (set-variable-value! var val env) + (succeed 'ok + (lambda () ; *2* + (set-variable-value! var + old-value + env) + (fail2))))) + fail)))) + +Procedure applications +...................... + +The execution procedure for applications contains no new ideas except +for the technical complexity of managing the continuations. This +complexity arises in `analyze-application', due to the need to keep +track of the success and failure continuations as we evaluate the +operands. We use a procedure `get-args' to evaluate the list of +operands, rather than a simple `map' as in the ordinary evaluator. + + (define (analyze-application exp) + (let ((fproc (analyze (operator exp))) + (aprocs (map analyze (operands exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (fproc env + (lambda (proc fail2) + (get-args aprocs + env + (lambda (args fail3) + (execute-application + proc args succeed fail3)) + fail2)) + fail)))) + + In `get-args', notice how `cdr'ing down the list of `aproc' +execution procedures and `cons'ing up the resulting list of `args' is +accomplished by calling each `aproc' in the list with a success +continuation that recursively calls `get-args'. Each of these recursive +calls to `get-args' has a success continuation whose value is the +`cons' of the newly obtained argument onto the list of accumulated +arguments: + + (define (get-args aprocs env succeed fail) + (if (null? aprocs) + (succeed '() fail) + ((car aprocs) env + ;; success continuation for this `aproc' + (lambda (arg fail2) + (get-args (cdr aprocs) + env + ;; success continuation for recursive + ;; call to `get-args' + (lambda (args fail3) + (succeed (cons arg args) + fail3)) + fail2)) + fail))) + + The actual procedure application, which is performed by +`execute-application', is accomplished in the same way as for the +ordinary evaluator, except for the need to manage the continuations. + + (define (execute-application proc args succeed fail) + (cond ((primitive-procedure? proc) + (succeed (apply-primitive-procedure proc args) + fail)) + ((compound-procedure? proc) + ((procedure-body proc) + (extend-environment (procedure-parameters proc) + args + (procedure-environment proc)) + succeed + fail)) + (else + (error + "Unknown procedure type -- EXECUTE-APPLICATION" + proc)))) + +Evaluating `amb' expressions +............................ + +The `amb' special form is the key element in the nondeterministic +language. Here we see the essence of the interpretation process and +the reason for keeping track of the continuations. The execution +procedure for `amb' defines a loop `try-next' that cycles through the +execution procedures for all the possible values of the `amb' +expression. Each execution procedure is called with a failure +continuation that will try the next one. When there are no more +alternatives to try, the entire `amb' expression fails. + + (define (analyze-amb exp) + (let ((cprocs (map analyze (amb-choices exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (define (try-next choices) + (if (null? choices) + (fail) + ((car choices) env + succeed + (lambda () + (try-next (cdr choices)))))) + (try-next cprocs)))) + +Driver loop +........... + +The driver loop for the `amb' evaluator is complex, due to the mechanism +that permits the user to try again in evaluating an expression. The +driver uses a procedure called `internal-loop', which takes as argument +a procedure `try-again'. The intent is that calling `try-again' should +go on to the next untried alternative in the nondeterministic +evaluation. `Internal-loop' either calls `try-again' in response to +the user typing `try-again' at the driver loop, or else starts a new +evaluation by calling `ambeval'. + + The failure continuation for this call to `ambeval' informs the user +that there are no more values and re-invokes the driver loop. + + The success continuation for the call to `ambeval' is more subtle. +We print the obtained value and then invoke the internal loop again +with a `try-again' procedure that will be able to try the next +alternative. This `next-alternative' procedure is the second argument +that was passed to the success continuation. Ordinarily, we think of +this second argument as a failure continuation to be used if the +current evaluation branch later fails. In this case, however, we have +completed a successful evaluation, so we can invoke the "failure" +alternative branch in order to search for additional successful +evaluations. + + (define input-prompt ";;; Amb-Eval input:") + (define output-prompt ";;; Amb-Eval value:") + + (define (driver-loop) + (define (internal-loop try-again) + (prompt-for-input input-prompt) + (let ((input (read))) + (if (eq? input 'try-again) + (try-again) + (begin + (newline) + (display ";;; Starting a new problem ") + (ambeval input + the-global-environment + ;; `ambeval' success + (lambda (val next-alternative) + (announce-output output-prompt) + (user-print val) + (internal-loop next-alternative)) + ;; `ambeval' failure + (lambda () + (announce-output + ";;; There are no more values of") + (user-print input) + (driver-loop))))))) + (internal-loop + (lambda () + (newline) + (display ";;; There is no current problem") + (driver-loop)))) + + The initial call to `internal-loop' uses a `try-again' procedure that +complains that there is no current problem and restarts the driver +loop. This is the behavior that will happen if the user types +`try-again' when there is no evaluation in progress. + + *Exercise 4.50:* Implement a new special form `ramb' that is like + `amb' except that it searches alternatives in a random order, + rather than from left to right. Show how this can help with + Alyssa's problem in *Note Exercise 4-49::. + + *Exercise 4.51:* Implement a new kind of assignment called + `permanent-set!' that is not undone upon failure. For example, we + can choose two distinct elements from a list and count the number + of trials required to make a successful choice as follows: + + (define count 0) + + (let ((x (an-element-of '(a b c))) + (y (an-element-of '(a b c)))) + (permanent-set! count (+ count 1)) + (require (not (eq? x y))) + (list x y count)) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (a b 2) + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + try-again + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + (a c 3) + + What values would have been displayed if we had used `set!' here + rather than `permanent-set!' ? + + *Exercise 4.52:* Implement a new construct called `if-fail' that + permits the user to catch the failure of an expression. `If-fail' + takes two expressions. It evaluates the first expression as usual + and returns as usual if the evaluation succeeds. If the evaluation + fails, however, the value of the second expression is returned, as + in the following example: + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + (if-fail (let ((x (an-element-of '(1 3 5)))) + (require (even? x)) + x) + 'all-odd) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + all-odd + + ;;; Amb-Eval input: + (if-fail (let ((x (an-element-of '(1 3 5 8)))) + (require (even? x)) + x) + 'all-odd) + ;;; Starting a new problem + ;;; Amb-Eval value: + 8 + + *Exercise 4.53:* With `permanent-set!' as described in *Note + Exercise 4-51:: and `if-fail' as in *Note Exercise 4-52::, what + will be the result of evaluating + + (let ((pairs '())) + (if-fail (let ((p (prime-sum-pair '(1 3 5 8) '(20 35 110)))) + (permanent-set! pairs (cons p pairs)) + (amb)) + pairs)) + + *Exercise 4.54:* If we had not realized that `require' could be + implemented as an ordinary procedure that uses `amb', to be + defined by the user as part of a nondeterministic program, we + would have had to implement it as a special form. This would + require syntax procedures + + (define (require? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'require)) + + (define (require-predicate exp) (cadr exp)) + + and a new clause in the dispatch in `analyze' + + ((require? exp) (analyze-require exp)) + + as well the procedure `analyze-require' that handles `require' + expressions. Complete the following definition of + `analyze-require'. + + (define (analyze-require exp) + (let ((pproc (analyze (require-predicate exp)))) + (lambda (env succeed fail) + (pproc env + (lambda (pred-value fail2) + (if <??> + <??> + (succeed 'ok fail2))) + fail)))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We chose to implement the lazy evaluator in section *Note 4-2:: +as a modification of the ordinary metacircular evaluator of section +*Note 4-1-1::. In contrast, we will base the `amb' evaluator on the +analyzing evaluator of section *Note 4-1-7::, because the execution +procedures in that evaluator provide a convenient framework for +implementing backtracking. + + (2) We assume that the evaluator supports `let' (see *Note Exercise +4-22::), which we have used in our nondeterministic programs. + + (3) We didn't worry about undoing definitions, since we can assume +that internal definitions are scanned out (section *Note 4-1-6::). + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4, Prev: 4-3, Up: Chapter 4 + +4.4 Logic Programming +===================== + +In *Note Chapter 1:: we stressed that computer science deals with +imperative (how to) knowledge, whereas mathematics deals with +declarative (what is) knowledge. Indeed, programming languages require +that the programmer express knowledge in a form that indicates the +step-by-step methods for solving particular problems. On the other +hand, high-level languages provide, as part of the language +implementation, a substantial amount of methodological knowledge that +frees the user from concern with numerous details of how a specified +computation will progress. + + Most programming languages, including Lisp, are organized around +computing the values of mathematical functions. Expression-oriented +languages (such as Lisp, Fortran, and Algol) capitalize on the "pun" +that an expression that describes the value of a function may also be +interpreted as a means of computing that value. Because of this, most +programming languages are strongly biased toward unidirectional +computations (computations with well-defined inputs and outputs). +There are, however, radically different programming languages that +relax this bias. We saw one such example in section *Note 3-3-5::, +where the objects of computation were arithmetic constraints. In a +constraint system the direction and the order of computation are not so +well specified; in carrying out a computation the system must therefore +provide more detailed "how to" knowledge than would be the case with an +ordinary arithmetic computation. This does not mean, however, that the +user is released altogether from the responsibility of providing +imperative knowledge. There are many constraint networks that +implement the same set of constraints, and the user must choose from +the set of mathematically equivalent networks a suitable network to +specify a particular computation. + + The nondeterministic program evaluator of section *Note 4-3:: also +moves away from the view that programming is about constructing +algorithms for computing unidirectional functions. In a +nondeterministic language, expressions can have more than one value, +and, as a result, the computation is dealing with relations rather than +with single-valued functions. Logic programming extends this idea by +combining a relational vision of programming with a powerful kind of +symbolic pattern matching called "unification".(1) + + This approach, when it works, can be a very powerful way to write +programs. Part of the power comes from the fact that a single "what +is" fact can be used to solve a number of different problems that would +have different "how to" components. As an example, consider the +`append' operation, which takes two lists as arguments and combines +their elements to form a single list. In a procedural language such as +Lisp, we could define `append' in terms of the basic list constructor +`cons', as we did in section *Note 2-2-1::: + + (define (append x y) + (if (null? x) + y + (cons (car x) (append (cdr x) y)))) + + This procedure can be regarded as a translation into Lisp of the +following two rules, the first of which covers the case where the first +list is empty and the second of which handles the case of a nonempty +list, which is a `cons' of two parts: + + * For any list `y', the empty list and `y' `append' to form `y'. + + * For any `u', `v', `y', and `z', `(cons u v)' and `y' `append' to + form `(cons u z)' if `v' and `y' `append' to form `z'.(2) + + + Using the `append' procedure, we can answer questions such as + + Find the `append' of `(a b)' and `(c d)'. + + But the same two rules are also sufficient for answering the +following sorts of questions, which the procedure can't answer: + + Find a list `y' that `append's with `(a b)' to produce `(a b c d)'. + + Find all `x' and `y' that `append' to form `(a b c d)'. + + In a logic programming language, the programmer writes an `append' +"procedure" by stating the two rules about `append' given above. "How +to" knowledge is provided automatically by the interpreter to allow this +single pair of rules to be used to answer all three types of questions +about `append'.(3) + + Contemporary logic programming languages (including the one we +implement here) have substantial deficiencies, in that their general +"how to" methods can lead them into spurious infinite loops or other +undesirable behavior. Logic programming is an active field of research +in computer science.(4) + + Earlier in this chapter we explored the technology of implementing +interpreters and described the elements that are essential to an +interpreter for a Lisp-like language (indeed, to an interpreter for any +conventional language). Now we will apply these ideas to discuss an +interpreter for a logic programming language. We call this language +the "query language", because it is very useful for retrieving +information from data bases by formulating "queries", or questions, +expressed in the language. Even though the query language is very +different from Lisp, we will find it convenient to describe the +language in terms of the same general framework we have been using all +along: as a collection of primitive elements, together with means of +combination that enable us to combine simple elements to create more +complex elements and means of abstraction that enable us to regard +complex elements as single conceptual units. An interpreter for a +logic programming language is considerably more complex than an +interpreter for a language like Lisp. Nevertheless, we will see that +our query-language interpreter contains many of the same elements found +in the interpreter of section *Note 4-1::. In particular, there will +be an "eval" part that classifies expressions according to type and an +"apply" part that implements the language's abstraction mechanism +(procedures in the case of Lisp, and "rules" in the case of logic +programming). Also, a central role is played in the implementation by +a frame data structure, which determines the correspondence between +symbols and their associated values. One additional interesting aspect +of our query-language implementation is that we make substantial use of +streams, which were introduced in *Note Chapter 3::. + +* Menu: + +* 4-4-1:: Deductive Information Retrieval +* 4-4-2:: How the Query System Works +* 4-4-3:: Is Logic Programming Mathematical Logic? +* 4-4-4:: Implementing the Query System + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Logic programming has grown out of a long history of research in +automatic theorem proving. Early theorem-proving programs could +accomplish very little, because they exhaustively searched the space of +possible proofs. The major breakthrough that made such a search +plausible was the discovery in the early 1960s of the "unification +algorithm" and the principle "resolution principle" (Robinson 1965). +Resolution was used, for example, by Green and Raphael (1968) (see also +Green 1969) as the basis for a deductive question-answering system. +During most of this period, researchers concentrated on algorithms that +are guaranteed to find a proof if one exists. Such algorithms were +difficult to control and to direct toward a proof. Hewitt (1969) +recognized the possibility of merging the control structure of a +programming language with the operations of a logic-manipulation system, +leading to the work in automatic search mentioned in section *Note +4-3-1:: (footnote *Note Footnote 4-47::). At the same time that this +was being done, Colmerauer, in Marseille, was developing rule-based +systems for manipulating natural language (see Colmerauer et al. 1973). +He invented a programming language called Prolog for representing +those rules. Kowalski (1973; 1979), in Edinburgh, recognized that +execution of a Prolog program could be interpreted as proving theorems +(using a proof technique called linear Horn-clause resolution). The +merging of the last two strands led to the logic-programming movement. +Thus, in assigning credit for the development of logic programming, the +French can point to Prolog's genesis at the University of Marseille, +while the British can highlight the work at the University of +Edinburgh. According to people at MIT, logic programming was developed +by these groups in an attempt to figure out what Hewitt was talking +about in his brilliant but impenetrable Ph.D. thesis. For a history of +logic programming, see Robinson 1983. + + (2) To see the correspondence between the rules and the procedure, +let `x' in the procedure (where `x' is nonempty) correspond to `(cons u +v)' in the rule. Then `z' in the rule corresponds to the `append' of +`(cdr x)' and `y'. + + (3) This certainly does not relieve the user of the entire problem +of how to compute the answer. There are many different mathematically +equivalent sets of rules for formulating the `append' relation, only +some of which can be turned into effective devices for computing in any +direction. In addition, sometimes "what is" information gives no clue +"how to" compute an answer. For example, consider the problem of +computing the y such that y^2 = x. + + (4) Interest in logic programming peaked during the early 80s when +the Japanese government began an ambitious project aimed at building +superfast computers optimized to run logic programming languages. The +speed of such computers was to be measured in LIPS (Logical Inferences +Per Second) rather than the usual FLOPS (FLoating-point Operations Per +Second). Although the project succeeded in developing hardware and +software as originally planned, the international computer industry +moved in a different direction. See Feigenbaum and Shrobe 1993 for an +overview evaluation of the Japanese project. The logic programming +community has also moved on to consider relational programming based on +techniques other than simple pattern matching, such as the ability to +deal with numerical constraints such as the ones illustrated in the +constraint-propagation system of section *Note 3-3-5::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-1, Next: 4-4-2, Prev: 4-4, Up: 4-4 + +4.4.1 Deductive Information Retrieval +------------------------------------- + +Logic programming excels in providing interfaces to data bases for +information retrieval. The query language we shall implement in this +chapter is designed to be used in this way. + + In order to illustrate what the query system does, we will show how +it can be used to manage the data base of personnel records for +Microshaft, a thriving high-technology company in the Boston area. The +language provides pattern-directed access to personnel information and +can also take advantage of general rules in order to make logical +deductions. + +A sample data base +.................. + +The personnel data base for Microshaft contains "assertions" about +company personnel. Here is the information about Ben Bitdiddle, the +resident computer wizard: + + (address (Bitdiddle Ben) (Slumerville (Ridge Road) 10)) + (job (Bitdiddle Ben) (computer wizard)) + (salary (Bitdiddle Ben) 60000) + + Each assertion is a list (in this case a triple) whose elements can +themselves be lists. + + As resident wizard, Ben is in charge of the company's computer +division, and he supervises two programmers and one technician. Here +is the information about them: + + (address (Hacker Alyssa P) (Cambridge (Mass Ave) 78)) + (job (Hacker Alyssa P) (computer programmer)) + (salary (Hacker Alyssa P) 40000) + (supervisor (Hacker Alyssa P) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + + (address (Fect Cy D) (Cambridge (Ames Street) 3)) + (job (Fect Cy D) (computer programmer)) + (salary (Fect Cy D) 35000) + (supervisor (Fect Cy D) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + + (address (Tweakit Lem E) (Boston (Bay State Road) 22)) + (job (Tweakit Lem E) (computer technician)) + (salary (Tweakit Lem E) 25000) + (supervisor (Tweakit Lem E) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + + There is also a programmer trainee, who is supervised by Alyssa: + + (address (Reasoner Louis) (Slumerville (Pine Tree Road) 80)) + (job (Reasoner Louis) (computer programmer trainee)) + (salary (Reasoner Louis) 30000) + (supervisor (Reasoner Louis) (Hacker Alyssa P)) + + All of these people are in the computer division, as indicated by +the word `computer' as the first item in their job descriptions. + + Ben is a high-level employee. His supervisor is the company's big +wheel himself: + + (supervisor (Bitdiddle Ben) (Warbucks Oliver)) + + (address (Warbucks Oliver) (Swellesley (Top Heap Road))) + (job (Warbucks Oliver) (administration big wheel)) + (salary (Warbucks Oliver) 150000) + + Besides the computer division supervised by Ben, the company has an +accounting division, consisting of a chief accountant and his assistant: + + (address (Scrooge Eben) (Weston (Shady Lane) 10)) + (job (Scrooge Eben) (accounting chief accountant)) + (salary (Scrooge Eben) 75000) + (supervisor (Scrooge Eben) (Warbucks Oliver)) + + (address (Cratchet Robert) (Allston (N Harvard Street) 16)) + (job (Cratchet Robert) (accounting scrivener)) + (salary (Cratchet Robert) 18000) + (supervisor (Cratchet Robert) (Scrooge Eben)) + + There is also a secretary for the big wheel: + + (address (Aull DeWitt) (Slumerville (Onion Square) 5)) + (job (Aull DeWitt) (administration secretary)) + (salary (Aull DeWitt) 25000) + (supervisor (Aull DeWitt) (Warbucks Oliver)) + + The data base also contains assertions about which kinds of jobs can +be done by people holding other kinds of jobs. For instance, a +computer wizard can do the jobs of both a computer programmer and a +computer technician: + + (can-do-job (computer wizard) (computer programmer)) + (can-do-job (computer wizard) (computer technician)) + + A computer programmer could fill in for a trainee: + + (can-do-job (computer programmer) + (computer programmer trainee)) + + Also, as is well known, + + (can-do-job (administration secretary) + (administration big wheel)) + +Simple queries +.............. + +The query language allows users to retrieve information from the data +base by posing queries in response to the system's prompt. For +example, to find all computer programmers one can say + + ;;; Query input: + (job ?x (computer programmer)) + + The system will respond with the following items: + + ;;; Query results: + (job (Hacker Alyssa P) (computer programmer)) + (job (Fect Cy D) (computer programmer)) + + The input query specifies that we are looking for entries in the +data base that match a certain "pattern". In this example, the pattern +specifies entries consisting of three items, of which the first is the +literal symbol `job', the second can be anything, and the third is the +literal list `(computer programmer)'. The "anything" that can be the +second item in the matching list is specified by a "pattern variable", +`?x'. The general form of a pattern variable is a symbol, taken to be +the name of the variable, preceded by a question mark. We will see +below why it is useful to specify names for pattern variables rather +than just putting `?' into patterns to represent "anything." The +system responds to a simple query by showing all entries in the data +base that match the specified pattern. + + A pattern can have more than one variable. For example, the query + + (address ?x ?y) + +will list all the employees' addresses. + + A pattern can have no variables, in which case the query simply +determines whether that pattern is an entry in the data base. If so, +there will be one match; if not, there will be no matches. + + The same pattern variable can appear more than once in a query, +specifying that the same "anything" must appear in each position. This +is why variables have names. For example, + + (supervisor ?x ?x) + +finds all people who supervise themselves (though there are no such +assertions in our sample data base). + + The query + + (job ?x (computer ?type)) + +matches all job entries whose third item is a two-element list whose +first item is `computer': + + (job (Bitdiddle Ben) (computer wizard)) + (job (Hacker Alyssa P) (computer programmer)) + (job (Fect Cy D) (computer programmer)) + (job (Tweakit Lem E) (computer technician)) + + This same pattern does _not_ match + + (job (Reasoner Louis) (computer programmer trainee)) + +because the third item in the entry is a list of three elements, and the +pattern's third item specifies that there should be two elements. If +we wanted to change the pattern so that the third item could be any +list beginning with `computer', we could specify(1) + + (job ?x (computer . ?type)) + + For example, + + (computer . ?type) + +matches the data + + (computer programmer trainee) + +with `?type' as the list `(programmer trainee)'. It also matches the +data + + (computer programmer) + +with `?type' as the list `(programmer)', and matches the data + + (computer) + +with `?type' as the empty list `()'. + + We can describe the query language's processing of simple queries as +follows: + + * The system finds all assignments to variables in the query pattern + that "satisfy" the pattern--that is, all sets of values for the + variables such that if the pattern variables are "instantiated + with" (replaced by) the values, the result is in the data base. + + * The system responds to the query by listing all instantiations of + the query pattern with the variable assignments that satisfy it. + + + Note that if the pattern has no variables, the query reduces to a +determination of whether that pattern is in the data base. If so, the +empty assignment, which assigns no values to variables, satisfies that +pattern for that data base. + + *Exercise 4.55:* Give simple queries that retrieve the following + information from the data base: + + 1. all people supervised by Ben Bitdiddle; + + 2. the names and jobs of all people in the accounting division; + + 3. the names and addresses of all people who live in Slumerville. + + +Compound queries +................ + +Simple queries form the primitive operations of the query language. In +order to form compound operations, the query language provides means of +combination. One thing that makes the query language a logic +programming language is that the means of combination mirror the means +of combination used in forming logical expressions: `and', `or', and +`not'. (Here `and', `or', and `not' are not the Lisp primitives, but +rather operations built into the query language.) + + We can use `and' as follows to find the addresses of all the computer +programmers: + + (and (job ?person (computer programmer)) + (address ?person ?where)) + + The resulting output is + + (and (job (Hacker Alyssa P) (computer programmer)) + (address (Hacker Alyssa P) (Cambridge (Mass Ave) 78))) + + (and (job (Fect Cy D) (computer programmer)) + (address (Fect Cy D) (Cambridge (Ames Street) 3))) + + In general, + + (and <QUERY_1> <QUERY_2> ... <QUERY_N>) + +is satisfied by all sets of values for the pattern variables that +simultaneously satisfy <QUERY_1> ... <QUERY_N>. + + As for simple queries, the system processes a compound query by +finding all assignments to the pattern variables that satisfy the +query, then displaying instantiations of the query with those values. + + Another means of constructing compound queries is through `or'. For +example, + + (or (supervisor ?x (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (supervisor ?x (Hacker Alyssa P))) + +will find all employees supervised by Ben Bitdiddle or Alyssa P. +Hacker: + + (or (supervisor (Hacker Alyssa P) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (supervisor (Hacker Alyssa P) (Hacker Alyssa P))) + + (or (supervisor (Fect Cy D) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (supervisor (Fect Cy D) (Hacker Alyssa P))) + + (or (supervisor (Tweakit Lem E) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (supervisor (Tweakit Lem E) (Hacker Alyssa P))) + + (or (supervisor (Reasoner Louis) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (supervisor (Reasoner Louis) (Hacker Alyssa P))) + + In general, + + (or <QUERY_1> <QUERY_2> ... <QUERY_N>) + +is satisfied by all sets of values for the pattern variables that +satisfy at least one of <QUERY_1> ... <QUERY_N>. + + Compound queries can also be formed with `not'. For example, + + (and (supervisor ?x (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (not (job ?x (computer programmer)))) + +finds all people supervised by Ben Bitdiddle who are not computer +programmers. In general, + + (not <QUERY_1>) + +is satisfied by all assignments to the pattern variables that do not +satisfy <QUERY_1>.(2) + + The final combining form is called `lisp-value'. When `lisp-value' +is the first element of a pattern, it specifies that the next element +is a Lisp predicate to be applied to the rest of the (instantiated) +elements as arguments. In general, + + (lisp-value <PREDICATE> <ARG_1> ... <ARG_N>) + +will be satisfied by assignments to the pattern variables for which the +<PREDICATE> applied to the instantiated <ARG_1> ... <ARG_N> is true. +For example, to find all people whose salary is greater than $30,000 we +could write(3) + + (and (salary ?person ?amount) + (lisp-value > ?amount 30000)) + + *Exercise 4.56:* Formulate compound queries that retrieve the + following information: + + a. the names of all people who are supervised by Ben Bitdiddle, + together with their addresses; + + b. all people whose salary is less than Ben Bitdiddle's, + together with their salary and Ben Bitdiddle's salary; + + c. all people who are supervised by someone who is not in the + computer division, together with the supervisor's name and + job. + + +Rules +..... + +In addition to primitive queries and compound queries, the query +language provides means for abstracting queries. These are given by "rules". +The rule + + (rule (lives-near ?person-1 ?person-2) + (and (address ?person-1 (?town . ?rest-1)) + (address ?person-2 (?town . ?rest-2)) + (not (same ?person-1 ?person-2)))) + +specifies that two people live near each other if they live in the same +town. The final `not' clause prevents the rule from saying that all +people live near themselves. The `same' relation is defined by a very +simple rule:(4) + + (rule (same ?x ?x)) + + The following rule declares that a person is a "wheel" in an +organization if he supervises someone who is in turn a supervisor: + + (rule (wheel ?person) + (and (supervisor ?middle-manager ?person) + (supervisor ?x ?middle-manager))) + + The general form of a rule is + + (rule <CONCLUSION> <BODY>) + +where <CONCLUSION> is a pattern and <BODY> is any query.(5) We can +think of a rule as representing a large (even infinite) set of +assertions, namely all instantiations of the rule conclusion with +variable assignments that satisfy the rule body. When we described +simple queries (patterns), we said that an assignment to variables +satisfies a pattern if the instantiated pattern is in the data base. +But the pattern needn't be explicitly in the data base as an assertion. +It can be an implicit assertion implied by a rule. For example, the +query + + (lives-near ?x (Bitdiddle Ben)) + +results in + + (lives-near (Reasoner Louis) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (lives-near (Aull DeWitt) (Bitdiddle Ben)) + + To find all computer programmers who live near Ben Bitdiddle, we can +ask + + (and (job ?x (computer programmer)) + (lives-near ?x (Bitdiddle Ben))) + + As in the case of compound procedures, rules can be used as parts of +other rules (as we saw with the `lives-near' rule above) or even be +defined recursively. For instance, the rule + + (rule (outranked-by ?staff-person ?boss) + (or (supervisor ?staff-person ?boss) + (and (supervisor ?staff-person ?middle-manager) + (outranked-by ?middle-manager ?boss)))) + +says that a staff person is outranked by a boss in the organization if +the boss is the person's supervisor or (recursively) if the person's +supervisor is outranked by the boss. + + *Exercise 4.57:* Define a rule that says that person 1 can replace + person 2 if either person 1 does the same job as person 2 or + someone who does person 1's job can also do person 2's job, and if + person 1 and person 2 are not the same person. Using your rule, + give queries that find the following: + + a. all people who can replace Cy D. Fect; + + b. all people who can replace someone who is being paid more + than they are, together with the two salaries. + + + *Exercise 4.58:* Define a rule that says that a person is a "big + shot" in a division if the person works in the division but does + not have a supervisor who works in the division. + + *Exercise 4.59:* Ben Bitdiddle has missed one meeting too many. + Fearing that his habit of forgetting meetings could cost him his + job, Ben decides to do something about it. He adds all the weekly + meetings of the firm to the Microshaft data base by asserting the + following: + + (meeting accounting (Monday 9am)) + (meeting administration (Monday 10am)) + (meeting computer (Wednesday 3pm)) + (meeting administration (Friday 1pm)) + + Each of the above assertions is for a meeting of an entire + division. Ben also adds an entry for the company-wide meeting + that spans all the divisions. All of the company's employees + attend this meeting. + + (meeting whole-company (Wednesday 4pm)) + + a. On Friday morning, Ben wants to query the data base for all + the meetings that occur that day. What query should he use? + + b. Alyssa P. Hacker is unimpressed. She thinks it would be much + more useful to be able to ask for her meetings by specifying + her name. So she designs a rule that says that a person's + meetings include all `whole-company' meetings plus all + meetings of that person's division. Fill in the body of + Alyssa's rule. + + (rule (meeting-time ?person ?day-and-time) + <RULE-BODY>) + + c. Alyssa arrives at work on Wednesday morning and wonders what + meetings she has to attend that day. Having defined the + above rule, what query should she make to find this out? + + + *Exercise 4.60:* By giving the query + + (lives-near ?person (Hacker Alyssa P)) + + Alyssa P. Hacker is able to find people who live near her, with + whom she can ride to work. On the other hand, when she tries to + find all pairs of people who live near each other by querying + + (lives-near ?person-1 ?person-2) + + she notices that each pair of people who live near each other is + listed twice; for example, + + (lives-near (Hacker Alyssa P) (Fect Cy D)) + (lives-near (Fect Cy D) (Hacker Alyssa P)) + + Why does this happen? Is there a way to find a list of people who + live near each other, in which each pair appears only once? + Explain. + +Logic as programs +................. + +We can regard a rule as a kind of logical implication: _If_ an +assignment of values to pattern variables satisfies the body, _then_ it +satisfies the conclusion. Consequently, we can regard the query +language as having the ability to perform "logical deductions" based +upon the rules. As an example, consider the `append' operation +described at the beginning of section *Note 4-4::. As we said, +`append' can be characterized by the following two rules: + + * For any list `y', the empty list and `y' `append' to form `y'. + + * For any `u', `v', `y', and `z', `(cons u v)' and `y' `append' to + form `(cons u z)' if `v' and `y' `append' to form `z'. + + + To express this in our query language, we define two rules for a +relation + + (append-to-form x y z) + +which we can interpret to mean "`x' and `y' `append' to form `z'": + + (rule (append-to-form () ?y ?y)) + + (rule (append-to-form (?u . ?v) ?y (?u . ?z)) + (append-to-form ?v ?y ?z)) + + The first rule has no body, which means that the conclusion holds +for any value of `?y'. Note how the second rule makes use of +dotted-tail notation to name the `car' and `cdr' of a list. + + Given these two rules, we can formulate queries that compute the +`append' of two lists: + + ;;; Query input: + (append-to-form (a b) (c d) ?z) + ;;; Query results: + (append-to-form (a b) (c d) (a b c d)) + + What is more striking, we can use the same rules to ask the question +"Which list, when `append'ed to `(a b)', yields `(a b c d)'?" This is +done as follows: + + ;;; Query input: + (append-to-form (a b) ?y (a b c d)) + ;;; Query results: + (append-to-form (a b) (c d) (a b c d)) + + We can also ask for all pairs of lists that `append' to form `(a b c +d)': + + ;;; Query input: + (append-to-form ?x ?y (a b c d)) + ;;; Query results: + (append-to-form () (a b c d) (a b c d)) + (append-to-form (a) (b c d) (a b c d)) + (append-to-form (a b) (c d) (a b c d)) + (append-to-form (a b c) (d) (a b c d)) + (append-to-form (a b c d) () (a b c d)) + + The query system may seem to exhibit quite a bit of intelligence in +using the rules to deduce the answers to the queries above. Actually, +as we will see in the next section, the system is following a +well-determined algorithm in unraveling the rules. Unfortunately, +although the system works impressively in the `append' case, the +general methods may break down in more complex cases, as we will see in +section *Note 4-4-3::. + + *Exercise 4.61:* The following rules implement a `next-to' + relation that finds adjacent elements of a list: + + (rule (?x next-to ?y in (?x ?y . ?u))) + + (rule (?x next-to ?y in (?v . ?z)) + (?x next-to ?y in ?z)) + + What will the response be to the following queries? + + (?x next-to ?y in (1 (2 3) 4)) + + (?x next-to 1 in (2 1 3 1)) + + *Exercise 4.62:* Define rules to implement the `last-pair' + operation of *Note Exercise 2-17::, which returns a list + containing the last element of a nonempty list. Check your rules + on queries such as `(last-pair (3) ?x)', `(last-pair (1 2 3) ?x)', + and `(last-pair (2 ?x) (3))'. Do your rules work correctly on + queries such as `(last-pair ?x (3))' ? + + *Exercise 4.63:* The following data base (see Genesis 4) traces + the genealogy of the descendants of Ada back to Adam, by way of + Cain: + + (son Adam Cain) + (son Cain Enoch) + (son Enoch Irad) + (son Irad Mehujael) + (son Mehujael Methushael) + (son Methushael Lamech) + (wife Lamech Ada) + (son Ada Jabal) + (son Ada Jubal) + + Formulate rules such as "If S is the son of f, and f is the son of + G, then S is the grandson of G" and "If W is the wife of M, and S + is the son of W, then S is the son of M" (which was supposedly + more true in biblical times than today) that will enable the query + system to find the grandson of Cain; the sons of Lamech; the + grandsons of Methushael. (See *Note Exercise 4-69:: for some + rules to deduce more complicated relationships.) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This uses the dotted-tail notation introduced in *Note Exercise +2-20::. + + (2) Actually, this description of `not' is valid only for simple +cases. The real behavior of `not' is more complex. We will examine +`not''s peculiarities in sections *Note 4-4-2:: and *Note 4-4-3::. + + (3) `Lisp-value' should be used only to perform an operation not +provided in the query language. In particular, it should not be used +to test equality (since that is what the matching in the query language +is designed to do) or inequality (since that can be done with the +`same' rule shown below). + + (4) Notice that we do not need `same' in order to make two things be +the same: We just use the same pattern variable for each--in effect, we +have one thing instead of two things in the first place. For example, +see `?town' in the `lives-near' rule and `?middle-manager' in the +`wheel' rule below. `Same' is useful when we want to force two things +to be different, such as `?person-1' and `?person-2' in the +`lives-near' rule. Although using the same pattern variable in two +parts of a query forces the same value to appear in both places, using +different pattern variables does not force different values to appear. +(The values assigned to different pattern variables may be the same or +different.) + + (5) We will also allow rules without bodies, as in `same', and we +will interpret such a rule to mean that the rule conclusion is +satisfied by any values of the variables. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-2, Next: 4-4-3, Prev: 4-4-1, Up: 4-4 + +4.4.2 How the Query System Works +-------------------------------- + +In section *Note 4-4-4:: we will present an implementation of the query +interpreter as a collection of procedures. In this section we give an +overview that explains the general structure of the system independent +of low-level implementation details. After describing the +implementation of the interpreter, we will be in a position to +understand some of its limitations and some of the subtle ways in which +the query language's logical operations differ from the operations of +mathematical logic. + + It should be apparent that the query evaluator must perform some +kind of search in order to match queries against facts and rules in the +data base. One way to do this would be to implement the query system +as a nondeterministic program, using the `amb' evaluator of section +*Note 4-3:: (see *Note Exercise 4-78::). Another possibility is to +manage the search with the aid of streams. Our implementation follows +this second approach. + + The query system is organized around two central operations called "pattern +matching" and "unification". We first describe pattern matching and +explain how this operation, together with the organization of +information in terms of streams of frames, enables us to implement both +simple and compound queries. We next discuss unification, a +generalization of pattern matching needed to implement rules. Finally, +we show how the entire query interpreter fits together through a +procedure that classifies expressions in a manner analogous to the way +`eval' classifies expressions for the interpreter described in section +*Note 4-1::. + +Pattern matching +................ + +A "pattern matcher" is a program that tests whether some datum fits a +specified pattern. For example, the data list `((a b) c (a b))' matches +the pattern `(?x c ?x)' with the pattern variable `?x' bound to `(a +b)'. The same data list matches the pattern `(?x ?y ?z)' with `?x' and +`?z' both bound to `(a b)' and `?y' bound to `c'. It also matches the +pattern `((?x ?y) c (?x ?y))' with `?x' bound to `a' and `?y' bound to +`b'. However, it does not match the pattern `(?x a ?y)', since that +pattern specifies a list whose second element is the symbol `a'. + + The pattern matcher used by the query system takes as inputs a +pattern, a datum, and a "frame" that specifies bindings for various +pattern variables. It checks whether the datum matches the pattern in +a way that is consistent with the bindings already in the frame. If +so, it returns the given frame augmented by any bindings that may have +been determined by the match. Otherwise, it indicates that the match +has failed. + + For example, using the pattern `(?x ?y ?x)' to match `(a b a)' given +an empty frame will return a frame specifying that `?x' is bound to `a' +and `?y' is bound to `b'. Trying the match with the same pattern, the +same datum, and a frame specifying that `?y' is bound to `a' will fail. +Trying the match with the same pattern, the same datum, and a frame in +which `?y' is bound to `b' and `?x' is unbound will return the given +frame augmented by a binding of `?x' to `a'. + + The pattern matcher is all the mechanism that is needed to process +simple queries that don't involve rules. For instance, to process the +query + + (job ?x (computer programmer)) + +we scan through all assertions in the data base and select those that +match the pattern with respect to an initially empty frame. For each +match we find, we use the frame returned by the match to instantiate +the pattern with a value for `?x'. + +Streams of frames +................. + +The testing of patterns against frames is organized through the use of +streams. Given a single frame, the matching process runs through the +data-base entries one by one. For each data-base entry, the matcher +generates either a special symbol indicating that the match has failed +or an extension to the frame. The results for all the data-base +entries are collected into a stream, which is passed through a filter +to weed out the failures. The result is a stream of all the frames +that extend the given frame via a match to some assertion in the data +base.(1) + + In our system, a query takes an input stream of frames and performs +the above matching operation for every frame in the stream, as +indicated in *Note Figure 4-4::. That is, for each frame in the input +stream, the query generates a new stream consisting of all extensions +to that frame by matches to assertions in the data base. All these +streams are then combined to form one huge stream, which contains all +possible extensions of every frame in the input stream. This stream is +the output of the query. + + *Figure 4.4:* A query processes a stream of frames. + + output stream + input stream +-------------+ of frames, + of frames | query | filtered and extended + ---------------->| +-------------------------> + | (job ?x ?y) | + +-------------+ + ^ + | + stream of assertions + from data base + + To answer a simple query, we use the query with an input stream +consisting of a single empty frame. The resulting output stream +contains all extensions to the empty frame (that is, all answers to our +query). This stream of frames is then used to generate a stream of +copies of the original query pattern with the variables instantiated by +the values in each frame, and this is the stream that is finally +printed. + +Compound queries +................ + +The real elegance of the stream-of-frames implementation is evident +when we deal with compound queries. The processing of compound queries +makes use of the ability of our matcher to demand that a match be +consistent with a specified frame. For example, to handle the `and' of +two queries, such as + + (and (can-do-job ?x (computer programmer trainee)) + (job ?person ?x)) + +(informally, "Find all people who can do the job of a computer +programmer trainee"), we first find all entries that match the pattern + + (can-do-job ?x (computer programmer trainee)) + + This produces a stream of frames, each of which contains a binding +for `?x'. Then for each frame in the stream we find all entries that +match + + (job ?person ?x) + +in a way that is consistent with the given binding for `?x'. Each such +match will produce a frame containing bindings for `?x' and `?person'. +The `and' of two queries can be viewed as a series combination of the +two component queries, as shown in *Note Figure 4-5::. The frames that +pass through the first query filter are filtered and further extended +by the second query. + + *Figure 4.5:* The `and' combination of two queries is produced by + operating on the stream of frames in series. + + +----------------------+ + | (and A B) | + input stream | | output stream + of frames | +---+ +---+ | of frames + ------------------->| A +------>| B +--------------------> + | +---+ +---+ | + | ^ ^ | + | | | | + | +-----*-----+ | + +-----------|----------+ + | + data base + + *Note Figure 4-6:: shows the analogous method for computing the `or' +of two queries as a parallel combination of the two component queries. +The input stream of frames is extended separately by each query. The +two resulting streams are then merged to produce the final output +stream. + + *Figure 4.6:* The `or' combination of two queries is produced by + operating on the stream of frames in parallel and merging the + results. + + +---------------------------+ + | (or A B) | + | +---+ | + input | +->| A |------------+ | output + stream of | | +---+ V | stream of + frames | | ^ +-------+ | frames + -------------* | | merge +---------------> + | | | +-------+ | + | | | ^ | + | | | +---+ | | + | +------->| B +------+ | + | | +---+ | + | | ^ | + | | | | + | +--*--+ | + +---------|-----------------+ + | + data base + + Even from this high-level description, it is apparent that the +processing of compound queries can be slow. For example, since a query +may produce more than one output frame for each input frame, and each +query in an `and' gets its input frames from the previous query, an +`and' query could, in the worst case, have to perform a number of +matches that is exponential in the number of queries (see *Note +Exercise 4-76::).(2) Though systems for handling only simple queries +are quite practical, dealing with complex queries is extremely +difficult.(3) + + From the stream-of-frames viewpoint, the `not' of some query acts as +a filter that removes all frames for which the query can be satisfied. +For instance, given the pattern + + (not (job ?x (computer programmer))) + +we attempt, for each frame in the input stream, to produce extension +frames that satisfy `(job ?x (computer programmer))'. We remove from +the input stream all frames for which such extensions exist. The +result is a stream consisting of only those frames in which the binding +for `?x' does not satisfy `(job ?x (computer programmer))'. For +example, in processing the query + + (and (supervisor ?x ?y) + (not (job ?x (computer programmer)))) + +the first clause will generate frames with bindings for `?x' and `?y'. +The `not' clause will then filter these by removing all frames in which +the binding for `?x' satisfies the restriction that `?x' is a computer +programmer.(4) + + The `lisp-value' special form is implemented as a similar filter on +frame streams. We use each frame in the stream to instantiate any +variables in the pattern, then apply the Lisp predicate. We remove +from the input stream all frames for which the predicate fails. + +Unification +........... + +In order to handle rules in the query language, we must be able to find +the rules whose conclusions match a given query pattern. Rule +conclusions are like assertions except that they can contain variables, +so we will need a generalization of pattern matching--called "unification"--in +which both the "pattern" and the "datum" may contain variables. + + A unifier takes two patterns, each containing constants and +variables, and determines whether it is possible to assign values to +the variables that will make the two patterns equal. If so, it returns +a frame containing these bindings. For example, unifying `(?x a ?y)' +and `(?y ?z a)' will specify a frame in which `?x', `?y', and `?z' must +all be bound to `a'. On the other hand, unifying `(?x ?y a)' and `(?x +b ?y)' will fail, because there is no value for `?y' that can make the +two patterns equal. (For the second elements of the patterns to be +equal, `?y' would have to be `b'; however, for the third elements to be +equal, `?y' would have to be `a'.) The unifier used in the query +system, like the pattern matcher, takes a frame as input and performs +unifications that are consistent with this frame. + + The unification algorithm is the most technically difficult part of +the query system. With complex patterns, performing unification may +seem to require deduction. To unify `(?x ?x)' and `((a ?y c) (a b +?z))', for example, the algorithm must infer that `?x' should be `(a b +c)', `?y' should be `b', and `?z' should be `c'. We may think of this +process as solving a set of equations among the pattern components. In +general, these are simultaneous equations, which may require substantial +manipulation to solve.(5) For example, unifying `(?x ?x)' and `((a ?y +c) (a b ?z))' may be thought of as specifying the simultaneous equations + + ?x = (a ?y c) + ?x = (a b ?z) + + These equations imply that + + (a ?y c) = (a b ?z) + +which in turn implies that + + a = a, ?y = b, c = ?z, + +and hence that + + ?x = (a b c) + + In a successful pattern match, all pattern variables become bound, +and the values to which they are bound contain only constants. This is +also true of all the examples of unification we have seen so far. In +general, however, a successful unification may not completely determine +the variable values; some variables may remain unbound and others may +be bound to values that contain variables. + + Consider the unification of `(?x a)' and `((b ?y) ?z)'. We can +deduce that `?x = (b ?y)' and `a = ?z', but we cannot further solve for +`?x' or `?y'. The unification doesn't fail, since it is certainly +possible to make the two patterns equal by assigning values to `?x' and +`?y'. Since this match in no way restricts the values `?y' can take +on, no binding for `?y' is put into the result frame. The match does, +however, restrict the value of `?x'. Whatever value `?y' has, `?x' +must be `(b ?y)'. A binding of `?x' to the pattern `(b ?y)' is thus +put into the frame. If a value for `?y' is later determined and added +to the frame (by a pattern match or unification that is required to be +consistent with this frame), the previously bound `?x' will refer to +this value.(6) + +Applying rules +.............. + +Unification is the key to the component of the query system that makes +inferences from rules. To see how this is accomplished, consider +processing a query that involves applying a rule, such as + + (lives-near ?x (Hacker Alyssa P)) + + To process this query, we first use the ordinary pattern-match +procedure described above to see if there are any assertions in the +data base that match this pattern. (There will not be any in this +case, since our data base includes no direct assertions about who lives +near whom.) The next step is to attempt to unify the query pattern +with the conclusion of each rule. We find that the pattern unifies +with the conclusion of the rule + + (rule (lives-near ?person-1 ?person-2) + (and (address ?person-1 (?town . ?rest-1)) + (address ?person-2 (?town . ?rest-2)) + (not (same ?person-1 ?person-2)))) + +resulting in a frame specifying that `?person-2' is bound to `(Hacker +Alyssa P)' and that `?x' should be bound to (have the same value as) +`?person-1'. Now, relative to this frame, we evaluate the compound +query given by the body of the rule. Successful matches will extend +this frame by providing a binding for `?person-1', and consequently a +value for `?x', which we can use to instantiate the original query +pattern. + + In general, the query evaluator uses the following method to apply a +rule when trying to establish a query pattern in a frame that specifies +bindings for some of the pattern variables: + + * Unify the query with the conclusion of the rule to form, if + successful, an extension of the original frame. + + * Relative to the extended frame, evaluate the query formed by the + body of the rule. + + + Notice how similar this is to the method for applying a procedure in +the `eval'/`apply' evaluator for Lisp: + + * Bind the procedure's parameters to its arguments to form a frame + that extends the original procedure environment. + + * Relative to the extended environment, evaluate the expression + formed by the body of the procedure. + + + The similarity between the two evaluators should come as no +surprise. Just as procedure definitions are the means of abstraction +in Lisp, rule definitions are the means of abstraction in the query +language. In each case, we unwind the abstraction by creating +appropriate bindings and evaluating the rule or procedure body relative +to these. + +Simple queries +.............. + +We saw earlier in this section how to evaluate simple queries in the +absence of rules. Now that we have seen how to apply rules, we can +describe how to evaluate simple queries by using both rules and +assertions. + + Given the query pattern and a stream of frames, we produce, for each +frame in the input stream, two streams: + + * a stream of extended frames obtained by matching the pattern + against all assertions in the data base (using the pattern + matcher), and + + * a stream of extended frames obtained by applying all possible + rules (using the unifier).(7) + + + Appending these two streams produces a stream that consists of all +the ways that the given pattern can be satisfied consistent with the +original frame. These streams (one for each frame in the input stream) +are now all combined to form one large stream, which therefore consists +of all the ways that any of the frames in the original input stream can +be extended to produce a match with the given pattern. + +The query evaluator and the driver loop +....................................... + +Despite the complexity of the underlying matching operations, the +system is organized much like an evaluator for any language. The +procedure that coordinates the matching operations is called `qeval', +and it plays a role analogous to that of the `eval' procedure for Lisp. +`Qeval' takes as inputs a query and a stream of frames. Its output is +a stream of frames, corresponding to successful matches to the query +pattern, that extend some frame in the input stream, as indicated in +*Note Figure 4-4::. Like `eval', `qeval' classifies the different +types of expressions (queries) and dispatches to an appropriate +procedure for each. There is a procedure for each special form (`and', +`or', `not', and `lisp-value') and one for simple queries. + + The driver loop, which is analogous to the `driver-loop' procedure +for the other evaluators in this chapter, reads queries from the +terminal. For each query, it calls `qeval' with the query and a stream +that consists of a single empty frame. This will produce the stream of +all possible matches (all possible extensions to the empty frame). For +each frame in the resulting stream, it instantiates the original query +using the values of the variables found in the frame. This stream of +instantiated queries is then printed.(8) + + The driver also checks for the special command `assert!', which +signals that the input is not a query but rather an assertion or rule +to be added to the data base. For instance, + + (assert! (job (Bitdiddle Ben) (computer wizard))) + + (assert! (rule (wheel ?person) + (and (supervisor ?middle-manager ?person) + (supervisor ?x ?middle-manager)))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Because matching is generally very expensive, we would like to +avoid applying the full matcher to every element of the data base. +This is usually arranged by breaking up the process into a fast, coarse +match and the final match. The coarse match filters the data base to +produce a small set of candidates for the final match. With care, we +can arrange our data base so that some of the work of coarse matching +can be done when the data base is constructed rather then when we want +to select the candidates. This is called "indexing" the data base. +There is a vast technology built around data-base-indexing schemes. +Our implementation, described in section *Note 4-4-4::, contains a +simple-minded form of such an optimization. + + (2) But this kind of exponential explosion is not common in `and' +queries because the added conditions tend to reduce rather than expand +the number of frames produced. + + (3) There is a large literature on data-base-management systems that +is concerned with how to handle complex queries efficiently. + + (4) There is a subtle difference between this filter implementation +of `not' and the usual meaning of `not' in mathematical logic. See +section *Note 4-4-3::. + + (5) In one-sided pattern matching, all the equations that contain +pattern variables are explicit and already solved for the unknown (the +pattern variable). + + (6) Another way to think of unification is that it generates the +most general pattern that is a specialization of the two input +patterns. That is, the unification of `(?x a)' and `((b ?y) ?z)' is +`((b ?y) a)', and the unification of `(?x a ?y)' and `(?y ?z a)', +discussed above, is `(a a a)'. For our implementation, it is more +convenient to think of the result of unification as a frame rather than +a pattern. + + (7) Since unification is a generalization of matching, we could +simplify the system by using the unifier to produce both streams. +Treating the easy case with the simple matcher, however, illustrates +how matching (as opposed to full-blown unification) can be useful in +its own right. + + (8) The reason we use streams (rather than lists) of frames is that +the recursive application of rules can generate infinite numbers of +values that satisfy a query. The delayed evaluation embodied in +streams is crucial here: The system will print responses one by one as +they are generated, regardless of whether there are a finite or +infinite number of responses. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-3, Next: 4-4-4, Prev: 4-4-2, Up: 4-4 + +4.4.3 Is Logic Programming Mathematical Logic? +---------------------------------------------- + +The means of combination used in the query language may at first seem +identical to the operations `and', `or', and `not' of mathematical +logic, and the application of query-language rules is in fact +accomplished through a legitimate method of inference.(1) This +identification of the query language with mathematical logic is not +really valid, though, because the query language provides a structure +"control structure" that interprets the logical statements +procedurally. We can often take advantage of this control structure. +For example, to find all of the supervisors of programmers we could +formulate a query in either of two logically equivalent forms: + + (and (job ?x (computer programmer)) + (supervisor ?x ?y)) + +or + + (and (supervisor ?x ?y) + (job ?x (computer programmer))) + + If a company has many more supervisors than programmers (the usual +case), it is better to use the first form rather than the second +because the data base must be scanned for each intermediate result +(frame) produced by the first clause of the `and'. + + The aim of logic programming is to provide the programmer with +techniques for decomposing a computational problem into two separate +problems: "what" is to be computed, and "how" this should be computed. +This is accomplished by selecting a subset of the statements of +mathematical logic that is powerful enough to be able to describe +anything one might want to compute, yet weak enough to have a +controllable procedural interpretation. The intention here is that, on +the one hand, a program specified in a logic programming language +should be an effective program that can be carried out by a computer. +Control ("how" to compute) is effected by using the order of evaluation +of the language. We should be able to arrange the order of clauses and +the order of subgoals within each clause so that the computation is +done in an order deemed to be effective and efficient. At the same +time, we should be able to view the result of the computation ("what" +to compute) as a simple consequence of the laws of logic. + + Our query language can be regarded as just such a procedurally +interpretable subset of mathematical logic. An assertion represents a +simple fact (an atomic proposition). A rule represents the implication +that the rule conclusion holds for those cases where the rule body +holds. A rule has a natural procedural interpretation: To establish +the conclusion of the rule, establish the body of the rule. Rules, +therefore, specify computations. However, because rules can also be +regarded as statements of mathematical logic, we can justify any +"inference" accomplished by a logic program by asserting that the same +result could be obtained by working entirely within mathematical +logic.(2) + +Infinite loops +.............. + +A consequence of the procedural interpretation of logic programs is +that it is possible to construct hopelessly inefficient programs for +solving certain problems. An extreme case of inefficiency occurs when +the system falls into infinite loops in making deductions. As a simple +example, suppose we are setting up a data base of famous marriages, +including + + (assert! (married Minnie Mickey)) + + If we now ask + + (married Mickey ?who) + +we will get no response, because the system doesn't know that if A is +married to B, then B is married to A. So we assert the rule + + (assert! (rule (married ?x ?y) + (married ?y ?x))) + +and again query + + (married Mickey ?who) + + Unfortunately, this will drive the system into an infinite loop, as +follows: + + * The system finds that the `married' rule is applicable; that is, + the rule conclusion `(married ?x ?y)' successfully unifies with + the query pattern `(married Mickey ?who)' to produce a frame in + which `?x' is bound to `Mickey' and `?y' is bound to `?who'. So + the interpreter proceeds to evaluate the rule body `(married ?y + ?x)' in this frame--in effect, to process the query `(married ?who + Mickey)'. + + * One answer appears directly as an assertion in the data base: + `(married Minnie Mickey)'. + + * The `married' rule is also applicable, so the interpreter again + evaluates the rule body, which this time is equivalent to + `(married Mickey ?who)'. + + + The system is now in an infinite loop. Indeed, whether the system +will find the simple answer `(married Minnie Mickey)' before it goes +into the loop depends on implementation details concerning the order in +which the system checks the items in the data base. This is a very +simple example of the kinds of loops that can occur. Collections of +interrelated rules can lead to loops that are much harder to +anticipate, and the appearance of a loop can depend on the order of +clauses in an `and' (see *Note Exercise 4-64::) or on low-level details +concerning the order in which the system processes queries.(3) + +Problems with `not' +................... + +Another quirk in the query system concerns `not'. Given the data base +of section *Note 4-4-1::, consider the following two queries: + + (and (supervisor ?x ?y) + (not (job ?x (computer programmer)))) + + (and (not (job ?x (computer programmer))) + (supervisor ?x ?y)) + + These two queries do not produce the same result. The first query +begins by finding all entries in the data base that match `(supervisor +?x ?y)', and then filters the resulting frames by removing the ones in +which the value of `?x' satisfies `(job ?x (computer programmer))'. +The second query begins by filtering the incoming frames to remove +those that can satisfy `(job ?x (computer programmer))'. Since the +only incoming frame is empty, it checks the data base to see if there +are any patterns that satisfy `(job ?x (computer programmer))'. Since +there generally are entries of this form, the `not' clause filters out +the empty frame and returns an empty stream of frames. Consequently, +the entire compound query returns an empty stream. + + The trouble is that our implementation of `not' really is meant to +serve as a filter on values for the variables. If a `not' clause is +processed with a frame in which some of the variables remain unbound +(as does `?x' in the example above), the system will produce unexpected +results. Similar problems occur with the use of `lisp-value'--the Lisp +predicate can't work if some of its arguments are unbound. See *Note +Exercise 4-77::. + + There is also a much more serious way in which the `not' of the query +language differs from the `not' of mathematical logic. In logic, we +interpret the statement "not P" to mean that P is not true. In the +query system, however, "not P" means that P is not deducible from the +knowledge in the data base. For example, given the personnel data base +of section *Note 4-4-1::, the system would happily deduce all sorts of +`not' statements, such as that Ben Bitdiddle is not a baseball fan, +that it is not raining outside, and that 2 + 2 is not 4.(4) In other +words, the `not' of logic programming languages reflects the so-called "closed +world assumption" that all relevant information has been included in +the data base.(5) + + *Exercise 4.64:* Louis Reasoner mistakenly deletes the + `outranked-by' rule (section *Note 4-4-1::) from the data base. + When he realizes this, he quickly reinstalls it. Unfortunately, + he makes a slight change in the rule, and types it in as + + (rule (outranked-by ?staff-person ?boss) + (or (supervisor ?staff-person ?boss) + (and (outranked-by ?middle-manager ?boss) + (supervisor ?staff-person ?middle-manager)))) + + Just after Louis types this information into the system, DeWitt + Aull comes by to find out who outranks Ben Bitdiddle. He issues + the query + + (outranked-by (Bitdiddle Ben) ?who) + + After answering, the system goes into an infinite loop. Explain + why. + + *Exercise 4.65:* Cy D. Fect, looking forward to the day when he + will rise in the organization, gives a query to find all the + wheels (using the `wheel' rule of section *Note 4-4-1::): + + (wheel ?who) + + To his surprise, the system responds + + ;;; Query results: + (wheel (Warbucks Oliver)) + (wheel (Bitdiddle Ben)) + (wheel (Warbucks Oliver)) + (wheel (Warbucks Oliver)) + (wheel (Warbucks Oliver)) + + Why is Oliver Warbucks listed four times? + + *Exercise 4.66:* Ben has been generalizing the query system to + provide statistics about the company. For example, to find the + total salaries of all the computer programmers one will be able to + say + + (sum ?amount + (and (job ?x (computer programmer)) + (salary ?x ?amount))) + + In general, Ben's new system allows expressions of the form + + (accumulation-function <VARIABLE> + <QUERY PATTERN>) + + where `accumulation-function' can be things like `sum', `average', + or `maximum'. Ben reasons that it should be a cinch to implement + this. He will simply feed the query pattern to `qeval'. This + will produce a stream of frames. He will then pass this stream + through a mapping function that extracts the value of the + designated variable from each frame in the stream and feed the + resulting stream of values to the accumulation function. Just as + Ben completes the implementation and is about to try it out, Cy + walks by, still puzzling over the `wheel' query result in exercise + *Note Exercise 4-65::. When Cy shows Ben the system's response, + Ben groans, "Oh, no, my simple accumulation scheme won't work!" + + What has Ben just realized? Outline a method he can use to + salvage the situation. + + *Exercise 4.67:* Devise a way to install a loop detector in the + query system so as to avoid the kinds of simple loops illustrated + in the text and in *Note Exercise 4-64::. The general idea is that + the system should maintain some sort of history of its current + chain of deductions and should not begin processing a query that + it is already working on. Describe what kind of information + (patterns and frames) is included in this history, and how the + check should be made. (After you study the details of the + query-system implementation in section *Note 4-4-4::, you may want + to modify the system to include your loop detector.) + + *Exercise 4.68:* Define rules to implement the `reverse' operation + of *Note Exercise 2-18::, which returns a list containing the same + elements as a given list in reverse order. (Hint: Use + `append-to-form'.) Can your rules answer both `(reverse (1 2 3) + ?x)' and `(reverse ?x (1 2 3))' ? + + *Exercise 4.69:* Beginning with the data base and the rules you + formulated in *Note Exercise 4-63::, devise a rule for adding + "greats" to a grandson relationship. This should enable the system + to deduce that Irad is the great-grandson of Adam, or that Jabal + and Jubal are the great-great-great-great-great-grandsons of Adam. + (Hint: Represent the fact about Irad, for example, as `((great + grandson) Adam Irad)'. Write rules that determine if a list ends + in the word `grandson'. Use this to express a rule that allows + one to derive the relationship `((great . ?rel) ?x ?y)', where + `?rel' is a list ending in `grandson'.) Check your rules on + queries such as `((great grandson) ?g ?ggs)' and `(?relationship + Adam Irad)'. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) That a particular method of inference is legitimate is not a +trivial assertion. One must prove that if one starts with true +premises, only true conclusions can be derived. The method of +inference represented by rule applications is "modus ponens", the +familiar method of inference that says that if A is true and _A implies +B_ is true, then we may conclude that B is true. + + (2) We must qualify this statement by agreeing that, in speaking of +the "inference" accomplished by a logic program, we assume that the +computation terminates. Unfortunately, even this qualified statement +is false for our implementation of the query language (and also false +for programs in Prolog and most other current logic programming +languages) because of our use of `not' and `lisp-value'. As we will +describe below, the `not' implemented in the query language is not +always consistent with the `not' of mathematical logic, and +`lisp-value' introduces additional complications. We could implement a +language consistent with mathematical logic by simply removing `not' +and `lisp-value' from the language and agreeing to write programs using +only simple queries, `and', and `or'. However, this would greatly +restrict the expressive power of the language. One of the major +concerns of research in logic programming is to find ways to achieve +more consistency with mathematical logic without unduly sacrificing +expressive power. + + (3) This is not a problem of the logic but one of the procedural +interpretation of the logic provided by our interpreter. We could +write an interpreter that would not fall into a loop here. For +example, we could enumerate all the proofs derivable from our +assertions and our rules in a breadth-first rather than a depth-first +order. However, such a system makes it more difficult to take +advantage of the order of deductions in our programs. One attempt to +build sophisticated control into such a program is described in deKleer +et al. 1977. Another technique, which does not lead to such serious +control problems, is to put in special knowledge, such as detectors for +particular kinds of loops (*Note Exercise 4-67::). However, there can +be no general scheme for reliably preventing a system from going down +infinite paths in performing deductions. Imagine a diabolical rule of +the form "To show P(x) is true, show that P(f(x)) is true," for some +suitably chosen function f. + + (4) Consider the query `(not (baseball-fan (Bitdiddle Ben)))'. The +system finds that `(baseball-fan (Bitdiddle Ben))' is not in the data +base, so the empty frame does not satisfy the pattern and is not +filtered out of the initial stream of frames. The result of the query +is thus the empty frame, which is used to instantiate the input query +to produce `(not (baseball-fan (Bitdiddle Ben)))'. + + (5) A discussion and justification of this treatment of `not' can be +found in the article by Clark (1978). + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4, Prev: 4-4-3, Up: 4-4 + +4.4.4 Implementing the Query System +----------------------------------- + +Section *Note 4-4-2:: described how the query system works. Now we fill +in the details by presenting a complete implementation of the system. + +* Menu: + +* 4-4-4-1:: The Driver Loop and Instantiation +* 4-4-4-2:: The Evaluator +* 4-4-4-3:: Finding Assertions by Pattern Matching +* 4-4-4-4:: Rules and Unification +* 4-4-4-5:: Maintaining the Data Base +* 4-4-4-6:: Stream Operations +* 4-4-4-7:: Query Syntax Procedures +* 4-4-4-8:: Frames and Bindings + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-1, Next: 4-4-4-2, Prev: 4-4-4, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.1 The Driver Loop and Instantiation +......................................... + +The driver loop for the query system repeatedly reads input +expressions. If the expression is a rule or assertion to be added to +the data base, then the information is added. Otherwise the expression +is assumed to be a query. The driver passes this query to the +evaluator `qeval' together with an initial frame stream consisting of a +single empty frame. The result of the evaluation is a stream of frames +generated by satisfying the query with variable values found in the +data base. These frames are used to form a new stream consisting of +copies of the original query in which the variables are instantiated +with values supplied by the stream of frames, and this final stream is +printed at the terminal: + + (define input-prompt ";;; Query input:") + (define output-prompt ";;; Query results:") + + (define (query-driver-loop) + (prompt-for-input input-prompt) + (let ((q (query-syntax-process (read)))) + (cond ((assertion-to-be-added? q) + (add-rule-or-assertion! (add-assertion-body q)) + (newline) + (display "Assertion added to data base.") + (query-driver-loop)) + (else + (newline) + (display output-prompt) + (display-stream + (stream-map + (lambda (frame) + (instantiate q + frame + (lambda (v f) + (contract-question-mark v)))) + (qeval q (singleton-stream '())))) + (query-driver-loop))))) + + Here, as in the other evaluators in this chapter, we use an abstract +syntax for the expressions of the query language. The implementation +of the expression syntax, including the predicate +`assertion-to-be-added?' and the selector `add-assertion-body', is +given in section *Note 4-4-4-7::. `Add-rule-or-assertion!' is defined +in section *Note 4-4-4-5::. + + Before doing any processing on an input expression, the driver loop +transforms it syntactically into a form that makes the processing more +efficient. This involves changing the representation of pattern +variables. When the query is instantiated, any variables that remain +unbound are transformed back to the input representation before being +printed. These transformations are performed by the two procedures +`query-syntax-process' and `contract-question-mark' (section *Note +4-4-4-7::). + + To instantiate an expression, we copy it, replacing any variables in +the expression by their values in a given frame. The values are +themselves instantiated, since they could contain variables (for +example, if `?x' in `exp' is bound to `?y' as the result of unification +and `?y' is in turn bound to 5). The action to take if a variable +cannot be instantiated is given by a procedural argument to +`instantiate'. + + (define (instantiate exp frame unbound-var-handler) + (define (copy exp) + (cond ((var? exp) + (let ((binding (binding-in-frame exp frame))) + (if binding + (copy (binding-value binding)) + (unbound-var-handler exp frame)))) + ((pair? exp) + (cons (copy (car exp)) (copy (cdr exp)))) + (else exp))) + (copy exp)) + + The procedures that manipulate bindings are defined in section *Note +4-4-4-8::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-2, Next: 4-4-4-3, Prev: 4-4-4-1, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.2 The Evaluator +..................... + +The `qeval' procedure, called by the `query-driver-loop', is the basic +evaluator of the query system. It takes as inputs a query and a stream +of frames, and it returns a stream of extended frames. It identifies +special forms by a data-directed dispatch using `get' and `put', just +as we did in implementing generic operations in *Note Chapter 2::. Any +query that is not identified as a special form is assumed to be a +simple query, to be processed by `simple-query'. + + (define (qeval query frame-stream) + (let ((qproc (get (type query) 'qeval))) + (if qproc + (qproc (contents query) frame-stream) + (simple-query query frame-stream)))) + + `Type' and `contents', defined in section *Note 4-4-4-7::, implement +the abstract syntax of the special forms. + +Simple queries +.............. + +The `simple-query' procedure handles simple queries. It takes as +arguments a simple query (a pattern) together with a stream of frames, +and it returns the stream formed by extending each frame by all +data-base matches of the query. + + (define (simple-query query-pattern frame-stream) + (stream-flatmap + (lambda (frame) + (stream-append-delayed + (find-assertions query-pattern frame) + (delay (apply-rules query-pattern frame)))) + frame-stream)) + + For each frame in the input stream, we use `find-assertions' (section +*Note 4-4-4-3::) to match the pattern against all assertions in the +data base, producing a stream of extended frames, and we use +`apply-rules' (section *Note 4-4-4-4::) to apply all possible rules, +producing another stream of extended frames. These two streams are +combined (using `stream-append-delayed', section *Note 4-4-4-6::) to +make a stream of all the ways that the given pattern can be satisfied +consistent with the original frame (see *Note Exercise 4-71::). The +streams for the individual input frames are combined using +`stream-flatmap' (section *Note 4-4-4-6::) to form one large stream of +all the ways that any of the frames in the original input stream can be +extended to produce a match with the given pattern. + +Compound queries +................ + +`And' queries are handled as illustrated in *Note Figure 4-5:: by the +`conjoin' procedure. `Conjoin' takes as inputs the conjuncts and the +frame stream and returns the stream of extended frames. First, +`conjoin' processes the stream of frames to find the stream of all +possible frame extensions that satisfy the first query in the +conjunction. Then, using this as the new frame stream, it recursively +applies `conjoin' to the rest of the queries. + + (define (conjoin conjuncts frame-stream) + (if (empty-conjunction? conjuncts) + frame-stream + (conjoin (rest-conjuncts conjuncts) + (qeval (first-conjunct conjuncts) + frame-stream)))) + + The expression + + (put 'and 'qeval conjoin) + +sets up `qeval' to dispatch to `conjoin' when an `and' form is +encountered. + + `Or' queries are handled similarly, as shown in *Note Figure 4-6::. +The output streams for the various disjuncts of the `or' are computed +separately and merged using the `interleave-delayed' procedure from +section *Note 4-4-4-6::. (See *Note Exercise 4-71:: and *Note Exercise +4-72::.) + + (define (disjoin disjuncts frame-stream) + (if (empty-disjunction? disjuncts) + the-empty-stream + (interleave-delayed + (qeval (first-disjunct disjuncts) frame-stream) + (delay (disjoin (rest-disjuncts disjuncts) + frame-stream))))) + + (put 'or 'qeval disjoin) + + The predicates and selectors for the syntax of conjuncts and +disjuncts are given in section *Note 4-4-4-7::. + +Filters +....... + +`Not' is handled by the method outlined in section *Note 4-4-2::. We +attempt to extend each frame in the input stream to satisfy the query +being negated, and we include a given frame in the output stream only +if it cannot be extended. + + (define (negate operands frame-stream) + (stream-flatmap + (lambda (frame) + (if (stream-null? (qeval (negated-query operands) + (singleton-stream frame))) + (singleton-stream frame) + the-empty-stream)) + frame-stream)) + + (put 'not 'qeval negate) + + `Lisp-value' is a filter similar to `not'. Each frame in the stream +is used to instantiate the variables in the pattern, the indicated +predicate is applied, and the frames for which the predicate returns +false are filtered out of the input stream. An error results if there +are unbound pattern variables. + + (define (lisp-value call frame-stream) + (stream-flatmap + (lambda (frame) + (if (execute + (instantiate + call + frame + (lambda (v f) + (error "Unknown pat var -- LISP-VALUE" v)))) + (singleton-stream frame) + the-empty-stream)) + frame-stream)) + + (put 'lisp-value 'qeval lisp-value) + + `Execute', which applies the predicate to the arguments, must `eval' +the predicate expression to get the procedure to apply. However, it +must not evaluate the arguments, since they are already the actual +arguments, not expressions whose evaluation (in Lisp) will produce the +arguments. Note that `execute' is implemented using `eval' and `apply' +from the underlying Lisp system. + + (define (execute exp) + (apply (eval (predicate exp) user-initial-environment) + (args exp))) + + The `always-true' special form provides for a query that is always +satisfied. It ignores its contents (normally empty) and simply passes +through all the frames in the input stream. `Always-true' is used by +the `rule-body' selector (section *Note 4-4-4-7::) to provide bodies +for rules that were defined without bodies (that is, rules whose +conclusions are always satisfied). + + (define (always-true ignore frame-stream) frame-stream) + + (put 'always-true 'qeval always-true) + + The selectors that define the syntax of `not' and `lisp-value' are +given in section *Note 4-4-4-7::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-3, Next: 4-4-4-4, Prev: 4-4-4-2, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.3 Finding Assertions by Pattern Matching +.............................................. + +`Find-assertions', called by `simple-query' (section *Note 4-4-4-2::), +takes as input a pattern and a frame. It returns a stream of frames, +each extending the given one by a data-base match of the given pattern. +It uses `fetch-assertions' (section *Note 4-4-4-5::) to get a stream +of all the assertions in the data base that should be checked for a +match against the pattern and the frame. The reason for +`fetch-assertions' here is that we can often apply simple tests that +will eliminate many of the entries in the data base from the pool of +candidates for a successful match. The system would still work if we +eliminated `fetch-assertions' and simply checked a stream of all +assertions in the data base, but the computation would be less efficient +because we would need to make many more calls to the matcher. + + (define (find-assertions pattern frame) + (stream-flatmap (lambda (datum) + (check-an-assertion datum pattern frame)) + (fetch-assertions pattern frame))) + + `Check-an-assertion' takes as arguments a pattern, a data object +(assertion), and a frame and returns either a one-element stream +containing the extended frame or `the-empty-stream' if the match fails. + + (define (check-an-assertion assertion query-pat query-frame) + (let ((match-result + (pattern-match query-pat assertion query-frame))) + (if (eq? match-result 'failed) + the-empty-stream + (singleton-stream match-result)))) + + The basic pattern matcher returns either the symbol `failed' or an +extension of the given frame. The basic idea of the matcher is to +check the pattern against the data, element by element, accumulating +bindings for the pattern variables. If the pattern and the data object +are the same, the match succeeds and we return the frame of bindings +accumulated so far. Otherwise, if the pattern is a variable we extend +the current frame by binding the variable to the data, so long as this +is consistent with the bindings already in the frame. If the pattern +and the data are both pairs, we (recursively) match the `car' of the +pattern against the `car' of the data to produce a frame; in this frame +we then match the `cdr' of the pattern against the `cdr' of the data. +If none of these cases are applicable, the match fails and we return +the symbol `failed'. + + (define (pattern-match pat dat frame) + (cond ((eq? frame 'failed) 'failed) + ((equal? pat dat) frame) + ((var? pat) (extend-if-consistent pat dat frame)) + ((and (pair? pat) (pair? dat)) + (pattern-match (cdr pat) + (cdr dat) + (pattern-match (car pat) + (car dat) + frame))) + (else 'failed))) + + Here is the procedure that extends a frame by adding a new binding, +if this is consistent with the bindings already in the frame: + + (define (extend-if-consistent var dat frame) + (let ((binding (binding-in-frame var frame))) + (if binding + (pattern-match (binding-value binding) dat frame) + (extend var dat frame)))) + + If there is no binding for the variable in the frame, we simply add +the binding of the variable to the data. Otherwise we match, in the +frame, the data against the value of the variable in the frame. If the +stored value contains only constants, as it must if it was stored +during pattern matching by `extend-if-consistent', then the match +simply tests whether the stored and new values are the same. If so, it +returns the unmodified frame; if not, it returns a failure indication. +The stored value may, however, contain pattern variables if it was +stored during unification (see section *Note 4-4-4-4::). The recursive +match of the stored pattern against the new data will add or check +bindings for the variables in this pattern. For example, suppose we +have a frame in which `?x' is bound to `(f ?y)' and `?y' is unbound, +and we wish to augment this frame by a binding of `?x' to `(f b)'. We +look up `?x' and find that it is bound to `(f ?y)'. This leads us to +match `(f ?y)' against the proposed new value `(f b)' in the same +frame. Eventually this match extends the frame by adding a binding of +`?y' to `b'. `?X' remains bound to `(f ?y)'. We never modify a stored +binding and we never store more than one binding for a given variable. + + The procedures used by `extend-if-consistent' to manipulate bindings +are defined in section *Note 4-4-4-8::. + +Patterns with dotted tails +.......................... + +If a pattern contains a dot followed by a pattern variable, the pattern +variable matches the rest of the data list (rather than the next +element of the data list), just as one would expect with the +dotted-tail notation described in *Note Exercise 2-20::. Although the +pattern matcher we have just implemented doesn't look for dots, it does +behave as we want. This is because the Lisp `read' primitive, which is +used by `query-driver-loop' to read the query and represent it as a +list structure, treats dots in a special way. + + When `read' sees a dot, instead of making the next item be the next +element of a list (the `car' of a `cons' whose `cdr' will be the rest +of the list) it makes the next item be the `cdr' of the list structure. +For example, the list structure produced by `read' for the pattern +`(computer ?type)' could be constructed by evaluating the expression +`(cons 'computer (cons '?type '()))', and that for `(computer . ?type)' +could be constructed by evaluating the expression `(cons 'computer +'?type)'. + + Thus, as `pattern-match' recursively compares `car's and `cdr's of a +data list and a pattern that had a dot, it eventually matches the +variable after the dot (which is a `cdr' of the pattern) against a +sublist of the data list, binding the variable to that list. For +example, matching the pattern `(computer . ?type)' against `(computer +programmer trainee)' will match `?type' against the list `(programmer +trainee)'. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-4, Next: 4-4-4-5, Prev: 4-4-4-3, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.4 Rules and Unification +............................. + +`Apply-rules' is the rule analog of `find-assertions' (section *Note +4-4-4-3::). It takes as input a pattern and a frame, and it forms a +stream of extension frames by applying rules from the data base. +`Stream-flatmap' maps `apply-a-rule' down the stream of possibly +applicable rules (selected by `fetch-rules', section *Note 4-4-4-5::) +and combines the resulting streams of frames. + + (define (apply-rules pattern frame) + (stream-flatmap (lambda (rule) + (apply-a-rule rule pattern frame)) + (fetch-rules pattern frame))) + + `Apply-a-rule' applies rules using the method outlined in section +*Note 4-4-2::. It first augments its argument frame by unifying the +rule conclusion with the pattern in the given frame. If this succeeds, +it evaluates the rule body in this new frame. + + Before any of this happens, however, the program renames all the +variables in the rule with unique new names. The reason for this is to +prevent the variables for different rule applications from becoming +confused with each other. For instance, if two rules both use a +variable named `?x', then each one may add a binding for `?x' to the +frame when it is applied. These two `?x''s have nothing to do with +each other, and we should not be fooled into thinking that the two +bindings must be consistent. Rather than rename variables, we could +devise a more clever environment structure; however, the renaming +approach we have chosen here is the most straightforward, even if not +the most efficient. (See *Note Exercise 4-79::.) Here is the +`apply-a-rule' procedure: + + (define (apply-a-rule rule query-pattern query-frame) + (let ((clean-rule (rename-variables-in rule))) + (let ((unify-result + (unify-match query-pattern + (conclusion clean-rule) + query-frame))) + (if (eq? unify-result 'failed) + the-empty-stream + (qeval (rule-body clean-rule) + (singleton-stream unify-result)))))) + + The selectors `rule-body' and `conclusion' that extract parts of a +rule are defined in section *Note 4-4-4-7::. + + We generate unique variable names by associating a unique identifier +(such as a number) with each rule application and combining this +identifier with the original variable names. For example, if the +rule-application identifier is 7, we might change each `?x' in the rule +to `?x-7' and each `?y' in the rule to `?y-7'. (`Make-new-variable' and +`new-rule-application-id' are included with the syntax procedures in +section *Note 4-4-4-7::.) + + (define (rename-variables-in rule) + (let ((rule-application-id (new-rule-application-id))) + (define (tree-walk exp) + (cond ((var? exp) + (make-new-variable exp rule-application-id)) + ((pair? exp) + (cons (tree-walk (car exp)) + (tree-walk (cdr exp)))) + (else exp))) + (tree-walk rule))) + + The unification algorithm is implemented as a procedure that takes +as inputs two patterns and a frame and returns either the extended +frame or the symbol `failed'. The unifier is like the pattern matcher +except that it is symmetrical--variables are allowed on both sides of +the match. `Unify-match' is basically the same as `pattern-match', +except that there is extra code (marked "`***'" below) to handle the +case where the object on the right side of the match is a variable. + + (define (unify-match p1 p2 frame) + (cond ((eq? frame 'failed) 'failed) + ((equal? p1 p2) frame) + ((var? p1) (extend-if-possible p1 p2 frame)) + ((var? p2) (extend-if-possible p2 p1 frame)) ; *** + ((and (pair? p1) (pair? p2)) + (unify-match (cdr p1) + (cdr p2) + (unify-match (car p1) + (car p2) + frame))) + (else 'failed))) + + In unification, as in one-sided pattern matching, we want to accept +a proposed extension of the frame only if it is consistent with +existing bindings. The procedure `extend-if-possible' used in +unification is the same as the `extend-if-consistent' used in pattern +matching except for two special checks, marked "`***'" in the program +below. In the first case, if the variable we are trying to match is +not bound, but the value we are trying to match it with is itself a +(different) variable, it is necessary to check to see if the value is +bound, and if so, to match its value. If both parties to the match are +unbound, we may bind either to the other. + + The second check deals with attempts to bind a variable to a pattern +that includes that variable. Such a situation can occur whenever a +variable is repeated in both patterns. Consider, for example, unifying +the two patterns `(?x ?x)' and `(?y <EXPRESSION INVOLVING `?Y'>)' in a +frame where both `?x' and `?y' are unbound. First `?x' is matched +against `?y', making a binding of `?x' to `?y'. Next, the same `?x' is +matched against the given expression involving `?y'. Since `?x' is +already bound to `?y', this results in matching `?y' against the +expression. If we think of the unifier as finding a set of values for +the pattern variables that make the patterns the same, then these +patterns imply instructions to find a `?y' such that `?y' is equal to +the expression involving `?y'. There is no general method for solving +such equations, so we reject such bindings; these cases are recognized +by the predicate `depends-on?'.(1) On the other hand, we do not want +to reject attempts to bind a variable to itself. For example, consider +unifying `(?x ?x)' and `(?y ?y)'. The second attempt to bind `?x' to +`?y' matches `?y' (the stored value of `?x') against `?y' (the new +value of `?x'). This is taken care of by the `equal?' clause of +`unify-match'. + + (define (extend-if-possible var val frame) + (let ((binding (binding-in-frame var frame))) + (cond (binding + (unify-match + (binding-value binding) val frame)) + ((var? val) ; *** + (let ((binding (binding-in-frame val frame))) + (if binding + (unify-match + var (binding-value binding) frame) + (extend var val frame)))) + ((depends-on? val var frame) ; *** + 'failed) + (else (extend var val frame))))) + + `Depends-on?' is a predicate that tests whether an expression +proposed to be the value of a pattern variable depends on the variable. +This must be done relative to the current frame because the expression +may contain occurrences of a variable that already has a value that +depends on our test variable. The structure of `depends-on?' is a +simple recursive tree walk in which we substitute for the values of +variables whenever necessary. + + (define (depends-on? exp var frame) + (define (tree-walk e) + (cond ((var? e) + (if (equal? var e) + true + (let ((b (binding-in-frame e frame))) + (if b + (tree-walk (binding-value b)) + false)))) + ((pair? e) + (or (tree-walk (car e)) + (tree-walk (cdr e)))) + (else false))) + (tree-walk exp)) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) In general, unifying `?y' with an expression involving `?y' +would require our being able to find a fixed point of the equation `?y' += <EXPRESSION INVOLVING `?Y'>. It is sometimes possible to +syntactically form an expression that appears to be the solution. For +example, `?y' = `(f ?y)' seems to have the fixed point `(f (f (f ... +)))', which we can produce by beginning with the expression `(f ?y)' +and repeatedly substituting `(f ?y)' for `?y'. Unfortunately, not +every such equation has a meaningful fixed point. The issues that +arise here are similar to the issues of manipulating infinite series in +mathematics. For example, we know that 2 is the solution to the +equation y = 1 + y/2. Beginning with the expression 1 + y/2 and +repeatedly substituting 1 + y/2 for y gives + + 2 = y = 1 + y/2 = 1 + (1 + y/2)/2 = 1 + 1/2 + y/4 = ... + +which leads to + + 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + +However, if we try the same manipulation beginning with the observation +that - 1 is the solution to the equation y = 1 + 2y, we obtain + + -1 = y = 1 + 2y = 1 + 2(1 + 2y) = 1 + 2 + 4y = ... + +which leads to + + -1 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + +Although the formal manipulations used in deriving these two equations +are identical, the first result is a valid assertion about infinite +series but the second is not. Similarly, for our unification results, +reasoning with an arbitrary syntactically constructed expression may +lead to errors. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-5, Next: 4-4-4-6, Prev: 4-4-4-4, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.5 Maintaining the Data Base +................................. + +One important problem in designing logic programming languages is that +of arranging things so that as few irrelevant data-base entries as +possible will be examined in checking a given pattern. In our system, +in addition to storing all assertions in one big stream, we store all +assertions whose `car's are constant symbols in separate streams, in a +table indexed by the symbol. To fetch an assertion that may match a +pattern, we first check to see if the `car' of the pattern is a +constant symbol. If so, we return (to be tested using the matcher) all +the stored assertions that have the same `car'. If the pattern's `car' +is not a constant symbol, we return all the stored assertions. +Cleverer methods could also take advantage of information in the frame, +or try also to optimize the case where the `car' of the pattern is not +a constant symbol. We avoid building our criteria for indexing (using +the `car', handling only the case of constant symbols) into the program; +instead we call on predicates and selectors that embody our criteria. + + (define THE-ASSERTIONS the-empty-stream) + + (define (fetch-assertions pattern frame) + (if (use-index? pattern) + (get-indexed-assertions pattern) + (get-all-assertions))) + + (define (get-all-assertions) THE-ASSERTIONS) + + (define (get-indexed-assertions pattern) + (get-stream (index-key-of pattern) 'assertion-stream)) + + `Get-stream' looks up a stream in the table and returns an empty +stream if nothing is stored there. + + (define (get-stream key1 key2) + (let ((s (get key1 key2))) + (if s s the-empty-stream))) + + Rules are stored similarly, using the `car' of the rule conclusion. +Rule conclusions are arbitrary patterns, however, so they differ from +assertions in that they can contain variables. A pattern whose `car' +is a constant symbol can match rules whose conclusions start with a +variable as well as rules whose conclusions have the same `car'. Thus, +when fetching rules that might match a pattern whose `car' is a +constant symbol we fetch all rules whose conclusions start with a +variable as well as those whose conclusions have the same `car' as the +pattern. For this purpose we store all rules whose conclusions start +with a variable in a separate stream in our table, indexed by the +symbol `?'. + + (define THE-RULES the-empty-stream) + + (define (fetch-rules pattern frame) + (if (use-index? pattern) + (get-indexed-rules pattern) + (get-all-rules))) + + (define (get-all-rules) THE-RULES) + + (define (get-indexed-rules pattern) + (stream-append + (get-stream (index-key-of pattern) 'rule-stream) + (get-stream '? 'rule-stream))) + + `Add-rule-or-assertion!' is used by `query-driver-loop' to add +assertions and rules to the data base. Each item is stored in the +index, if appropriate, and in a stream of all assertions or rules in +the data base. + + (define (add-rule-or-assertion! assertion) + (if (rule? assertion) + (add-rule! assertion) + (add-assertion! assertion))) + + (define (add-assertion! assertion) + (store-assertion-in-index assertion) + (let ((old-assertions THE-ASSERTIONS)) + (set! THE-ASSERTIONS + (cons-stream assertion old-assertions)) + 'ok)) + + (define (add-rule! rule) + (store-rule-in-index rule) + (let ((old-rules THE-RULES)) + (set! THE-RULES (cons-stream rule old-rules)) + 'ok)) + + To actually store an assertion or a rule, we check to see if it can +be indexed. If so, we store it in the appropriate stream. + + (define (store-assertion-in-index assertion) + (if (indexable? assertion) + (let ((key (index-key-of assertion))) + (let ((current-assertion-stream + (get-stream key 'assertion-stream))) + (put key + 'assertion-stream + (cons-stream assertion + current-assertion-stream)))))) + + (define (store-rule-in-index rule) + (let ((pattern (conclusion rule))) + (if (indexable? pattern) + (let ((key (index-key-of pattern))) + (let ((current-rule-stream + (get-stream key 'rule-stream))) + (put key + 'rule-stream + (cons-stream rule + current-rule-stream))))))) + + The following procedures define how the data-base index is used. A +pattern (an assertion or a rule conclusion) will be stored in the table +if it starts with a variable or a constant symbol. + + (define (indexable? pat) + (or (constant-symbol? (car pat)) + (var? (car pat)))) + + The key under which a pattern is stored in the table is either `?' +(if it starts with a variable) or the constant symbol with which it +starts. + + (define (index-key-of pat) + (let ((key (car pat))) + (if (var? key) '? key))) + + The index will be used to retrieve items that might match a pattern +if the pattern starts with a constant symbol. + + (define (use-index? pat) + (constant-symbol? (car pat))) + + *Exercise 4.70:* What is the purpose of the `let' bindings in the + procedures `add-assertion!' and `add-rule!' ? What would be wrong + with the following implementation of `add-assertion!' ? Hint: + Recall the definition of the infinite stream of ones in section + *Note 3-5-2::: `(define ones (cons-stream 1 ones))'. + + (define (add-assertion! assertion) + (store-assertion-in-index assertion) + (set! THE-ASSERTIONS + (cons-stream assertion THE-ASSERTIONS)) + 'ok) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-6, Next: 4-4-4-7, Prev: 4-4-4-5, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.6 Stream Operations +......................... + +The query system uses a few stream operations that were not presented in +*Note Chapter 3::. + + `Stream-append-delayed' and `interleave-delayed' are just like +`stream-append' and `interleave' (section *Note 3-5-3::), except that +they take a delayed argument (like the `integral' procedure in section +*Note 3-5-4::). This postpones looping in some cases (see *Note +Exercise 4-71::). + + (define (stream-append-delayed s1 delayed-s2) + (if (stream-null? s1) + (force delayed-s2) + (cons-stream + (stream-car s1) + (stream-append-delayed (stream-cdr s1) delayed-s2)))) + + (define (interleave-delayed s1 delayed-s2) + (if (stream-null? s1) + (force delayed-s2) + (cons-stream + (stream-car s1) + (interleave-delayed (force delayed-s2) + (delay (stream-cdr s1)))))) + + `Stream-flatmap', which is used throughout the query evaluator to +map a procedure over a stream of frames and combine the resulting +streams of frames, is the stream analog of the `flatmap' procedure +introduced for ordinary lists in section *Note 2-2-3::. Unlike +ordinary `flatmap', however, we accumulate the streams with an +interleaving process, rather than simply appending them (see *Note +Exercise 4-72:: and *Note Exercise 4-73::). + + (define (stream-flatmap proc s) + (flatten-stream (stream-map proc s))) + + (define (flatten-stream stream) + (if (stream-null? stream) + the-empty-stream + (interleave-delayed + (stream-car stream) + (delay (flatten-stream (stream-cdr stream)))))) + + The evaluator also uses the following simple procedure to generate a +stream consisting of a single element: + + (define (singleton-stream x) + (cons-stream x the-empty-stream)) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-7, Next: 4-4-4-8, Prev: 4-4-4-6, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.7 Query Syntax Procedures +............................... + +`Type' and `contents', used by `qeval' (section *Note 4-4-4-2::), +specify that a special form is identified by the symbol in its `car'. +They are the same as the `type-tag' and `contents' procedures in +section *Note 2-4-2::, except for the error message. + + (define (type exp) + (if (pair? exp) + (car exp) + (error "Unknown expression TYPE" exp))) + + (define (contents exp) + (if (pair? exp) + (cdr exp) + (error "Unknown expression CONTENTS" exp))) + + The following procedures, used by `query-driver-loop' (in section +*Note 4-4-4-1::), specify that rules and assertions are added to the +data base by expressions of the form `(assert! <RULE-OR-ASSERTION>)': + + (define (assertion-to-be-added? exp) + (eq? (type exp) 'assert!)) + + (define (add-assertion-body exp) + (car (contents exp))) + + Here are the syntax definitions for the `and', `or', `not', and +`lisp-value' special forms (section *Note 4-4-4-2::): + + (define (empty-conjunction? exps) (null? exps)) + (define (first-conjunct exps) (car exps)) + (define (rest-conjuncts exps) (cdr exps)) + + (define (empty-disjunction? exps) (null? exps)) + (define (first-disjunct exps) (car exps)) + (define (rest-disjuncts exps) (cdr exps)) + + (define (negated-query exps) (car exps)) + + (define (predicate exps) (car exps)) + (define (args exps) (cdr exps)) + + The following three procedures define the syntax of rules: + + (define (rule? statement) + (tagged-list? statement 'rule)) + + (define (conclusion rule) (cadr rule)) + + (define (rule-body rule) + (if (null? (cddr rule)) + '(always-true) + (caddr rule))) + + `Query-driver-loop' (section *Note 4-4-4-1::) calls +`query-syntax-process' to transform pattern variables in the expression, +which have the form `?symbol', into the internal format `(? symbol)'. +That is to say, a pattern such as `(job ?x ?y)' is actually represented +internally by the system as `(job (? x) (? y))'. This increases the +efficiency of query processing, since it means that the system can +check to see if an expression is a pattern variable by checking whether +the `car' of the expression is the symbol `?', rather than having to +extract characters from the symbol. The syntax transformation is +accomplished by the following procedure:(1) + + (define (query-syntax-process exp) + (map-over-symbols expand-question-mark exp)) + + (define (map-over-symbols proc exp) + (cond ((pair? exp) + (cons (map-over-symbols proc (car exp)) + (map-over-symbols proc (cdr exp)))) + ((symbol? exp) (proc exp)) + (else exp))) + + (define (expand-question-mark symbol) + (let ((chars (symbol->string symbol))) + (if (string=? (substring chars 0 1) "?") + (list '? + (string->symbol + (substring chars 1 (string-length chars)))) + symbol))) + + Once the variables are transformed in this way, the variables in a +pattern are lists starting with `?', and the constant symbols (which +need to be recognized for data-base indexing, section *Note 4-4-4-5::) +are just the symbols. + + (define (var? exp) + (tagged-list? exp '?)) + + (define (constant-symbol? exp) (symbol? exp)) + + Unique variables are constructed during rule application (in section +*Note 4-4-4-4::) by means of the following procedures. The unique +identifier for a rule application is a number, which is incremented +each time a rule is applied. + + (define rule-counter 0) + + (define (new-rule-application-id) + (set! rule-counter (+ 1 rule-counter)) + rule-counter) + + (define (make-new-variable var rule-application-id) + (cons '? (cons rule-application-id (cdr var)))) + + When `query-driver-loop' instantiates the query to print the answer, +it converts any unbound pattern variables back to the right form for +printing, using + + (define (contract-question-mark variable) + (string->symbol + (string-append "?" + (if (number? (cadr variable)) + (string-append (symbol->string (caddr variable)) + "-" + (number->string (cadr variable))) + (symbol->string (cadr variable)))))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Most Lisp systems give the user the ability to modify the +ordinary `read' procedure to perform such transformations by defining "reader +macro characters". Quoted expressions are already handled in this way: +The reader automatically translates `'expression' into `(quote +expression)' before the evaluator sees it. We could arrange for +`?expression' to be transformed into `(? expression)' in the same way; +however, for the sake of clarity we have included the transformation +procedure here explicitly. + + `Expand-question-mark' and `contract-question-mark' use several +procedures with `string' in their names. These are Scheme primitives. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 4-4-4-8, Prev: 4-4-4-7, Up: 4-4-4 + +4.4.4.8 Frames and Bindings +........................... + +Frames are represented as lists of bindings, which are variable-value +pairs: + + (define (make-binding variable value) + (cons variable value)) + + (define (binding-variable binding) + (car binding)) + + (define (binding-value binding) + (cdr binding)) + + (define (binding-in-frame variable frame) + (assoc variable frame)) + + (define (extend variable value frame) + (cons (make-binding variable value) frame)) + + *Exercise 4.71:* Louis Reasoner wonders why the `simple-query' and + `disjoin' procedures (section *Note 4-4-4-2::) are implemented + using explicit `delay' operations, rather than being defined as + follows: + + (define (simple-query query-pattern frame-stream) + (stream-flatmap + (lambda (frame) + (stream-append (find-assertions query-pattern frame) + (apply-rules query-pattern frame))) + frame-stream)) + + (define (disjoin disjuncts frame-stream) + (if (empty-disjunction? disjuncts) + the-empty-stream + (interleave + (qeval (first-disjunct disjuncts) frame-stream) + (disjoin (rest-disjuncts disjuncts) frame-stream)))) + + Can you give examples of queries where these simpler definitions + would lead to undesirable behavior? + + *Exercise 4.72:* Why do `disjoin' and `stream-flatmap' interleave + the streams rather than simply append them? Give examples that + illustrate why interleaving works better. (Hint: Why did we use + `interleave' in section *Note 3-5-3::?) + + *Exercise 4.73:* Why does `flatten-stream' use `delay' explicitly? + What would be wrong with defining it as follows: + + (define (flatten-stream stream) + (if (stream-null? stream) + the-empty-stream + (interleave + (stream-car stream) + (flatten-stream (stream-cdr stream))))) + + *Exercise 4.74:* Alyssa P. Hacker proposes to use a simpler + version of `stream-flatmap' in `negate', `lisp-value', and + `find-assertions'. She observes that the procedure that is mapped + over the frame stream in these cases always produces either the + empty stream or a singleton stream, so no interleaving is needed + when combining these streams. + + a. Fill in the missing expressions in Alyssa's program. + + (define (simple-stream-flatmap proc s) + (simple-flatten (stream-map proc s))) + + (define (simple-flatten stream) + (stream-map <??> + (stream-filter <??> stream))) + + b. Does the query system's behavior change if we change it in + this way? + + + *Exercise 4.75:* Implement for the query language a new special + form called `unique'. `Unique' should succeed if there is + precisely one item in the data base satisfying a specified query. + For example, + + (unique (job ?x (computer wizard))) + + should print the one-item stream + + (unique (job (Bitdiddle Ben) (computer wizard))) + + since Ben is the only computer wizard, and + + (unique (job ?x (computer programmer))) + + should print the empty stream, since there is more than one + computer programmer. Moreover, + + (and (job ?x ?j) (unique (job ?anyone ?j))) + + should list all the jobs that are filled by only one person, and + the people who fill them. + + There are two parts to implementing `unique'. The first is to + write a procedure that handles this special form, and the second + is to make `qeval' dispatch to that procedure. The second part is + trivial, since `qeval' does its dispatching in a data-directed + way. If your procedure is called `uniquely-asserted', all you + need to do is + + (put 'unique 'qeval uniquely-asserted) + + and `qeval' will dispatch to this procedure for every query whose + `type' (`car') is the symbol `unique'. + + The real problem is to write the procedure `uniquely-asserted'. + This should take as input the `contents' (`cdr') of the `unique' + query, together with a stream of frames. For each frame in the + stream, it should use `qeval' to find the stream of all extensions + to the frame that satisfy the given query. Any stream that does + not have exactly one item in it should be eliminated. The + remaining streams should be passed back to be accumulated into one + big stream that is the result of the `unique' query. This is + similar to the implementation of the `not' special form. + + Test your implementation by forming a query that lists all people + who supervise precisely one person. + + *Exercise 4.76:* Our implementation of `and' as a series + combination of queries (*Note Figure 4-5::) is elegant, but it is + inefficient because in processing the second query of the `and' we + must scan the data base for each frame produced by the first + query. If the data base has n elements, and a typical query + produces a number of output frames proportional to n (say n/k), + then scanning the data base for each frame produced by the first + query will require n^2/k calls to the pattern matcher. Another + approach would be to process the two clauses of the `and' + separately, then look for all pairs of output frames that are + compatible. If each query produces n/k output frames, then this + means that we must perform n^2/k^2 compatibility checks--a factor + of k fewer than the number of matches required in our current + method. + + Devise an implementation of `and' that uses this strategy. You + must implement a procedure that takes two frames as inputs, checks + whether the bindings in the frames are compatible, and, if so, + produces a frame that merges the two sets of bindings. This + operation is similar to unification. + + *Exercise 4.77:* In section *Note 4-4-3:: we saw that `not' and + `lisp-value' can cause the query language to give "wrong" answers + if these filtering operations are applied to frames in which + variables are unbound. Devise a way to fix this shortcoming. One + idea is to perform the filtering in a "delayed" manner by + appending to the frame a "promise" to filter that is fulfilled + only when enough variables have been bound to make the operation + possible. We could wait to perform filtering until all other + operations have been performed. However, for efficiency's sake, we + would like to perform filtering as soon as possible so as to cut + down on the number of intermediate frames generated. + + *Exercise 4.78:* Redesign the query language as a nondeterministic + program to be implemented using the evaluator of section *Note + 4-3::, rather than as a stream process. In this approach, each + query will produce a single answer (rather than the stream of all + answers) and the user can type `try-again' to see more answers. + You should find that much of the mechanism we built in this + section is subsumed by nondeterministic search and backtracking. + You will probably also find, however, that your new query language + has subtle differences in behavior from the one implemented here. + Can you find examples that illustrate this difference? + + *Exercise 4.79:* When we implemented the Lisp evaluator in section + *Note 4-1::, we saw how to use local environments to avoid name + conflicts between the parameters of procedures. For example, in + evaluating + + (define (square x) + (* x x)) + + (define (sum-of-squares x y) + (+ (square x) (square y))) + + (sum-of-squares 3 4) + + there is no confusion between the `x' in `square' and the `x' in + `sum-of-squares', because we evaluate the body of each procedure + in an environment that is specially constructed to contain + bindings for the local variables. In the query system, we used a + different strategy to avoid name conflicts in applying rules. + Each time we apply a rule we rename the variables with new names + that are guaranteed to be unique. The analogous strategy for the + Lisp evaluator would be to do away with local environments and + simply rename the variables in the body of a procedure each time + we apply the procedure. + + Implement for the query language a rule-application method that + uses environments rather than renaming. See if you can build on + your environment structure to create constructs in the query + language for dealing with large systems, such as the rule analog + of block-structured procedures. Can you relate any of this to the + problem of making deductions in a context (e.g., "If I supposed + that P were true, then I would be able to deduce A and B.") as a + method of problem solving? (This problem is open-ended. A good + answer is probably worth a Ph.D.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Chapter 5, Next: References, Prev: Chapter 4, Up: Top + +5 Computing with Register Machines +********************************** + + My aim is to show that the heavenly machine is not a kind of + divine, live being, but a kind of clockwork (and he who believes + that a clock has soul attributes the maker's glory to the work), + insofar as nearly all the manifold motions are caused by a most + simple and material force, just as all motions of the clock are + caused by a single weight. + + Johannes Kepler (letter to Herwart von Hohenburg, 1605) + + We began this book by studying processes and by describing processes +in terms of procedures written in Lisp. To explain the meanings of +these procedures, we used a succession of models of evaluation: the +substitution model of *Note Chapter 1::, the environment model of *Note +Chapter 3::, and the metacircular evaluator of *Note Chapter 4::. Our +examination of the metacircular evaluator, in particular, dispelled +much of the mystery of how Lisp-like languages are interpreted. But +even the metacircular evaluator leaves important questions unanswered, +because it fails to elucidate the mechanisms of control in a Lisp +system. For instance, the evaluator does not explain how the +evaluation of a subexpression manages to return a value to the +expression that uses this value, nor does the evaluator explain how +some recursive procedures generate iterative processes (that is, are +evaluated using constant space) whereas other recursive procedures +generate recursive processes. These questions remain unanswered +because the metacircular evaluator is itself a Lisp program and hence +inherits the control structure of the underlying Lisp system. In order +to provide a more complete description of the control structure of the +Lisp evaluator, we must work at a more primitive level than Lisp itself. + + In this chapter we will describe processes in terms of the +step-by-step operation of a traditional computer. Such a computer, or machine +"register machine", sequentially executes "instructions" that +manipulate the contents of a fixed set of storage elements called "registers". +A typical register-machine instruction applies a primitive operation +to the contents of some registers and assigns the result to another +register. Our descriptions of processes executed by register machines +will look very much like "machine-language" programs for traditional +computers. However, instead of focusing on the machine language of any +particular computer, we will examine several Lisp procedures and design +a specific register machine to execute each procedure. Thus, we will +approach our task from the perspective of a hardware architect rather +than that of a machine-language computer programmer. In designing +register machines, we will develop mechanisms for implementing +important programming constructs such as recursion. We will also +present a language for describing designs for register machines. In +section *Note 5-2:: we will implement a Lisp program that uses these +descriptions to simulate the machines we design. + + Most of the primitive operations of our register machines are very +simple. For example, an operation might add the numbers fetched from +two registers, producing a result to be stored into a third register. +Such an operation can be performed by easily described hardware. In +order to deal with list structure, however, we will also use the memory +operations `car', `cdr', and `cons', which require an elaborate +storage-allocation mechanism. In section *Note 5-3:: we study their +implementation in terms of more elementary operations. + + In section *Note 5-4::, after we have accumulated experience +formulating simple procedures as register machines, we will design a +machine that carries out the algorithm described by the metacircular +evaluator of section *Note 4-1::. This will fill in the gap in our +understanding of how Scheme expressions are interpreted, by providing +an explicit model for the mechanisms of control in the evaluator. In +section *Note 5-5:: we will study a simple compiler that translates +Scheme programs into sequences of instructions that can be executed +directly with the registers and operations of the evaluator register +machine. + +* Menu: + +* 5-1:: Designing Register Machines +* 5-2:: A Register-Machine Simulator +* 5-3:: Storage Allocation and Garbage Collection +* 5-4:: The Explicit-Control Evaluator +* 5-5:: Compilation + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-1, Next: 5-2, Prev: Chapter 5, Up: Chapter 5 + +5.1 Designing Register Machines +=============================== + +To design a register machine, we must design its "data paths" +(registers and operations) and the "controller" that sequences these +operations. To illustrate the design of a simple register machine, let +us examine Euclid's Algorithm, which is used to compute the greatest +common divisor (GCD) of two integers. As we saw in section *Note +1-2-5::, Euclid's Algorithm can be carried out by an iterative process, +as specified by the following procedure: + + (define (gcd a b) + (if (= b 0) + a + (gcd b (remainder a b)))) + + A machine to carry out this algorithm must keep track of two +numbers, a and b, so let us assume that these numbers are stored in two +registers with those names. The basic operations required are testing +whether the contents of register `b' is zero and computing the +remainder of the contents of register `a' divided by the contents of +register `b'. The remainder operation is a complex process, but assume +for the moment that we have a primitive device that computes +remainders. On each cycle of the GCD algorithm, the contents of +register `a' must be replaced by the contents of register `b', and the +contents of `b' must be replaced by the remainder of the old contents +of `a' divided by the old contents of `b'. It would be convenient if +these replacements could be done simultaneously, but in our model of +register machines we will assume that only one register can be assigned +a new value at each step. To accomplish the replacements, our machine +will use a third "temporary" register, which we call `t'. (First the +remainder will be placed in `t', then the contents of `b' will be +placed in `a', and finally the remainder stored in `t' will be placed +in `b'.) + + We can illustrate the registers and operations required for this +machine by using the data-path diagram shown in *Note Figure 5-1::. In +this diagram, the registers (`a', `b', and `t') are represented by +rectangles. Each way to assign a value to a register is indicated by +an arrow with an `X' behind the head, pointing from the source of data +to the register. We can think of the `X' as a button that, when +pushed, allows the value at the source to "flow" into the designated +register. The label next to each button is the name we will use to +refer to the button. The names are arbitrary, and can be chosen to +have mnemonic value (for example, `a<-b' denotes pushing the button +that assigns the contents of register `b' to register `a'). The source +of data for a register can be another register (as in the `a<-b' +assignment), an operation result (as in the `t<-r' assignment), or a +constant (a built-in value that cannot be changed, represented in a +data-path diagram by a triangle containing the constant). + + An operation that computes a value from constants and the contents +of registers is represented in a data-path diagram by a trapezoid +containing a name for the operation. For example, the box marked `rem' +in *Note Figure 5-1:: represents an operation that computes the +remainder of the contents of the registers `a' and `b' to which it is +attached. Arrows (without buttons) point from the input registers and +constants to the box, and arrows connect the operation's output value +to registers. A test is represented by a circle containing a name for +the test. For example, our GCD machine has an operation that tests +whether the contents of register `b' is zero. A test also has arrows +from its input registers and constants, but it has no output arrows; +its value is used by the controller rather than by the data paths. +Overall, the data-path diagram shows the registers and operations that +are required for the machine and how they must be connected. If we +view the arrows as wires and the `X' buttons as switches, the data-path +diagram is very like the wiring diagram for a machine that could be +constructed from electrical components. + + *Figure 5.1:* Data paths for a GCD machine. + + ___ + +-----+ +-----+ / \ + | a |<--(X)----| b +--->| = | + +--+--+ a<-b +-+---+ \___/ + | | ^ ^ + +------+ +----+ | | + | | (X) b<-t | + .--+---+--. | / \ + \ rem / | / O \ + \_____/ | +-----+ + | | + (X) t<-r | + | | + V | + +-----+ | + | t +------+ + +-----+ + + In order for the data paths to actually compute GCDs, the buttons +must be pushed in the correct sequence. We will describe this sequence +in terms of a controller diagram, as illustrated in *Note Figure 5-2::. +The elements of the controller diagram indicate how the data-path +components should be operated. The rectangular boxes in the controller +diagram identify data-path buttons to be pushed, and the arrows +describe the sequencing from one step to the next. The diamond in the +diagram represents a decision. One of the two sequencing arrows will +be followed, depending on the value of the data-path test identified in +the diamond. We can interpret the controller in terms of a physical +analogy: Think of the diagram as a maze in which a marble is rolling. +When the marble rolls into a box, it pushes the data-path button that +is named by the box. When the marble rolls into a decision node (such +as the test for `b' = 0), it leaves the node on the path determined by +the result of the indicated test. Taken together, the data paths and +the controller completely describe a machine for computing GCDs. We +start the controller (the rolling marble) at the place marked `start', +after placing numbers in registers `a' and `b'. When the controller +reaches `done', we will find the value of the GCD in register `a'. + + *Figure 5.2:* Controller for a GCD machine. + + start + | + V + / \ yes + +--->< = >-----> done + | \ / + | | no + | V + | +------+ + | | t<-r | + | +---+--+ + | | + | V + | +------+ + | | a<-b | + | +---+--+ + | | + | V + | +------+ + +--+ b<-t | + +------+ + + *Exercise 5.1:* Design a register machine to compute factorials + using the iterative algorithm specified by the following + procedure. Draw data-path and controller diagrams for this + machine. + + (define (factorial n) + (define (iter product counter) + (if (> counter n) + product + (iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1)))) + (iter 1 1)) + +* Menu: + +* 5-1-1:: A Language for Describing Register Machines +* 5-1-2:: Abstraction in Machine Design +* 5-1-3:: Subroutines +* 5-1-4:: Using a Stack to Implement Recursion +* 5-1-5:: Instruction Summary + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-1-1, Next: 5-1-2, Prev: 5-1, Up: 5-1 + +5.1.1 A Language for Describing Register Machines +------------------------------------------------- + +Data-path and controller diagrams are adequate for representing simple +machines such as GCD, but they are unwieldy for describing large +machines such as a Lisp interpreter. To make it possible to deal with +complex machines, we will create a language that presents, in textual +form, all the information given by the data-path and controller +diagrams. We will start with a notation that directly mirrors the +diagrams. + + We define the data paths of a machine by describing the registers +and the operations. To describe a register, we give it a name and +specify the buttons that control assignment to it. We give each of +these buttons a name and specify the source of the data that enters the +register under the button's control. (The source is a register, a +constant, or an operation.) To describe an operation, we give it a +name and specify its inputs (registers or constants). + + We define the controller of a machine as a sequence of "instructions" +together with "labels" that identify "entry points" in the sequence. An +instruction is one of the following: + + * The name of a data-path button to push to assign a value to a + register. (This corresponds to a box in the controller diagram.) + + * A `test' instruction, that performs a specified test. + + * A conditional branch (`branch' instruction) to a location + indicated by a controller label, based on the result of the + previous test. (The test and branch together correspond to a + diamond in the controller diagram.) If the test is false, the + controller should continue with the next instruction in the + sequence. Otherwise, the controller should continue with the + instruction after the label. + + * An unconditional branch (`goto' instruction) naming a controller + label at which to continue execution. + + + The machine starts at the beginning of the controller instruction +sequence and stops when execution reaches the end of the sequence. +Except when a branch changes the flow of control, instructions are +executed in the order in which they are listed. + + *Figure 5.3:* A specification of the GCD machine. + + (data-paths + (registers + ((name a) + (buttons ((name a<-b) (source (register b))))) + ((name b) + (buttons ((name b<-t) (source (register t))))) + ((name t) + (buttons ((name t<-r) (source (operation rem)))))) + + (operations + ((name rem) + (inputs (register a) (register b))) + ((name =) + (inputs (register b) (constant 0))))) + + (controller + test-b ; label + (test =) ; test + (branch (label gcd-done)) ; conditional branch + (t<-r) ; button push + (a<-b) ; button push + (b<-t) ; button push + (goto (label test-b)) ; unconditional branch + gcd-done) ; label + + + *Note Figure 5-3:: shows the GCD machine described in this way. This +example only hints at the generality of these descriptions, since the +GCD machine is a very simple case: Each register has only one button, +and each button and test is used only once in the controller. + + Unfortunately, it is difficult to read such a description. In order +to understand the controller instructions we must constantly refer back +to the definitions of the button names and the operation names, and to +understand what the buttons do we may have to refer to the definitions +of the operation names. We will thus transform our notation to combine +the information from the data-path and controller descriptions so that +we see it all together. + + To obtain this form of description, we will replace the arbitrary +button and operation names by the definitions of their behavior. That +is, instead of saying (in the controller) "Push button `t<-r'" and +separately saying (in the data paths) "Button `t<-r' assigns the value +of the `rem' operation to register `t'" and "The `rem' operation's +inputs are the contents of registers `a' and `b'," we will say (in the +controller) "Push the button that assigns to register `t' the value of +the `rem' operation on the contents of registers `a' and `b'." +Similarly, instead of saying (in the controller) "Perform the `=' test" +and separately saying (in the data paths) "The `=' test operates on the +contents of register `b' and the constant 0," we will say "Perform the +`=' test on the contents of register `b' and the constant 0." We will +omit the data-path description, leaving only the controller sequence. +Thus, the GCD machine is described as follows: + + (controller + test-b + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label gcd-done)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label test-b)) + gcd-done) + + This form of description is easier to read than the kind illustrated +in *Note Figure 5-3::, but it also has disadvantages: + + * It is more verbose for large machines, because complete + descriptions of the data-path elements are repeated whenever the + elements are mentioned in the controller instruction sequence. + (This is not a problem in the GCD example, because each operation + and button is used only once.) Moreover, repeating the data-path + descriptions obscures the actual data-path structure of the + machine; it is not obvious for a large machine how many registers, + operations, and buttons there are and how they are interconnected. + + * Because the controller instructions in a machine definition look + like Lisp expressions, it is easy to forget that they are not + arbitrary Lisp expressions. They can notate only legal machine + operations. For example, operations can operate directly only on + constants and the contents of registers, not on the results of + other operations. + + + In spite of these disadvantages, we will use this register-machine +language throughout this chapter, because we will be more concerned +with understanding controllers than with understanding the elements and +connections in data paths. We should keep in mind, however, that +data-path design is crucial in designing real machines. + + *Exercise 5.2:* Use the register-machine language to describe the + iterative factorial machine of *Note Exercise 5-1::. + +Actions +....... + +Let us modify the GCD machine so that we can type in the numbers whose +GCD we want and get the answer printed at our terminal. We will not +discuss how to make a machine that can read and print, but will assume +(as we do when we use `read' and `display' in Scheme) that they are +available as primitive operations.(1) + + `Read' is like the operations we have been using in that it produces +a value that can be stored in a register. But `read' does not take +inputs from any registers; its value depends on something that happens +outside the parts of the machine we are designing. We will allow our +machine's operations to have such behavior, and thus will draw and +notate the use of `read' just as we do any other operation that +computes a value. + + `Print', on the other hand, differs from the operations we have been +using in a fundamental way: It does not produce an output value to be +stored in a register. Though it has an effect, this effect is not on a +part of the machine we are designing. We will refer to this kind of +operation as an "action". We will represent an action in a data-path +diagram just as we represent an operation that computes a value--as a +trapezoid that contains the name of the action. Arrows point to the +action box from any inputs (registers or constants). We also associate +a button with the action. Pushing the button makes the action happen. +To make a controller push an action button we use a new kind of +instruction called `perform'. Thus, the action of printing the +contents of register `a' is represented in a controller sequence by the +instruction + + (perform (op print) (reg a)) + + *Note Figure 5-4:: shows the data paths and controller for the new +GCD machine. Instead of having the machine stop after printing the +answer, we have made it start over, so that it repeatedly reads a pair +of numbers, computes their GCD, and prints the result. This structure +is like the driver loops we used in the interpreters of *Note Chapter +4::. + + *Figure 5.4:* A GCD machine that reads inputs and prints results. + + .--------. + \ read / + \____/ + | + +-------*------+ + | | + a<-rd (X) (X) b<-rd + | | + V V ___ + +-----+ +-----+ / \ + | a |<--(X)--+ b +----->| = | + +-+-+-+ a<-b +-+---+ \___/ + | | | ^ ^ + +--+ +----+ +--+ | | + | | | (X) b<-t / \ + V V V | / O \ + .---------. .---------. | /_____\ + --(X)->\ print / \ rem / | + P \_____/ \_____/ | + | | + (X) t<-r | + | | + V | + +-----+ | + | t +----+ + +-----+ + + (controller + gcd-loop + (assign a (op read)) + (assign b (op read)) + test-b + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label gcd-done)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label test-b)) + gcd-done + (perform (op print) (reg a)) + (goto (label gcd-loop))) + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This assumption glosses over a great deal of complexity. +Usually a large portion of the implementation of a Lisp system is +dedicated to making reading and printing work. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-1-2, Next: 5-1-3, Prev: 5-1-1, Up: 5-1 + +5.1.2 Abstraction in Machine Design +----------------------------------- + +We will often define a machine to include "primitive" operations that +are actually very complex. For example, in sections *Note 5-4:: and +*Note 5-5:: we will treat Scheme's environment manipulations as +primitive. Such abstraction is valuable because it allows us to ignore +the details of parts of a machine so that we can concentrate on other +aspects of the design. The fact that we have swept a lot of complexity +under the rug, however, does not mean that a machine design is +unrealistic. We can always replace the complex "primitives" by simpler +primitive operations. + + Consider the GCD machine. The machine has an instruction that +computes the remainder of the contents of registers `a' and `b' and +assigns the result to register `t'. If we want to construct the GCD +machine without using a primitive remainder operation, we must specify +how to compute remainders in terms of simpler operations, such as +subtraction. Indeed, we can write a Scheme procedure that finds +remainders in this way: + + (define (remainder n d) + (if (< n d) + n + (remainder (- n d) d))) + + We can thus replace the remainder operation in the GCD machine's data +paths with a subtraction operation and a comparison test. *Note Figure +5-5:: shows the data paths and controller for the elaborated machine. +The instruction + + *Figure 5.5:* Data paths and controller for the elaborated GCD + machine. + + ___ + +-----+ +-----+ / \ + | a |<--(X)---+ b +-------*-->| = | + +--+--+ a<-b +-+---+ | \___/ + | | ^ | + (X) t<-a | | | + | | (X) b<-t | + V | | _V_ + +-----+ | | / \ + | t +-------*---|--*-----| < | + +-----+ | | \___/ + ^ V V + | --------- + (X) t<-d \ - / + | --+-- + | | + +------------+ + + + start + | + V + / \ yes +-------+ + +->< = >----> done | t<-d |<--+ + | \ / +---+---+ | + | | no | | + | | V | + | | +------+ / \ no | + | +-->| t<-a +------->< < >-----+ + | +------+ \ / + | | yes + | +-------------------+ + | V + | +-------+ + | | a<-b | + | +---+---+ + | | + | V + | +-------+ + +--+ b<-t | + +-------+ + + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + +in the GCD controller definition is replaced by a sequence of +instructions that contains a loop, as shown in *Note Figure 5-6::. + + *Figure 5.6:* Controller instruction sequence for the GCD machine + in *Note Figure 5-5::. + + (controller + test-b + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label gcd-done)) + (assign t (reg a)) + rem-loop + (test (op <) (reg t) (reg b)) + (branch (label rem-done)) + (assign t (op -) (reg t) (reg b)) + (goto (label rem-loop)) + rem-done + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label test-b)) + gcd-done) + + + *Exercise 5.3:* Design a machine to compute square roots using + Newton's method, as described in section *Note 1-1-7::: + + (define (sqrt x) + (define (good-enough? guess) + (< (abs (- (square guess) x)) 0.001)) + (define (improve guess) + (average guess (/ x guess))) + (define (sqrt-iter guess) + (if (good-enough? guess) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess)))) + (sqrt-iter 1.0)) + + Begin by assuming that `good-enough?' and `improve' operations are + available as primitives. Then show how to expand these in terms + of arithmetic operations. Describe each version of the `sqrt' + machine design by drawing a data-path diagram and writing a + controller definition in the register-machine language. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-1-3, Next: 5-1-4, Prev: 5-1-2, Up: 5-1 + +5.1.3 Subroutines +----------------- + +When designing a machine to perform a computation, we would often +prefer to arrange for components to be shared by different parts of the +computation rather than duplicate the components. Consider a machine +that includes two GCD computations--one that finds the GCD of the +contents of registers `a' and `b' and one that finds the GCD of the +contents of registers `c' and `d'. We might start by assuming we have +a primitive `gcd' operation, then expand the two instances of `gcd' in +terms of more primitive operations. *Note Figure 5-7:: shows just the +GCD portions of the resulting machine's data paths, without showing how +they connect to the rest of the machine. The figure also shows the +corresponding portions of the machine's controller sequence. + + *Figure 5.7:* Portions of the data paths and controller sequence + for a machine with two GCD computations. + + ___ ___ + +-----+ +-----+ / \ +-----+ +-----+ / \ + | a |<-(X)---+ b |--->| = | | c |<-(X)---+ d |--->| = | + +--+--+ a<-b ++----+ \___/ +--+--+ c<-d ++----+ \___/ + | | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ + `----. .---' | | `----. .---' | | + V V (X) b<-t | V V (X) d<-t | + ------- | / \ ------- | / \ + \ rem / | /_0_\ \ rem / | /_0_\ + --+-- | --+-- | + | | | | + (X) t<-r | (X) s<-r | + | | | | + V | V | + +-----+ | +-----+ | + | t +-----' | s +-----' + +-----+ +-----+ + + gcd-1 + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label after-gcd-1)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label gcd-1)) + after-gcd-1 + ... + gcd-2 + (test (op =) (reg d) (const 0)) + (branch (label after-gcd-2)) + (assign s (op rem) (reg c) (reg d)) + (assign c (reg d)) + (assign d (reg s)) + (goto (label gcd-2)) + after-gcd-2 + + + This machine has two remainder operation boxes and two boxes for +testing equality. If the duplicated components are complicated, as is +the remainder box, this will not be an economical way to build the +machine. We can avoid duplicating the data-path components by using +the same components for both GCD computations, provided that doing so +will not affect the rest of the larger machine's computation. If the +values in registers `a' and `b' are not needed by the time the +controller gets to `gcd-2' (or if these values can be moved to other +registers for safekeeping), we can change the machine so that it uses +registers `a' and `b', rather than registers `c' and `d', in computing +the second GCD as well as the first. If we do this, we obtain the +controller sequence shown in *Note Figure 5-8::. + + We have removed the duplicate data-path components (so that the data +paths are again as in *Note Figure 5-1::), but the controller now has +two GCD sequences that differ only in their entry-point labels. It +would be better to replace these two sequences by branches to a single +sequence--a `gcd' "subroutine"--at the end of which we branch back to +the correct place in the main instruction sequence. We can accomplish +this as follows: Before branching to `gcd', we place a distinguishing +value (such as 0 or 1) into a special register, `continue'. At the end +of the `gcd' subroutine we return either to `after-gcd-1' or to +`after-gcd-2', depending on the value of the `continue' register. +*Note Figure 5-9:: shows the relevant portion of the resulting +controller sequence, which includes only a single copy of the `gcd' +instructions. + + *Figure 5.8:* Portions of the controller sequence for a machine + that uses the same data-path components for two different GCD + computations. + + gcd-1 + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label after-gcd-1)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label gcd-1)) + after-gcd-1 + ... + gcd-2 + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label after-gcd-2)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label gcd-2)) + after-gcd-2 + + + *Figure 5.9:* Using a `continue' register to avoid the duplicate + controller sequence in *Note Figure 5-8::. + + gcd + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label gcd-done)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label gcd)) + gcd-done + (test (op =) (reg continue) (const 0)) + (branch (label after-gcd-1)) + (goto (label after-gcd-2)) + ... + ;; Before branching to `gcd' from the first place where + ;; it is needed, we place 0 in the `continue' register + (assign continue (const 0)) + (goto (label gcd)) + after-gcd-1 + ... + ;; Before the second use of `gcd', we place 1 in the `continue' register + (assign continue (const 1)) + (goto (label gcd)) + after-gcd-2 + + + *Figure 5.10:* Assigning labels to the `continue' register + simplifies and generalizes the strategy shown in *Note Figure + 5-9::. + + gcd + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label gcd-done)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label gcd)) + gcd-done + (goto (reg continue)) + ... + ;; Before calling `gcd', we assign to `continue' + ;; the label to which `gcd' should return. + (assign continue (label after-gcd-1)) + (goto (label gcd)) + after-gcd-1 + ... + ;; Here is the second call to `gcd', with a different continuation. + (assign continue (label after-gcd-2)) + (goto (label gcd)) + after-gcd-2 + + + This is a reasonable approach for handling small problems, but it +would be awkward if there were many instances of GCD computations in the +controller sequence. To decide where to continue executing after the +`gcd' subroutine, we would need tests in the data paths and branch +instructions in the controller for all the places that use `gcd'. A +more powerful method for implementing subroutines is to have the +`continue' register hold the label of the entry point in the controller +sequence at which execution should continue when the subroutine is +finished. Implementing this strategy requires a new kind of connection +between the data paths and the controller of a register machine: There +must be a way to assign to a register a label in the controller +sequence in such a way that this value can be fetched from the register +and used to continue execution at the designated entry point. + + To reflect this ability, we will extend the `assign' instruction of +the register-machine language to allow a register to be assigned as +value a label from the controller sequence (as a special kind of +constant). We will also extend the `goto' instruction to allow +execution to continue at the entry point described by the contents of a +register rather than only at an entry point described by a constant +label. Using these new constructs we can terminate the `gcd' +subroutine with a branch to the location stored in the `continue' +register. This leads to the controller sequence shown in *Note Figure +5-10::. + + A machine with more than one subroutine could use multiple +continuation registers (e.g., `gcd-continue', `factorial-continue') or +we could have all subroutines share a single `continue' register. +Sharing is more economical, but we must be careful if we have a +subroutine (`sub1') that calls another subroutine (`sub2'). Unless +`sub1' saves the contents of `continue' in some other register before +setting up `continue' for the call to `sub2', `sub1' will not know +where to go when it is finished. The mechanism developed in the next +section to handle recursion also provides a better solution to this +problem of nested subroutine calls. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-1-4, Next: 5-1-5, Prev: 5-1-3, Up: 5-1 + +5.1.4 Using a Stack to Implement Recursion +------------------------------------------ + +With the ideas illustrated so far, we can implement any iterative +process by specifying a register machine that has a register +corresponding to each state variable of the process. The machine +repeatedly executes a controller loop, changing the contents of the +registers, until some termination condition is satisfied. At each +point in the controller sequence, the state of the machine +(representing the state of the iterative process) is completely +determined by the contents of the registers (the values of the state +variables). + + Implementing recursive processes, however, requires an additional +mechanism. Consider the following recursive method for computing +factorials, which we first examined in section *Note 1-2-1::: + + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) + + As we see from the procedure, computing n! requires computing (n - +1)!. Our GCD machine, modeled on the procedure + + (define (gcd a b) + (if (= b 0) + a + (gcd b (remainder a b)))) + +similarly had to compute another GCD. But there is an important +difference between the `gcd' procedure, which reduces the original +computation to a new GCD computation, and `factorial', which requires +computing another factorial as a subproblem. In GCD, the answer to the +new GCD computation is the answer to the original problem. To compute +the next GCD, we simply place the new arguments in the input registers +of the GCD machine and reuse the machine's data paths by executing the +same controller sequence. When the machine is finished solving the +final GCD problem, it has completed the entire computation. + + In the case of factorial (or any recursive process) the answer to +the new factorial subproblem is not the answer to the original problem. +The value obtained for (n - 1)! must be multiplied by n to get the +final answer. If we try to imitate the GCD design, and solve the +factorial subproblem by decrementing the `n' register and rerunning the +factorial machine, we will no longer have available the old value of +`n' by which to multiply the result. We thus need a second factorial +machine to work on the subproblem. This second factorial computation +itself has a factorial subproblem, which requires a third factorial +machine, and so on. Since each factorial machine contains another +factorial machine within it, the total machine contains an infinite +nest of similar machines and hence cannot be constructed from a fixed, +finite number of parts. + + Nevertheless, we can implement the factorial process as a register +machine if we can arrange to use the same components for each nested +instance of the machine. Specifically, the machine that computes n! +should use the same components to work on the subproblem of computing +(n - 1)!, on the subproblem for (n - 2)!, and so on. This is plausible +because, although the factorial process dictates that an unbounded +number of copies of the same machine are needed to perform a +computation, only one of these copies needs to be active at any given +time. When the machine encounters a recursive subproblem, it can +suspend work on the main problem, reuse the same physical parts to work +on the subproblem, then continue the suspended computation. + + In the subproblem, the contents of the registers will be different +than they were in the main problem. (In this case the `n' register is +decremented.) In order to be able to continue the suspended +computation, the machine must save the contents of any registers that +will be needed after the subproblem is solved so that these can be +restored to continue the suspended computation. In the case of +factorial, we will save the old value of `n', to be restored when we +are finished computing the factorial of the decremented `n' register.(1) + + Since there is no _a priori_ limit on the depth of nested recursive +calls, we may need to save an arbitrary number of register values. +These values must be restored in the reverse of the order in which they +were saved, since in a nest of recursions the last subproblem to be +entered is the first to be finished. This dictates the use of a "stack", +or "last in, first out" data structure, to save register values. We +can extend the register-machine language to include a stack by adding +two kinds of instructions: Values are placed on the stack using a +`save' instruction and restored from the stack using a `restore' +instruction. After a sequence of values has been `save'd on the stack, +a sequence of `restore's will retrieve these values in reverse order.(2) + + With the aid of the stack, we can reuse a single copy of the +factorial machine's data paths for each factorial subproblem. There is +a similar design issue in reusing the controller sequence that operates +the data paths. To reexecute the factorial computation, the controller +cannot simply loop back to the beginning, as with an iterative process, +because after solving the (n - 1)! subproblem the machine must still +multiply the result by n. The controller must suspend its computation +of n!, solve the (n - 1)! subproblem, then continue its computation of +n!. This view of the factorial computation suggests the use of the +subroutine mechanism described in section *Note 5-1-3::, which has the +controller use a `continue' register to transfer to the part of the +sequence that solves a subproblem and then continue where it left off +on the main problem. We can thus make a factorial subroutine that +returns to the entry point stored in the `continue' register. Around +each subroutine call, we save and restore `continue' just as we do the +`n' register, since each "level" of the factorial computation will use +the same `continue' register. That is, the factorial subroutine must +put a new value in `continue' when it calls itself for a subproblem, +but it will need the old value in order to return to the place that +called it to solve a subproblem. + + *Note Figure 5-11:: shows the data paths and controller for a +machine that implements the recursive `factorial' procedure. The +machine has a stack and three registers, called `n', `val', and +`continue'. To simplify the data-path diagram, we have not named the +register-assignment buttons, only the stack-operation buttons (`sc' and +`sn' to save registers, `rc' and `rn' to restore registers). To +operate the machine, we put in register `n' the number whose factorial +we wish to compute and start the machine. When the machine reaches +`fact-done', the computation is finished and the answer will be found +in the `val' register. In the controller sequence, `n' and `continue' +are saved before each recursive call and restored upon return from the +call. Returning from a call is accomplished by branching to the +location stored in `continue'. `Continue' is initialized when the +machine starts so that the last return will go to `fact-done'. The +`val' register, which holds the result of the factorial computation, is +not saved before the recursive call, because the old contents of `val' +is not useful after the subroutine returns. Only the new value, which +is the value produced by the subcomputation, is needed. + + Although in principle the factorial computation requires an infinite +machine, the machine in *Note Figure 5-11:: is actually finite except +for the stack, which is potentially unbounded. Any particular physical +implementation of a stack, however, will be of finite size, and this +will limit the depth of recursive calls that can be handled by the +machine. This implementation of factorial illustrates the general +strategy for realizing recursive algorithms as ordinary register +machines augmented by stacks. When a recursive subproblem is +encountered, we save on the stack the registers whose current values +will be required after the subproblem is solved, solve the recursive +subproblem, then restore the saved registers and continue execution on +the main problem. The `continue' register must always be saved. +Whether there are other registers that need to be saved depends on the +particular machine, since not all recursive computations need the +original values of registers that are modified during solution of the +subproblem (see *Note Exercise 5-4::). + +A double recursion +.................. + +Let us examine a more complex recursive process, the tree-recursive +computation of the Fibonacci numbers, which we introduced in section +*Note 1-2-2::: + + (define (fib n) + (if (< n 2) + n + (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2))))) + + Just as with factorial, we can implement the recursive Fibonacci +computation as a register machine with registers `n', `val', and +`continue'. The machine is more complex than the one for factorial, +because there are two places in the controller sequence where we need +to perform recursive calls--once to compute Fib(n - 1) and once to +compute Fib(n - 2). To set up for each of these calls, we save the +registers whose values will be needed later, set the `n' register to +the number whose Fib we need to compute recursively (n - 1 or n - 2), +and assign to `continue' the entry point in the main sequence to which +to return (`afterfib-n-1' or `afterfib-n-2', respectively). We then go +to `fib-loop'. When we return from the recursive call, the answer is +in `val'. *Note Figure 5-12:: shows the controller sequence for this +machine. + + *Figure 5.11:* A recursive factorial machine. + + ___ + / \ + +----------*-----------| = | + | | \___/ + (X) | ^ + | | | + V | +---+---+ sn +-------+ + +-------+ | | +---(X)-->| | + | val |<-(X)-|----------+ n | | stack | + +-----+-+ | | |<--(X)---+ | + ^ | | +-------+ rn +-+-----+ + | | | ^ | ^ + (X) | | | | | + | | +----|--------* (X) | (X) sc + | | | | | | rc (X) | + | | | *----. | | | | + | V V | V V | V | + | ------- | ------- | +------+-+ + | \ * / | \ - / | |continue+--> controller + | --+-- | --+-- | +--------+ + | | | | | ^ ^ + +-----+ | +-----+ | | + | (X) (X) + | | | + / \ after- / \ / \ fact- + /_1_\ fact /___\ /___\ done + + (controller + (assign continue (label fact-done)) ; set up final return address + fact-loop + (test (op =) (reg n) (const 1)) + (branch (label base-case)) + ;; Set up for the recursive call by saving `n' and `continue'. + ;; Set up `continue' so that the computation will continue + ;; at `after-fact' when the subroutine returns. + (save continue) + (save n) + (assign n (op -) (reg n) (const 1)) + (assign continue (label after-fact)) + (goto (label fact-loop)) + after-fact + (restore n) + (restore continue) + (assign val (op *) (reg n) (reg val)) ; `val' now contains n(n - 1)! + (goto (reg continue)) ; return to caller + base-case + (assign val (const 1)) ; base case: 1! = 1 + (goto (reg continue)) ; return to caller + fact-done) + + + *Figure 5.12:* Controller for a machine to compute Fibonacci + numbers. + + (controller + (assign continue (label fib-done)) + fib-loop + (test (op <) (reg n) (const 2)) + (branch (label immediate-answer)) + ;; set up to compute _Fib_(n - 1) + (save continue) + (assign continue (label afterfib-n-1)) + (save n) ; save old value of `n' + (assign n (op -) (reg n) (const 1)); clobber `n' to n - 1 + (goto (label fib-loop)) ; perform recursive call + afterfib-n-1 ; upon return, `val' contains _Fib_(n - 1) + (restore n) + (restore continue) + ;; set up to compute _Fib_(n - 2) + (assign n (op -) (reg n) (const 2)) + (save continue) + (assign continue (label afterfib-n-2)) + (save val) ; save _Fib_(n - 1) + (goto (label fib-loop)) + afterfib-n-2 ; upon return, `val' contains _Fib_(n - 2) + (assign n (reg val)) ; `n' now contains _Fib_(n - 2) + (restore val) ; `val' now contains _Fib_(n - 1) + (restore continue) + (assign val ; _Fib_(n - 1) + _Fib_(n - 2) + (op +) (reg val) (reg n)) + (goto (reg continue)) ; return to caller, answer is in `val' + immediate-answer + (assign val (reg n)) ; base case: _Fib_(n) = n + (goto (reg continue)) + fib-done) + + + *Exercise 5.4:* Specify register machines that implement each of + the following procedures. For each machine, write a controller + instruction sequence and draw a diagram showing the data paths. + + a. Recursive exponentiation: + + (define (expt b n) + (if (= n 0) + 1 + (* b (expt b (- n 1))))) + + b. Iterative exponentiation: + + (define (expt b n) + (define (expt-iter counter product) + (if (= counter 0) + product + (expt-iter (- counter 1) (* b product)))) + (expt-iter n 1)) + + + *Exercise 5.5:* Hand-simulate the factorial and Fibonacci + machines, using some nontrivial input (requiring execution of at + least one recursive call). Show the contents of the stack at each + significant point in the execution. + + *Exercise 5.6:* Ben Bitdiddle observes that the Fibonacci + machine's controller sequence has an extra `save' and an extra + `restore', which can be removed to make a faster machine. Where + are these instructions? + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) One might argue that we don't need to save the old `n'; after we +decrement it and solve the subproblem, we could simply increment it to +recover the old value. Although this strategy works for factorial, it +cannot work in general, since the old value of a register cannot always +be computed from the new one. + + (2) In section *Note 5-3:: we will see how to implement a stack in +terms of more primitive operations. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-1-5, Prev: 5-1-4, Up: 5-1 + +5.1.5 Instruction Summary +------------------------- + +A controller instruction in our register-machine language has one of the +following forms, where each <INPUT_I> is either `(reg <REGISTER-NAME>)' +or `(const <CONSTANT-VALUE>)'. These instructions were introduced in +section *Note 5-1-1::: + + (assign <REGISTER-NAME> (reg <REGISTER-NAME>)) + + (assign <REGISTER-NAME> (const <CONSTANT-VALUE>)) + + (assign <REGISTER-NAME> (op <OPERATION-NAME>) <INPUT_1> ... <INPUT_N>) + + (perform (op <OPERATION-NAME>) <INPUT_1> ... <INPUT_N>) + + (test (op <OPERATION-NAME>) <INPUT_1> ... <INPUT_N>) + + (branch (label <LABEL-NAME>)) + + (goto (label <LABEL-NAME>)) + + The use of registers to hold labels was introduced in section *Note +5-1-3::: + + (assign <REGISTER-NAME> (label <LABEL-NAME>)) + + (goto (reg <REGISTER-NAME>)) + + Instructions to use the stack were introduced in section *Note +5-1-4::: + + (save <REGISTER-NAME>) + + (restore <REGISTER-NAME>) + + The only kind of <CONSTANT-VALUE> we have seen so far is a number, +but later we will use strings, symbols, and lists. For example, +`(const "abc")' is the string `"abc"', +`(const abc)' is the symbol `abc', +`(const (a b c))' is the list `(a b c)', +and `(const ())' is the empty list. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-2, Next: 5-3, Prev: 5-1, Up: Chapter 5 + +5.2 A Register-Machine Simulator +================================ + +In order to gain a good understanding of the design of register +machines, we must test the machines we design to see if they perform as +expected. One way to test a design is to hand-simulate the operation +of the controller, as in *Note Exercise 5-5::. But this is extremely +tedious for all but the simplest machines. In this section we +construct a simulator for machines described in the register-machine +language. The simulator is a Scheme program with four interface +procedures. The first uses a description of a register machine to +construct a model of the machine (a data structure whose parts +correspond to the parts of the machine to be simulated), and the other +three allow us to simulate the machine by manipulating the model: + + (make-machine <REGISTER-NAMES> <OPERATIONS> <CONTROLLER>) + + constructs and returns a model of the machine with the given + registers, operations, and controller. + + (set-register-contents! <MACHINE-MODEL> <REGISTER-NAME> <VALUE>) + + stores a value in a simulated register in the given machine. + + (get-register-contents <MACHINE-MODEL> <REGISTER-NAME>) + + returns the contents of a simulated register in the given machine. + + (start <MACHINE-MODEL>) + + simulates the execution of the given machine, starting from the + beginning of the controller sequence and stopping when it reaches + the end of the sequence. + + As an example of how these procedures are used, we can define +`gcd-machine' to be a model of the GCD machine of section *Note 5-1-1:: +as follows: + + (define gcd-machine + (make-machine + '(a b t) + (list (list 'rem remainder) (list '= =)) + '(test-b + (test (op =) (reg b) (const 0)) + (branch (label gcd-done)) + (assign t (op rem) (reg a) (reg b)) + (assign a (reg b)) + (assign b (reg t)) + (goto (label test-b)) + gcd-done))) + + The first argument to `make-machine' is a list of register names. +The next argument is a table (a list of two-element lists) that pairs +each operation name with a Scheme procedure that implements the +operation (that is, produces the same output value given the same input +values). The last argument specifies the controller as a list of +labels and machine instructions, as in section *Note 5-1::. + + To compute GCDs with this machine, we set the input registers, start +the machine, and examine the result when the simulation terminates: + + (set-register-contents! gcd-machine 'a 206) + done + + (set-register-contents! gcd-machine 'b 40) + done + + (start gcd-machine) + done + + (get-register-contents gcd-machine 'a) + 2 + + This computation will run much more slowly than a `gcd' procedure +written in Scheme, because we will simulate low-level machine +instructions, such as `assign', by much more complex operations. + + *Exercise 5.7:* Use the simulator to test the machines you + designed in *Note Exercise 5-4::. + +* Menu: + +* 5-2-1:: The Machine Model +* 5-2-2:: The Assembler +* 5-2-3:: Generating Execution Procedures for Instructions +* 5-2-4:: Monitoring Machine Performance + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-2-1, Next: 5-2-2, Prev: 5-2, Up: 5-2 + +5.2.1 The Machine Model +----------------------- + +The machine model generated by `make-machine' is represented as a +procedure with local state using the message-passing techniques +developed in *Note Chapter 3::. To build this model, `make-machine' +begins by calling the procedure `make-new-machine' to construct the +parts of the machine model that are common to all register machines. +This basic machine model constructed by `make-new-machine' is +essentially a container for some registers and a stack, together with +an execution mechanism that processes the controller instructions one +by one. + + `Make-machine' then extends this basic model (by sending it +messages) to include the registers, operations, and controller of the +particular machine being defined. First it allocates a register in the +new machine for each of the supplied register names and installs the +designated operations in the machine. Then it uses an "assembler" +(described below in section *Note 5-2-2::) to transform the controller +list into instructions for the new machine and installs these as the +machine's instruction sequence. `Make-machine' returns as its value +the modified machine model. + + (define (make-machine register-names ops controller-text) + (let ((machine (make-new-machine))) + (for-each (lambda (register-name) + ((machine 'allocate-register) register-name)) + register-names) + ((machine 'install-operations) ops) + ((machine 'install-instruction-sequence) + (assemble controller-text machine)) + machine)) + +Registers +......... + +We will represent a register as a procedure with local state, as in +*Note Chapter 3::. The procedure `make-register' creates a register +that holds a value that can be accessed or changed: + + (define (make-register name) + (let ((contents '*unassigned*)) + (define (dispatch message) + (cond ((eq? message 'get) contents) + ((eq? message 'set) + (lambda (value) (set! contents value))) + (else + (error "Unknown request -- REGISTER" message)))) + dispatch)) + + The following procedures are used to access registers: + + (define (get-contents register) + (register 'get)) + + (define (set-contents! register value) + ((register 'set) value)) + +The stack +......... + +We can also represent a stack as a procedure with local state. The +procedure `make-stack' creates a stack whose local state consists of a +list of the items on the stack. A stack accepts requests to `push' an +item onto the stack, to `pop' the top item off the stack and return it, +and to `initialize' the stack to empty. + + (define (make-stack) + (let ((s '())) + (define (push x) + (set! s (cons x s))) + (define (pop) + (if (null? s) + (error "Empty stack -- POP") + (let ((top (car s))) + (set! s (cdr s)) + top))) + (define (initialize) + (set! s '()) + 'done) + (define (dispatch message) + (cond ((eq? message 'push) push) + ((eq? message 'pop) (pop)) + ((eq? message 'initialize) (initialize)) + (else (error "Unknown request -- STACK" + message)))) + dispatch)) + + The following procedures are used to access stacks: + + (define (pop stack) + (stack 'pop)) + + (define (push stack value) + ((stack 'push) value)) + +The basic machine +................. + +The `make-new-machine' procedure, shown in *Note Figure 5-13::, +constructs an object whose local state consists of a stack, an +initially empty instruction sequence, a list of operations that +initially contains an operation to initialize the stack, and a "register +table" that initially contains two registers, named `flag' and `pc' +(for "program counter"). The internal procedure `allocate-register' +adds new entries to the register table, and the internal procedure +`lookup-register' looks up registers in the table. + + The `flag' register is used to control branching in the simulated +machine. `Test' instructions set the contents of `flag' to the result +of the test (true or false). `Branch' instructions decide whether or +not to branch by examining the contents of `flag'. + + The `pc' register determines the sequencing of instructions as the +machine runs. This sequencing is implemented by the internal procedure +`execute'. In the simulation model, each machine instruction is a data +structure that includes a procedure of no arguments, called the procedure +"instruction execution procedure", such that calling this procedure +simulates executing the instruction. As the simulation runs, `pc' +points to the place in the instruction sequence beginning with the next +instruction to be executed. `Execute' gets that instruction, executes +it by calling the instruction execution procedure, and repeats this +cycle until there are no more instructions to execute (i.e., until `pc' +points to the end of the instruction sequence). + + *Figure 5.13:* The `make-new-machine' procedure, which implements + the basic machine model. + + (define (make-new-machine) + (let ((pc (make-register 'pc)) + (flag (make-register 'flag)) + (stack (make-stack)) + (the-instruction-sequence '())) + (let ((the-ops + (list (list 'initialize-stack + (lambda () (stack 'initialize))))) + (register-table + (list (list 'pc pc) (list 'flag flag)))) + (define (allocate-register name) + (if (assoc name register-table) + (error "Multiply defined register: " name) + (set! register-table + (cons (list name (make-register name)) + register-table))) + 'register-allocated) + (define (lookup-register name) + (let ((val (assoc name register-table))) + (if val + (cadr val) + (error "Unknown register:" name)))) + (define (execute) + (let ((insts (get-contents pc))) + (if (null? insts) + 'done + (begin + ((instruction-execution-proc (car insts))) + (execute))))) + (define (dispatch message) + (cond ((eq? message 'start) + (set-contents! pc the-instruction-sequence) + (execute)) + ((eq? message 'install-instruction-sequence) + (lambda (seq) (set! the-instruction-sequence seq))) + ((eq? message 'allocate-register) allocate-register) + ((eq? message 'get-register) lookup-register) + ((eq? message 'install-operations) + (lambda (ops) (set! the-ops (append the-ops ops)))) + ((eq? message 'stack) stack) + ((eq? message 'operations) the-ops) + (else (error "Unknown request -- MACHINE" message)))) + dispatch))) + + As part of its operation, each instruction execution procedure +modifies `pc' to indicate the next instruction to be executed. +`Branch' and `goto' instructions change `pc' to point to the new +destination. All other instructions simply advance `pc', making it +point to the next instruction in the sequence. Observe that each call +to `execute' calls `execute' again, but this does not produce an +infinite loop because running the instruction execution procedure +changes the contents of `pc'. + + `Make-new-machine' returns a `dispatch' procedure that implements +message-passing access to the internal state. Notice that starting the +machine is accomplished by setting `pc' to the beginning of the +instruction sequence and calling `execute'. + + For convenience, we provide an alternate procedural interface to a +machine's `start' operation, as well as procedures to set and examine +register contents, as specified at the beginning of section *Note 5-2::: + + (define (start machine) + (machine 'start)) + + (define (get-register-contents machine register-name) + (get-contents (get-register machine register-name))) + + (define (set-register-contents! machine register-name value) + (set-contents! (get-register machine register-name) value) + 'done) + + These procedures (and many procedures in sections *Note 5-2-2:: and +*Note 5-2-3::) use the following to look up the register with a given +name in a given machine: + + (define (get-register machine reg-name) + ((machine 'get-register) reg-name)) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-2-2, Next: 5-2-3, Prev: 5-2-1, Up: 5-2 + +5.2.2 The Assembler +------------------- + +The assembler transforms the sequence of controller expressions for a +machine into a corresponding list of machine instructions, each with +its execution procedure. Overall, the assembler is much like the +evaluators we studied in *Note Chapter 4::--there is an input language +(in this case, the register-machine language) and we must perform an +appropriate action for each type of expression in the language. + + The technique of producing an execution procedure for each +instruction is just what we used in section *Note 4-1-7:: to speed up +the evaluator by separating analysis from runtime execution. As we saw +in *Note Chapter 4::, much useful analysis of Scheme expressions could +be performed without knowing the actual values of variables. Here, +analogously, much useful analysis of register-machine-language +expressions can be performed without knowing the actual contents of +machine registers. For example, we can replace references to registers +by pointers to the register objects, and we can replace references to +labels by pointers to the place in the instruction sequence that the +label designates. + + Before it can generate the instruction execution procedures, the +assembler must know what all the labels refer to, so it begins by +scanning the controller text to separate the labels from the +instructions. As it scans the text, it constructs both a list of +instructions and a table that associates each label with a pointer into +that list. Then the assembler augments the instruction list by +inserting the execution procedure for each instruction. + + The `assemble' procedure is the main entry to the assembler. It +takes the controller text and the machine model as arguments and +returns the instruction sequence to be stored in the model. `Assemble' +calls `extract-labels' to build the initial instruction list and label +table from the supplied controller text. The second argument to +`extract-labels' is a procedure to be called to process these results: +This procedure uses `update-insts!' to generate the instruction +execution procedures and insert them into the instruction list, and +returns the modified list. + + (define (assemble controller-text machine) + (extract-labels controller-text + (lambda (insts labels) + (update-insts! insts labels machine) + insts))) + + `Extract-labels' takes as arguments a list `text' (the sequence of +controller instruction expressions) and a `receive' procedure. +`Receive' will be called with two values: (1) a list `insts' of +instruction data structures, each containing an instruction from `text'; +and (2) a table called `labels', which associates each label from +`text' with the position in the list `insts' that the label designates. + + (define (extract-labels text receive) + (if (null? text) + (receive '() '()) + (extract-labels (cdr text) + (lambda (insts labels) + (let ((next-inst (car text))) + (if (symbol? next-inst) + (receive insts + (cons (make-label-entry next-inst + insts) + labels)) + (receive (cons (make-instruction next-inst) + insts) + labels))))))) + + `Extract-labels' works by sequentially scanning the elements of the +`text' and accumulating the `insts' and the `labels'. If an element is +a symbol (and thus a label) an appropriate entry is added to the +`labels' table. Otherwise the element is accumulated onto the `insts' +list.(1) + + `Update-insts!' modifies the instruction list, which initially +contains only the text of the instructions, to include the +corresponding execution procedures: + + (define (update-insts! insts labels machine) + (let ((pc (get-register machine 'pc)) + (flag (get-register machine 'flag)) + (stack (machine 'stack)) + (ops (machine 'operations))) + (for-each + (lambda (inst) + (set-instruction-execution-proc! + inst + (make-execution-procedure + (instruction-text inst) labels machine + pc flag stack ops))) + insts))) + + The machine instruction data structure simply pairs the instruction +text with the corresponding execution procedure. The execution +procedure is not yet available when `extract-labels' constructs the +instruction, and is inserted later by `update-insts!'. + + (define (make-instruction text) + (cons text '())) + + (define (instruction-text inst) + (car inst)) + + (define (instruction-execution-proc inst) + (cdr inst)) + + (define (set-instruction-execution-proc! inst proc) + (set-cdr! inst proc)) + + The instruction text is not used by our simulator, but it is handy +to keep around for debugging (see *Note Exercise 5-16::). + + Elements of the label table are pairs: + + (define (make-label-entry label-name insts) + (cons label-name insts)) + + Entries will be looked up in the table with + + (define (lookup-label labels label-name) + (let ((val (assoc label-name labels))) + (if val + (cdr val) + (error "Undefined label -- ASSEMBLE" label-name)))) + + *Exercise 5.8:* The following register-machine code is ambiguous, + because the label `here' is defined more than once: + + start + (goto (label here)) + here + (assign a (const 3)) + (goto (label there)) + here + (assign a (const 4)) + (goto (label there)) + there + + With the simulator as written, what will the contents of register + `a' be when control reaches `there'? Modify the `extract-labels' + procedure so that the assembler will signal an error if the same + label name is used to indicate two different locations. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Using the `receive' procedure here is a way to get +`extract-labels' to effectively return two values--`labels' and +`insts'--without explicitly making a compound data structure to hold +them. An alternative implementation, which returns an explicit pair of +values, is + + (define (extract-labels text) + (if (null? text) + (cons '() '()) + (let ((result (extract-labels (cdr text)))) + (let ((insts (car result)) (labels (cdr result))) + (let ((next-inst (car text))) + (if (symbol? next-inst) + (cons insts + (cons (make-label-entry next-inst insts) labels)) + (cons (cons (make-instruction next-inst) insts) + labels))))))) + +which would be called by `assemble' as follows: + + (define (assemble controller-text machine) + (let ((result (extract-labels controller-text))) + (let ((insts (car result)) (labels (cdr result))) + (update-insts! insts labels machine) + insts))) + + You can consider our use of `receive' as demonstrating an elegant +way to return multiple values, or simply an excuse to show off a +programming trick. An argument like `receive' that is the next +procedure to be invoked is called a "continuation." Recall that we +also used continuations to implement the backtracking control structure +in the `amb' evaluator in section *Note 4-3-3::. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-2-3, Next: 5-2-4, Prev: 5-2-2, Up: 5-2 + +5.2.3 Generating Execution Procedures for Instructions +------------------------------------------------------ + +The assembler calls `make-execution-procedure' to generate the execution +procedure for an instruction. Like the `analyze' procedure in the +evaluator of section *Note 4-1-7::, this dispatches on the type of +instruction to generate the appropriate execution procedure. + + (define (make-execution-procedure inst labels machine + pc flag stack ops) + (cond ((eq? (car inst) 'assign) + (make-assign inst machine labels ops pc)) + ((eq? (car inst) 'test) + (make-test inst machine labels ops flag pc)) + ((eq? (car inst) 'branch) + (make-branch inst machine labels flag pc)) + ((eq? (car inst) 'goto) + (make-goto inst machine labels pc)) + ((eq? (car inst) 'save) + (make-save inst machine stack pc)) + ((eq? (car inst) 'restore) + (make-restore inst machine stack pc)) + ((eq? (car inst) 'perform) + (make-perform inst machine labels ops pc)) + (else (error "Unknown instruction type -- ASSEMBLE" + inst)))) + + For each type of instruction in the register-machine language, there +is a generator that builds an appropriate execution procedure. The +details of these procedures determine both the syntax and meaning of +the individual instructions in the register-machine language. We use +data abstraction to isolate the detailed syntax of register-machine +expressions from the general execution mechanism, as we did for +evaluators in section *Note 4-1-2::, by using syntax procedures to +extract and classify the parts of an instruction. + +`Assign' instructions +..................... + +The `make-assign' procedure handles `assign' instructions: + + (define (make-assign inst machine labels operations pc) + (let ((target + (get-register machine (assign-reg-name inst))) + (value-exp (assign-value-exp inst))) + (let ((value-proc + (if (operation-exp? value-exp) + (make-operation-exp + value-exp machine labels operations) + (make-primitive-exp + (car value-exp) machine labels)))) + (lambda () ; execution procedure for `assign' + (set-contents! target (value-proc)) + (advance-pc pc))))) + + `Make-assign' extracts the target register name (the second element +of the instruction) and the value expression (the rest of the list that +forms the instruction) from the `assign' instruction using the selectors + + (define (assign-reg-name assign-instruction) + (cadr assign-instruction)) + + (define (assign-value-exp assign-instruction) + (cddr assign-instruction)) + + The register name is looked up with `get-register' to produce the +target register object. The value expression is passed to +`make-operation-exp' if the value is the result of an operation, and to +`make-primitive-exp' otherwise. These procedures (shown below) parse +the value expression and produce an execution procedure for the value. +This is a procedure of no arguments, called `value-proc', which will be +evaluated during the simulation to produce the actual value to be +assigned to the register. Notice that the work of looking up the +register name and parsing the value expression is performed just once, +at assembly time, not every time the instruction is simulated. This +saving of work is the reason we use execution procedures, and +corresponds directly to the saving in work we obtained by separating +program analysis from execution in the evaluator of section *Note +4-1-7::. + + The result returned by `make-assign' is the execution procedure for +the `assign' instruction. When this procedure is called (by the machine +model's `execute' procedure), it sets the contents of the target +register to the result obtained by executing `value-proc'. Then it +advances the `pc' to the next instruction by running the procedure + + (define (advance-pc pc) + (set-contents! pc (cdr (get-contents pc)))) + + `Advance-pc' is the normal termination for all instructions except +`branch' and `goto'. + +`Test', `branch', and `goto' instructions +......................................... + +`Make-test' handles `test' instructions in a similar way. It extracts +the expression that specifies the condition to be tested and generates +an execution procedure for it. At simulation time, the procedure for +the condition is called, the result is assigned to the `flag' register, +and the `pc' is advanced: + + (define (make-test inst machine labels operations flag pc) + (let ((condition (test-condition inst))) + (if (operation-exp? condition) + (let ((condition-proc + (make-operation-exp + condition machine labels operations))) + (lambda () + (set-contents! flag (condition-proc)) + (advance-pc pc))) + (error "Bad TEST instruction -- ASSEMBLE" inst)))) + + (define (test-condition test-instruction) + (cdr test-instruction)) + + The execution procedure for a `branch' instruction checks the +contents of the `flag' register and either sets the contents of the +`pc' to the branch destination (if the branch is taken) or else just +advances the `pc' (if the branch is not taken). Notice that the +indicated destination in a `branch' instruction must be a label, and +the `make-branch' procedure enforces this. Notice also that the label +is looked up at assembly time, not each time the `branch' instruction +is simulated. + + (define (make-branch inst machine labels flag pc) + (let ((dest (branch-dest inst))) + (if (label-exp? dest) + (let ((insts + (lookup-label labels (label-exp-label dest)))) + (lambda () + (if (get-contents flag) + (set-contents! pc insts) + (advance-pc pc)))) + (error "Bad BRANCH instruction -- ASSEMBLE" inst)))) + + (define (branch-dest branch-instruction) + (cadr branch-instruction)) + + A `goto' instruction is similar to a branch, except that the +destination may be specified either as a label or as a register, and +there is no condition to check--the `pc' is always set to the new +destination. + + (define (make-goto inst machine labels pc) + (let ((dest (goto-dest inst))) + (cond ((label-exp? dest) + (let ((insts + (lookup-label labels + (label-exp-label dest)))) + (lambda () (set-contents! pc insts)))) + ((register-exp? dest) + (let ((reg + (get-register machine + (register-exp-reg dest)))) + (lambda () + (set-contents! pc (get-contents reg))))) + (else (error "Bad GOTO instruction -- ASSEMBLE" + inst))))) + + (define (goto-dest goto-instruction) + (cadr goto-instruction)) + +Other instructions +.................. + +The stack instructions `save' and `restore' simply use the stack with +the designated register and advance the `pc': + + (define (make-save inst machine stack pc) + (let ((reg (get-register machine + (stack-inst-reg-name inst)))) + (lambda () + (push stack (get-contents reg)) + (advance-pc pc)))) + + (define (make-restore inst machine stack pc) + (let ((reg (get-register machine + (stack-inst-reg-name inst)))) + (lambda () + (set-contents! reg (pop stack)) + (advance-pc pc)))) + + (define (stack-inst-reg-name stack-instruction) + (cadr stack-instruction)) + + The final instruction type, handled by `make-perform', generates an +execution procedure for the action to be performed. At simulation +time, the action procedure is executed and the `pc' advanced. + + (define (make-perform inst machine labels operations pc) + (let ((action (perform-action inst))) + (if (operation-exp? action) + (let ((action-proc + (make-operation-exp + action machine labels operations))) + (lambda () + (action-proc) + (advance-pc pc))) + (error "Bad PERFORM instruction -- ASSEMBLE" inst)))) + + (define (perform-action inst) (cdr inst)) + +Execution procedures for subexpressions +....................................... + +The value of a `reg', `label', or `const' expression may be needed for +assignment to a register (`make-assign') or for input to an operation +(`make-operation-exp', below). The following procedure generates +execution procedures to produce values for these expressions during the +simulation: + + (define (make-primitive-exp exp machine labels) + (cond ((constant-exp? exp) + (let ((c (constant-exp-value exp))) + (lambda () c))) + ((label-exp? exp) + (let ((insts + (lookup-label labels + (label-exp-label exp)))) + (lambda () insts))) + ((register-exp? exp) + (let ((r (get-register machine + (register-exp-reg exp)))) + (lambda () (get-contents r)))) + (else + (error "Unknown expression type -- ASSEMBLE" exp)))) + + The syntax of `reg', `label', and `const' expressions is determined +by + + (define (register-exp? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'reg)) + + (define (register-exp-reg exp) (cadr exp)) + + (define (constant-exp? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'const)) + + (define (constant-exp-value exp) (cadr exp)) + + (define (label-exp? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'label)) + + (define (label-exp-label exp) (cadr exp)) + + `Assign', `perform', and `test' instructions may include the +application of a machine operation (specified by an `op' expression) to +some operands (specified by `reg' and `const' expressions). The +following procedure produces an execution procedure for an "operation +expression"--a list containing the operation and operand expressions +from the instruction: + + (define (make-operation-exp exp machine labels operations) + (let ((op (lookup-prim (operation-exp-op exp) operations)) + (aprocs + (map (lambda (e) + (make-primitive-exp e machine labels)) + (operation-exp-operands exp)))) + (lambda () + (apply op (map (lambda (p) (p)) aprocs))))) + + The syntax of operation expressions is determined by + + (define (operation-exp? exp) + (and (pair? exp) (tagged-list? (car exp) 'op))) + + (define (operation-exp-op operation-exp) + (cadr (car operation-exp))) + + (define (operation-exp-operands operation-exp) + (cdr operation-exp)) + + Observe that the treatment of operation expressions is very much +like the treatment of procedure applications by the +`analyze-application' procedure in the evaluator of section *Note +4-1-7:: in that we generate an execution procedure for each operand. +At simulation time, we call the operand procedures and apply the Scheme +procedure that simulates the operation to the resulting values. The +simulation procedure is found by looking up the operation name in the +operation table for the machine: + + (define (lookup-prim symbol operations) + (let ((val (assoc symbol operations))) + (if val + (cadr val) + (error "Unknown operation -- ASSEMBLE" symbol)))) + + *Exercise 5.9:* The treatment of machine operations above permits + them to operate on labels as well as on constants and the contents + of registers. Modify the expression-processing procedures to + enforce the condition that operations can be used only with + registers and constants. + + *Exercise 5.10:* Design a new syntax for register-machine + instructions and modify the simulator to use your new syntax. Can + you implement your new syntax without changing any part of the + simulator except the syntax procedures in this section? + + *Exercise 5.11:* When we introduced `save' and `restore' in + section *Note 5-1-4::, we didn't specify what would happen if you + tried to restore a register that was not the last one saved, as in + the sequence + + (save y) + (save x) + (restore y) + + There are several reasonable possibilities for the meaning of + `restore': + + a. `(restore y)' puts into `y' the last value saved on the stack, + regardless of what register that value came from. This is + the way our simulator behaves. Show how to take advantage of + this behavior to eliminate one instruction from the Fibonacci + machine of section *Note 5-1-4:: (*Note Figure 5-12::). + + b. `(restore y)' puts into `y' the last value saved on the + stack, but only if that value was saved from `y'; otherwise, + it signals an error. Modify the simulator to behave this + way. You will have to change `save' to put the register name + on the stack along with the value. + + c. `(restore y)' puts into `y' the last value saved from `y' + regardless of what other registers were saved after `y' and + not restored. Modify the simulator to behave this way. You + will have to associate a separate stack with each register. + You should make the `initialize-stack' operation initialize + all the register stacks. + + + *Exercise 5.12:* The simulator can be used to help determine the + data paths required for implementing a machine with a given + controller. Extend the assembler to store the following + information in the machine model: + + * a list of all instructions, with duplicates removed, sorted + by instruction type (`assign', `goto', and so on); + + * a list (without duplicates) of the registers used to hold + entry points (these are the registers referenced by `goto' + instructions); + + * a list (without duplicates) of the registers that are `save'd + or `restore'd; + + * for each register, a list (without duplicates) of the sources + from which it is assigned (for example, the sources for + register `val' in the factorial machine of *Note Figure + 5-11:: are `(const 1)' and `((op *) (reg n) (reg val))'). + + + Extend the message-passing interface to the machine to provide + access to this new information. To test your analyzer, define the + Fibonacci machine from *Note Figure 5-12:: and examine the lists + you constructed. + + *Exercise 5.13:* Modify the simulator so that it uses the + controller sequence to determine what registers the machine has + rather than requiring a list of registers as an argument to + `make-machine'. Instead of pre-allocating the registers in + `make-machine', you can allocate them one at a time when they are + first seen during assembly of the instructions. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-2-4, Prev: 5-2-3, Up: 5-2 + +5.2.4 Monitoring Machine Performance +------------------------------------ + +Simulation is useful not only for verifying the correctness of a +proposed machine design but also for measuring the machine's +performance. For example, we can install in our simulation program a +"meter" that measures the number of stack operations used in a +computation. To do this, we modify our simulated stack to keep track +of the number of times registers are saved on the stack and the maximum +depth reached by the stack, and add a message to the stack's interface +that prints the statistics, as shown below. We also add an operation +to the basic machine model to print the stack statistics, by +initializing `the-ops' in `make-new-machine' to + + (list (list 'initialize-stack + (lambda () (stack 'initialize))) + (list 'print-stack-statistics + (lambda () (stack 'print-statistics)))) + + Here is the new version of `make-stack': + + (define (make-stack) + (let ((s '()) + (number-pushes 0) + (max-depth 0) + (current-depth 0)) + (define (push x) + (set! s (cons x s)) + (set! number-pushes (+ 1 number-pushes)) + (set! current-depth (+ 1 current-depth)) + (set! max-depth (max current-depth max-depth))) + (define (pop) + (if (null? s) + (error "Empty stack -- POP") + (let ((top (car s))) + (set! s (cdr s)) + (set! current-depth (- current-depth 1)) + top))) + (define (initialize) + (set! s '()) + (set! number-pushes 0) + (set! max-depth 0) + (set! current-depth 0) + 'done) + (define (print-statistics) + (newline) + (display (list 'total-pushes '= number-pushes + 'maximum-depth '= max-depth))) + (define (dispatch message) + (cond ((eq? message 'push) push) + ((eq? message 'pop) (pop)) + ((eq? message 'initialize) (initialize)) + ((eq? message 'print-statistics) + (print-statistics)) + (else + (error "Unknown request -- STACK" message)))) + dispatch)) + + *Note Exercise 5-15:: through *Note Exercise 5-19:: describe other +useful monitoring and debugging features that can be added to the +register-machine simulator. + + *Exercise 5.14:* Measure the number of pushes and the maximum + stack depth required to compute n! for various small values of n + using the factorial machine shown in *Note Figure 5-11::. From + your data determine formulas in terms of n for the total number of + push operations and the maximum stack depth used in computing n! + for any n > 1. Note that each of these is a linear function of n + and is thus determined by two constants. In order to get the + statistics printed, you will have to augment the factorial machine + with instructions to initialize the stack and print the + statistics. You may want to also modify the machine so that it + repeatedly reads a value for n, computes the factorial, and prints + the result (as we did for the GCD machine in *Note Figure 5-4::), + so that you will not have to repeatedly invoke + `get-register-contents', `set-register-contents!', and `start'. + + *Exercise 5.15:* Add counting "instruction counting" to the + register machine simulation. That is, have the machine model keep + track of the number of instructions executed. Extend the machine + model's interface to accept a new message that prints the value of + the instruction count and resets the count to zero. + + *Exercise 5.16:* Augment the simulator to provide for "instruction + tracing". That is, before each instruction is executed, the + simulator should print the text of the instruction. Make the + machine model accept `trace-on' and `trace-off' messages to turn + tracing on and off. + + *Exercise 5.17:* Extend the instruction tracing of *Note Exercise + 5-16:: so that before printing an instruction, the simulator + prints any labels that immediately precede that instruction in the + controller sequence. Be careful to do this in a way that does not + interfere with instruction counting (*Note Exercise 5-15::). You + will have to make the simulator retain the necessary label + information. + + *Exercise 5.18:* Modify the `make-register' procedure of section + *Note 5-2-1:: so that registers can be traced. Registers should + accept messages that turn tracing on and off. When a register is + traced, assigning a value to the register should print the name of + the register, the old contents of the register, and the new + contents being assigned. Extend the interface to the machine + model to permit you to turn tracing on and off for designated + machine registers. + + *Exercise 5.19:* Alyssa P. Hacker wants a "breakpoint" feature in + the simulator to help her debug her machine designs. You have + been hired to install this feature for her. She wants to be able + to specify a place in the controller sequence where the simulator + will stop and allow her to examine the state of the machine. You + are to implement a procedure + + (set-breakpoint <MACHINE> <LABEL> <N>) + + that sets a breakpoint just before the nth instruction after the + given label. For example, + + (set-breakpoint gcd-machine 'test-b 4) + + installs a breakpoint in `gcd-machine' just before the assignment + to register `a'. When the simulator reaches the breakpoint it + should print the label and the offset of the breakpoint and stop + executing instructions. Alyssa can then use + `get-register-contents' and `set-register-contents!' to manipulate + the state of the simulated machine. She should then be able to + continue execution by saying + + (proceed-machine <MACHINE>) + + She should also be able to remove a specific breakpoint by means of + + (cancel-breakpoint <MACHINE> <LABEL> <N>) + + or to remove all breakpoints by means of + + (cancel-all-breakpoints <MACHINE>) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-3, Next: 5-4, Prev: 5-2, Up: Chapter 5 + +5.3 Storage Allocation and Garbage Collection +============================================= + +In section *Note 5-4::, we will show how to implement a Scheme +evaluator as a register machine. In order to simplify the discussion, +we will assume that our register machines can be equipped with a "list-structured +memory", in which the basic operations for manipulating list-structured +data are primitive. Postulating the existence of such a memory is a +useful abstraction when one is focusing on the mechanisms of control in +a Scheme interpreter, but this does not reflect a realistic view of the +actual primitive data operations of contemporary computers. To obtain +a more complete picture of how a Lisp system operates, we must +investigate how list structure can be represented in a way that is +compatible with conventional computer memories. + + There are two considerations in implementing list structure. The +first is purely an issue of representation: how to represent the +"box-and-pointer" structure of Lisp pairs, using only the storage and +addressing capabilities of typical computer memories. The second issue +concerns the management of memory as a computation proceeds. The +operation of a Lisp system depends crucially on the ability to +continually create new data objects. These include objects that are +explicitly created by the Lisp procedures being interpreted as well as +structures created by the interpreter itself, such as environments and +argument lists. Although the constant creation of new data objects +would pose no problem on a computer with an infinite amount of rapidly +addressable memory, computer memories are available only in finite +sizes (more's the pity). Lisp systems thus provide an "automatic +storage allocation" facility to support the illusion of an infinite +memory. When a data object is no longer needed, the memory allocated +to it is automatically recycled and used to construct new data objects. +There are various techniques for providing such automatic storage +allocation. The method we shall discuss in this section is called "garbage +collection". + +* Menu: + +* 5-3-1:: Memory as Vectors +* 5-3-2:: Maintaining the Illusion of Infinite Memory + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-3-1, Next: 5-3-2, Prev: 5-3, Up: 5-3 + +5.3.1 Memory as Vectors +----------------------- + +A conventional computer memory can be thought of as an array of +cubbyholes, each of which can contain a piece of information. Each +cubbyhole has a unique name, called its "address" or "location". +Typical memory systems provide two primitive operations: one that +fetches the data stored in a specified location and one that assigns +new data to a specified location. Memory addresses can be incremented +to support sequential access to some set of the cubbyholes. More +generally, many important data operations require that memory addresses +be treated as data, which can be stored in memory locations and +manipulated in machine registers. The representation of list structure +is one application of such "address arithmetic". + + To model computer memory, we use a new kind of data structure called +a "vector". Abstractly, a vector is a compound data object whose +individual elements can be accessed by means of an integer index in an +amount of time that is independent of the index.(1) In order to +describe memory operations, we use two primitive Scheme procedures for +manipulating vectors: + + * `(vector-ref <VECTOR> <N>)' returns the nth element of the vector. + + * `(vector-set! <VECTOR> <N> <VALUE>)' sets the nth element of the + vector to the designated value. + + + For example, if `v' is a vector, then `(vector-ref v 5)' gets the +fifth entry in the vector `v' and `(vector-set! v 5 7)' changes the +value of the fifth entry of the vector `v' to 7.(2) For computer +memory, this access can be implemented through the use of address +arithmetic to combine a address "base address" that specifies the +beginning location of a vector in memory with an "index" that specifies +the offset of a particular element of the vector. + +Representing Lisp data +...................... + +We can use vectors to implement the basic pair structures required for a +list-structured memory. Let us imagine that computer memory is divided +into two vectors: `the-cars' and `the-cdrs'. We will represent list +structure as follows: A pointer to a pair is an index into the two +vectors. The `car' of the pair is the entry in `the-cars' with the +designated index, and the `cdr' of the pair is the entry in `the-cdrs' +with the designated index. We also need a representation for objects +other than pairs (such as numbers and symbols) and a way to distinguish +one kind of data from another. There are many methods of accomplishing +this, but they all reduce to using "typed pointers", that is, to +extending the notion of "pointer" to include information on data +type.(3) The data type enables the system to distinguish a pointer to a +pair (which consists of the "pair" data type and an index into the +memory vectors) from pointers to other kinds of data (which consist of +some other data type and whatever is being used to represent data of +that type). Two data objects are considered to be the same (`eq?') if +their pointers are identical.(4) *Note Figure 5-14:: illustrates the +use of this method to represent the list `((1 2) 3 4)', whose +box-and-pointer diagram is also shown. We use letter prefixes to +denote the data-type information. Thus, a pointer to the pair with +index 5 is denoted `p5', the empty list is denoted by the pointer `e0', +and a pointer to the number 4 is denoted `n4'. In the box-and-pointer +diagram, we have indicated at the lower left of each pair the vector +index that specifies where the `car' and `cdr' of the pair are stored. +The blank locations in `the-cars' and `the-cdrs' may contain parts of +other list structures (not of interest here). + + *Figure 5.14:* Box-and-pointer and memory-vector representations + of the list `((1 2) 3 4)'. + + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ + ((1 2) 3 4) -->| * | *-+-------------->| * | *-+--->| * | / | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ + 1 | 2 | 4 | + V V V + +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+ +---+ + | * | *-+--->| * | / | | 3 | | 4 | + +-|-+---+ +-|-+---+ +---+ +---+ + 5 | 7 | + V V + +---+ +---+ + | 1 | | 2 | + +---+ +---+ + + Index 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... + +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---- + the-cars | | p5 | n3 | | n4 | n1 | | n2 | | ... + +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---- + the-cdrs | | p2 | p4 | | e0 | p7 | | e0 | | ... + +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---- + + A pointer to a number, such as `n4', might consist of a type +indicating numeric data together with the actual representation of the +number 4.(5) To deal with numbers that are too large to be represented +in the fixed amount of space allocated for a single pointer, we could +use a distinct "bignum" data type, for which the pointer designates a +list in which the parts of the number are stored.(6) + + A symbol might be represented as a typed pointer that designates a +sequence of the characters that form the symbol's printed +representation. This sequence is constructed by the Lisp reader when +the character string is initially encountered in input. Since we want +two instances of a symbol to be recognized as the "same" symbol by +`eq?' and we want `eq?' to be a simple test for equality of pointers, +we must ensure that if the reader sees the same character string twice, +it will use the same pointer (to the same sequence of characters) to +represent both occurrences. To accomplish this, the reader maintains a +table, traditionally called the "obarray", of all the symbols it has +ever encountered. When the reader encounters a character string and is +about to construct a symbol, it checks the obarray to see if it has ever +before seen the same character string. If it has not, it uses the +characters to construct a new symbol (a typed pointer to a new +character sequence) and enters this pointer in the obarray. If the +reader has seen the string before, it returns the symbol pointer stored +in the obarray. This process of replacing character strings by unique +pointers is called "interning" symbols. + +Implementing the primitive list operations +.......................................... + +Given the above representation scheme, we can replace each "primitive" +list operation of a register machine with one or more primitive vector +operations. We will use two registers, `the-cars' and `the-cdrs', to +identify the memory vectors, and will assume that `vector-ref' and +`vector-set!' are available as primitive operations. We also assume +that numeric operations on pointers (such as incrementing a pointer, +using a pair pointer to index a vector, or adding two numbers) use only +the index portion of the typed pointer. + + For example, we can make a register machine support the instructions + + (assign <REG_1> (op car) (reg <REG_2>)) + + (assign <REG_1> (op cdr) (reg <REG_2>)) + +if we implement these, respectively, as + + (assign <REG_1> (op vector-ref) (reg the-cars) (reg <REG_2>)) + + (assign <REG_1> (op vector-ref) (reg the-cdrs) (reg <REG_2>)) + + The instructions + + (perform (op set-car!) (reg <REG_1>) (reg <REG_2>)) + + (perform (op set-cdr!) (reg <REG_1>) (reg <REG_2>)) + +are implemented as + + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg the-cars) (reg <REG_1>) (reg <REG_2>)) + + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg the-cdrs) (reg <REG_1>) (reg <REG_2>)) + + `Cons' is performed by allocating an unused index and storing the +arguments to `cons' in `the-cars' and `the-cdrs' at that indexed vector +position. We presume that there is a special register, `free', that +always holds a pair pointer containing the next available index, and +that we can increment the index part of that pointer to find the next +free location.(7) For example, the instruction + + (assign <REG_1> (op cons) (reg <REG_2>) (reg <REG_3>)) + +is implemented as the following sequence of vector operations:(8) + + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg the-cars) (reg free) (reg <REG_2>)) + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg the-cdrs) (reg free) (reg <REG_3>)) + (assign <REG_1> (reg free)) + (assign free (op +) (reg free) (const 1)) + + The `eq?' operation + + (op eq?) (reg <REG_1>) (reg <REG_2>) + +simply tests the equality of all fields in the registers, and +predicates such as `pair?', `null?', `symbol?', and `number?' need only +check the type field. + +Implementing stacks +................... + +Although our register machines use stacks, we need do nothing special +here, since stacks can be modeled in terms of lists. The stack can be +a list of the saved values, pointed to by a special register +`the-stack'. Thus, ` (save <REG>)' can be implemented as + + (assign the-stack (op cons) (reg <REG>) (reg the-stack)) + +Similarly, `(restore <REG>)' can be implemented as + + (assign <REG> (op car) (reg the-stack)) + (assign the-stack (op cdr) (reg the-stack)) + +and `(perform (op initialize-stack))' can be implemented as + + (assign the-stack (const ())) + + These operations can be further expanded in terms of the vector +operations given above. In conventional computer architectures, +however, it is usually advantageous to allocate the stack as a separate +vector. Then pushing and popping the stack can be accomplished by +incrementing or decrementing an index into that vector. + + *Exercise 5.20:* Draw the box-and-pointer representation and the + memory-vector representation (as in *Note Figure 5-14::) of the + list structure produced by + + (define x (cons 1 2)) + (define y (list x x)) + + with the `free' pointer initially `p1'. What is the final value of + `free' ? What pointers represent the values of `x' and `y' ? + + *Exercise 5.21:* Implement register machines for the following + procedures. Assume that the list-structure memory operations are + available as machine primitives. + + a. Recursive `count-leaves': + + (define (count-leaves tree) + (cond ((null? tree) 0) + ((not (pair? tree)) 1) + (else (+ (count-leaves (car tree)) + (count-leaves (cdr tree)))))) + + b. Recursive `count-leaves' with explicit counter: + + (define (count-leaves tree) + (define (count-iter tree n) + (cond ((null? tree) n) + ((not (pair? tree)) (+ n 1)) + (else (count-iter (cdr tree) + (count-iter (car tree) n))))) + (count-iter tree 0)) + + *Exercise 5.22:* *Note Exercise 3-12:: of section *Note 3-3-1:: + presented an `append' procedure that appends two lists to form a + new list and an `append!' procedure that splices two lists + together. Design a register machine to implement each of these + procedures. Assume that the list-structure memory operations are + available as primitive operations. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We could represent memory as lists of items. However, the +access time would then not be independent of the index, since accessing +the nth element of a list requires n - 1 `cdr' operations. + + (2) For completeness, we should specify a `make-vector' operation +that constructs vectors. However, in the present application we will +use vectors only to model fixed divisions of the computer memory. + + (3) This is precisely the same "tagged data" idea we introduced in +*Note Chapter 2:: for dealing with generic operations. Here, however, +the data types are included at the primitive machine level rather than +constructed through the use of lists. + + (4) Type information may be encoded in a variety of ways, depending +on the details of the machine on which the Lisp system is to be +implemented. The execution efficiency of Lisp programs will be +strongly dependent on how cleverly this choice is made, but it is +difficult to formulate general design rules for good choices. The most +straightforward way to implement typed pointers is to allocate a fixed +set of bits in each pointer to be a "type field" that encodes the data +type. Important questions to be addressed in designing such a +representation include the following: How many type bits are required? +How large must the vector indices be? How efficiently can the +primitive machine instructions be used to manipulate the type fields of +pointers? Machines that include special hardware for the efficient +handling of type fields are said to have architectures "tagged +architectures". + + (5) This decision on the representation of numbers determines whether +`eq?', which tests equality of pointers, can be used to test for +equality of numbers. If the pointer contains the number itself, then +equal numbers will have the same pointer. But if the pointer contains +the index of a location where the number is stored, equal numbers will +be guaranteed to have equal pointers only if we are careful never to +store the same number in more than one location. + + (6) This is just like writing a number as a sequence of digits, +except that each "digit" is a number between 0 and the largest number +that can be stored in a single pointer. + + (7) There are other ways of finding free storage. For example, we +could link together all the unused pairs into a "free list". Our free +locations are consecutive (and hence can be accessed by incrementing a +pointer) because we are using a compacting garbage collector, as we +will see in section *Note 5-3-2::. + + (8) This is essentially the implementation of `cons' in terms of +`set-car!' and `set-cdr!', as described in section *Note 3-3-1::. The +operation `get-new-pair' used in that implementation is realized here +by the `free' pointer. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-3-2, Prev: 5-3-1, Up: 5-3 + +5.3.2 Maintaining the Illusion of Infinite Memory +------------------------------------------------- + +The representation method outlined in section *Note 5-3-1:: solves the +problem of implementing list structure, provided that we have an +infinite amount of memory. With a real computer we will eventually run +out of free space in which to construct new pairs.(1) However, most of +the pairs generated in a typical computation are used only to hold +intermediate results. After these results are accessed, the pairs are +no longer needed--they are "garbage". For instance, the computation + + (accumulate + 0 (filter odd? (enumerate-interval 0 n))) + +constructs two lists: the enumeration and the result of filtering the +enumeration. When the accumulation is complete, these lists are no +longer needed, and the allocated memory can be reclaimed. If we can +arrange to collect all the garbage periodically, and if this turns out +to recycle memory at about the same rate at which we construct new +pairs, we will have preserved the illusion that there is an infinite +amount of memory. + + In order to recycle pairs, we must have a way to determine which +allocated pairs are not needed (in the sense that their contents can no +longer influence the future of the computation). The method we shall +examine for accomplishing this is known as "garbage collection". +Garbage collection is based on the observation that, at any moment in a +Lisp interpretation, the only objects that can affect the future of the +computation are those that can be reached by some succession of `car' +and `cdr' operations starting from the pointers that are currently in +the machine registers.(2) Any memory cell that is not so accessible may +be recycled. + + There are many ways to perform garbage collection. The method we +shall examine here is called "stop-and-copy". The basic idea is to +divide memory into two halves: "working memory" and "free memory." +When `cons' constructs pairs, it allocates these in working memory. +When working memory is full, we perform garbage collection by locating +all the useful pairs in working memory and copying these into +consecutive locations in free memory. (The useful pairs are located by +tracing all the `car' and `cdr' pointers, starting with the machine +registers.) Since we do not copy the garbage, there will presumably be +additional free memory that we can use to allocate new pairs. In +addition, nothing in the working memory is needed, since all the useful +pairs in it have been copied. Thus, if we interchange the roles of +working memory and free memory, we can continue processing; new pairs +will be allocated in the new working memory (which was the old free +memory). When this is full, we can copy the useful pairs into the new +free memory (which was the old working memory).(3) + +Implementation of a stop-and-copy garbage collector +................................................... + +We now use our register-machine language to describe the stop-and-copy +algorithm in more detail. We will assume that there is a register +called `root' that contains a pointer to a structure that eventually +points at all accessible data. This can be arranged by storing the +contents of all the machine registers in a pre-allocated list pointed +at by `root' just before starting garbage collection.(4) We also assume +that, in addition to the current working memory, there is free memory +available into which we can copy the useful data. The current working +memory consists of vectors whose base addresses are in registers called +`the-cars' and `the-cdrs', and the free memory is in registers called +`new-cars' and `new-cdrs'. + + Garbage collection is triggered when we exhaust the free cells in +the current working memory, that is, when a `cons' operation attempts +to increment the `free' pointer beyond the end of the memory vector. +When the garbage-collection process is complete, the `root' pointer +will point into the new memory, all objects accessible from the `root' +will have been moved to the new memory, and the `free' pointer will +indicate the next place in the new memory where a new pair can be +allocated. In addition, the roles of working memory and new memory +will have been interchanged--new pairs will be constructed in the new +memory, beginning at the place indicated by `free', and the (previous) +working memory will be available as the new memory for the next garbage +collection. *Note Figure 5-15:: shows the arrangement of memory just +before and just after garbage collection. + + *Figure 5.15:* Reconfiguration of memory by the garbage-collection + process. + + Just before garbage collection + + +------------------------------------+ + the-cars | | working + | mixture of useful data and garbage | memory + the-cdrs | | + +------------------------------------+ + ^ + | free + + +------------------------------------+ + new-cars | | free + | free memory | memory + new-cdrs | | + +------------------------------------+ + + Just after garbage collection + + +------------------------------------+ + new-cars | | new + | discarded memory | free + new-cdrs | | memory + +------------------------------------+ + + +------------------+-----------------+ + the-cars | | | new + | useful data | free area | working + the-cdrs | | | memory + +------------------+-----------------+ + ^ + | free + + The state of the garbage-collection process is controlled by +maintaining two pointers: `free' and `scan'. These are initialized to +point to the beginning of the new memory. The algorithm begins by +relocating the pair pointed at by `root' to the beginning of the new +memory. The pair is copied, the `root' pointer is adjusted to point to +the new location, and the `free' pointer is incremented. In addition, +the old location of the pair is marked to show that its contents have +been moved. This marking is done as follows: In the `car' position, we +place a special tag that signals that this is an already-moved object. +(Such an object is traditionally called a "broken heart".)(5) In the +`cdr' position we place a "forwarding address" that points at the +location to which the object has been moved. + + After relocating the root, the garbage collector enters its basic +cycle. At each step in the algorithm, the `scan' pointer (initially +pointing at the relocated root) points at a pair that has been moved to +the new memory but whose `car' and `cdr' pointers still refer to +objects in the old memory. These objects are each relocated, and the +`scan' pointer is incremented. To relocate an object (for example, the +object indicated by the `car' pointer of the pair we are scanning) we +check to see if the object has already been moved (as indicated by the +presence of a broken-heart tag in the `car' position of the object). +If the object has not already been moved, we copy it to the place +indicated by `free', update `free', set up a broken heart at the +object's old location, and update the pointer to the object (in this +example, the `car' pointer of the pair we are scanning) to point to the +new location. If the object has already been moved, its forwarding +address (found in the `cdr' position of the broken heart) is +substituted for the pointer in the pair being scanned. Eventually, all +accessible objects will have been moved and scanned, at which point the +`scan' pointer will overtake the `free' pointer and the process will +terminate. + + We can specify the stop-and-copy algorithm as a sequence of +instructions for a register machine. The basic step of relocating an +object is accomplished by a subroutine called +`relocate-old-result-in-new'. This subroutine gets its argument, a +pointer to the object to be relocated, from a register named `old'. It +relocates the designated object (incrementing `free' in the process), +puts a pointer to the relocated object into a register called `new', +and returns by branching to the entry point stored in the register +`relocate-continue'. To begin garbage collection, we invoke this +subroutine to relocate the `root' pointer, after initializing `free' +and `scan'. When the relocation of `root' has been accomplished, we +install the new pointer as the new `root' and enter the main loop of the +garbage collector. + + begin-garbage-collection + (assign free (const 0)) + (assign scan (const 0)) + (assign old (reg root)) + (assign relocate-continue (label reassign-root)) + (goto (label relocate-old-result-in-new)) + reassign-root + (assign root (reg new)) + (goto (label gc-loop)) + + In the main loop of the garbage collector we must determine whether +there are any more objects to be scanned. We do this by testing +whether the `scan' pointer is coincident with the `free' pointer. If +the pointers are equal, then all accessible objects have been +relocated, and we branch to `gc-flip', which cleans things up so that +we can continue the interrupted computation. If there are still pairs +to be scanned, we call the relocate subroutine to relocate the `car' of +the next pair (by placing the `car' pointer in `old'). The +`relocate-continue' register is set up so that the subroutine will +return to update the `car' pointer. + + gc-loop + (test (op =) (reg scan) (reg free)) + (branch (label gc-flip)) + (assign old (op vector-ref) (reg new-cars) (reg scan)) + (assign relocate-continue (label update-car)) + (goto (label relocate-old-result-in-new)) + + At `update-car', we modify the `car' pointer of the pair being +scanned, then proceed to relocate the `cdr' of the pair. We return to +`update-cdr' when that relocation has been accomplished. After +relocating and updating the `cdr', we are finished scanning that pair, +so we continue with the main loop. + + update-car + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg new-cars) (reg scan) (reg new)) + (assign old (op vector-ref) (reg new-cdrs) (reg scan)) + (assign relocate-continue (label update-cdr)) + (goto (label relocate-old-result-in-new)) + + update-cdr + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg new-cdrs) (reg scan) (reg new)) + (assign scan (op +) (reg scan) (const 1)) + (goto (label gc-loop)) + + The subroutine `relocate-old-result-in-new' relocates objects as +follows: If the object to be relocated (pointed at by `old') is not a +pair, then we return the same pointer to the object unchanged (in +`new'). (For example, we may be scanning a pair whose `car' is the +number 4. If we represent the `car' by `n4', as described in section +*Note 5-3-1::, then we want the "relocated" `car' pointer to still be +`n4'.) Otherwise, we must perform the relocation. If the `car' +position of the pair to be relocated contains a broken-heart tag, then +the pair has in fact already been moved, so we retrieve the forwarding +address (from the `cdr' position of the broken heart) and return this +in `new'. If the pointer in `old' points at a yet-unmoved pair, then +we move the pair to the first free cell in new memory (pointed at by +`free') and set up the broken heart by storing a broken-heart tag and +forwarding address at the old location. `Relocate-old-result-in-new' +uses a register `oldcr' to hold the `car' or the `cdr' of the object +pointed at by `old'.(6) + + relocate-old-result-in-new + (test (op pointer-to-pair?) (reg old)) + (branch (label pair)) + (assign new (reg old)) + (goto (reg relocate-continue)) + pair + (assign oldcr (op vector-ref) (reg the-cars) (reg old)) + (test (op broken-heart?) (reg oldcr)) + (branch (label already-moved)) + (assign new (reg free)) ; new location for pair + ;; Update `free' pointer. + (assign free (op +) (reg free) (const 1)) + ;; Copy the `car' and `cdr' to new memory. + (perform (op vector-set!) + (reg new-cars) (reg new) (reg oldcr)) + (assign oldcr (op vector-ref) (reg the-cdrs) (reg old)) + (perform (op vector-set!) + (reg new-cdrs) (reg new) (reg oldcr)) + ;; Construct the broken heart. + (perform (op vector-set!) + (reg the-cars) (reg old) (const broken-heart)) + (perform + (op vector-set!) (reg the-cdrs) (reg old) (reg new)) + (goto (reg relocate-continue)) + already-moved + (assign new (op vector-ref) (reg the-cdrs) (reg old)) + (goto (reg relocate-continue)) + + At the very end of the garbage-collection process, we interchange +the role of old and new memories by interchanging pointers: +interchanging `the-cars' with `new-cars', and `the-cdrs' with +`new-cdrs'. We will then be ready to perform another garbage +collection the next time memory runs out. + + gc-flip + (assign temp (reg the-cdrs)) + (assign the-cdrs (reg new-cdrs)) + (assign new-cdrs (reg temp)) + (assign temp (reg the-cars)) + (assign the-cars (reg new-cars)) + (assign new-cars (reg temp)) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This may not be true eventually, because memories may get large +enough so that it would be impossible to run out of free memory in the +lifetime of the computer. For example, there are about 3*(10^13), +microseconds in a year, so if we were to `cons' once per microsecond we +would need about 10^15 cells of memory to build a machine that could +operate for 30 years without running out of memory. That much memory +seems absurdly large by today's standards, but it is not physically +impossible. On the other hand, processors are getting faster and a +future computer may have large numbers of processors operating in +parallel on a single memory, so it may be possible to use up memory +much faster than we have postulated. + + (2) We assume here that the stack is represented as a list as +described in section *Note 5-3-1::, so that items on the stack are +accessible via the pointer in the stack register. + + (3) This idea was invented and first implemented by Minsky, as part +of the implementation of Lisp for the PDP-1 at the MIT Research +Laboratory of Electronics. It was further developed by Fenichel and +Yochelson (1969) for use in the Lisp implementation for the Multics +time-sharing system. Later, Baker (1978) developed a "real-time" +version of the method, which does not require the computation to stop +during garbage collection. Baker's idea was extended by Hewitt, +Lieberman, and Moon (see Lieberman and Hewitt 1983) to take advantage +of the fact that some structure is more volatile and other structure is +more permanent. + + An alternative commonly used garbage-collection technique is the "mark-sweep" +method. This consists of tracing all the structure accessible from the +machine registers and marking each pair we reach. We then scan all of +memory, and any location that is unmarked is "swept up" as garbage and +made available for reuse. A full discussion of the mark-sweep method +can be found in Allen 1978. + + The Minsky-Fenichel-Yochelson algorithm is the dominant algorithm in +use for large-memory systems because it examines only the useful part +of memory. This is in contrast to mark-sweep, in which the sweep phase +must check all of memory. A second advantage of stop-and-copy is that +it is a "compacting" garbage collector. That is, at the end of the +garbage-collection phase the useful data will have been moved to +consecutive memory locations, with all garbage pairs compressed out. +This can be an extremely important performance consideration in +machines with virtual memory, in which accesses to widely separated +memory addresses may require extra paging operations. + + (4) This list of registers does not include the registers used by +the storage-allocation system--`root', `the-cars', `the-cdrs', and the +other registers that will be introduced in this section. + + (5) The term _broken heart_ was coined by David Cressey, who wrote a +garbage collector for MDL, a dialect of Lisp developed at MIT during +the early 1970s. + + (6) The garbage collector uses the low-level predicate +`pointer-to-pair?' instead of the list-structure `pair?' operation +because in a real system there might be various things that are treated +as pairs for garbage-collection purposes. For example, in a Scheme +system that conforms to the IEEE standard a procedure object may be +implemented as a special kind of "pair" that doesn't satisfy the +`pair?' predicate. For simulation purposes, `pointer-to-pair?' can be +implemented as `pair?'. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-4, Next: 5-5, Prev: 5-3, Up: Chapter 5 + +5.4 The Explicit-Control Evaluator +================================== + +In section *Note 5-1:: we saw how to transform simple Scheme programs +into descriptions of register machines. We will now perform this +transformation on a more complex program, the metacircular evaluator of +sections *Note 4-1-1::-*Note 4-1-4::, which shows how the behavior of a +Scheme interpreter can be described in terms of the procedures `eval' +and `apply'. The "explicit-control evaluator" that we develop in this +section shows how the underlying procedure-calling and argument-passing +mechanisms used in the evaluation process can be described in terms of +operations on registers and stacks. In addition, the explicit-control +evaluator can serve as an implementation of a Scheme interpreter, +written in a language that is very similar to the native machine +language of conventional computers. The evaluator can be executed by +the register-machine simulator of section *Note 5-2::. Alternatively, +it can be used as a starting point for building a machine-language +implementation of a Scheme evaluator, or even a special-purpose machine +for evaluating Scheme expressions. *Note Figure 5-16:: shows such a +hardware implementation: a silicon chip that acts as an evaluator for +Scheme. The chip designers started with the data-path and controller +specifications for a register machine similar to the evaluator +described in this section and used design automation programs to +construct the integrated-circuit layout.(1) + +Registers and operations +........................ + +In designing the explicit-control evaluator, we must specify the +operations to be used in our register machine. We described the +metacircular evaluator in terms of abstract syntax, using procedures +such as `quoted?' and `make-procedure'. In implementing the register +machine, we could expand these procedures into sequences of elementary +list-structure memory operations, and implement these operations on our +register machine. However, this would make our evaluator very long, +obscuring the basic structure with details. To clarify the +presentation, we will include as primitive operations of the register +machine the syntax procedures given in section *Note 4-1-2:: and the +procedures for representing environments and other run-time data given +in sections *Note 4-1-3:: and *Note 4-1-4::. In order to completely +specify an evaluator that could be programmed in a low-level machine +language or implemented in hardware, we would replace these operations +by more elementary operations, using the list-structure implementation +we described in section *Note 5-3::. + + *Figure 5.16:* A silicon-chip implementation of an evaluator for + Scheme. + + [This figure is missing.] + + + Our Scheme evaluator register machine includes a stack and seven +registers: `exp', `env', `val', `continue', `proc', `argl', and `unev'. +`Exp' is used to hold the expression to be evaluated, and `env' +contains the environment in which the evaluation is to be performed. +At the end of an evaluation, `val' contains the value obtained by +evaluating the expression in the designated environment. The +`continue' register is used to implement recursion, as explained in +section *Note 5-1-4::. (The evaluator needs to call itself +recursively, since evaluating an expression requires evaluating its +subexpressions.) The registers `proc', `argl', and `unev' are used in +evaluating combinations. + + We will not provide a data-path diagram to show how the registers and +operations of the evaluator are connected, nor will we give the +complete list of machine operations. These are implicit in the +evaluator's controller, which will be presented in detail. + +* Menu: + +* 5-4-1:: The Core of the Explicit-Control Evaluator +* 5-4-2:: Sequence Evaluation and Tail Recursion +* 5-4-3:: Conditionals, Assignments, and Definitions +* 5-4-4:: Running the Evaluator + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) See Batali et al. 1982 for more information on the chip and the +method by which it was designed. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-4-1, Next: 5-4-2, Prev: 5-4, Up: 5-4 + +5.4.1 The Core of the Explicit-Control Evaluator +------------------------------------------------ + +The central element in the evaluator is the sequence of instructions +beginning at `eval-dispatch'. This corresponds to the `eval' procedure +of the metacircular evaluator described in section *Note 4-1-1::. When +the controller starts at `eval-dispatch', it evaluates the expression +specified by `exp' in the environment specified by `env'. When +evaluation is complete, the controller will go to the entry point +stored in `continue', and the `val' register will hold the value of the +expression. As with the metacircular `eval', the structure of +`eval-dispatch' is a case analysis on the syntactic type of the +expression to be evaluated.(1) + + eval-dispatch + (test (op self-evaluating?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-self-eval)) + (test (op variable?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-variable)) + (test (op quoted?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-quoted)) + (test (op assignment?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-assignment)) + (test (op definition?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-definition)) + (test (op if?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-if)) + (test (op lambda?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-lambda)) + (test (op begin?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-begin)) + (test (op application?) (reg exp)) + (branch (label ev-application)) + (goto (label unknown-expression-type)) + +Evaluating simple expressions +............................. + +Numbers and strings (which are self-evaluating), variables, quotations, +and `lambda' expressions have no subexpressions to be evaluated. For +these, the evaluator simply places the correct value in the `val' +register and continues execution at the entry point specified by +`continue'. Evaluation of simple expressions is performed by the +following controller code: + + ev-self-eval + (assign val (reg exp)) + (goto (reg continue)) + ev-variable + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (reg exp) (reg env)) + (goto (reg continue)) + ev-quoted + (assign val (op text-of-quotation) (reg exp)) + (goto (reg continue)) + ev-lambda + (assign unev (op lambda-parameters) (reg exp)) + (assign exp (op lambda-body) (reg exp)) + (assign val (op make-procedure) + (reg unev) (reg exp) (reg env)) + (goto (reg continue)) + + Observe how `ev-lambda' uses the `unev' and `exp' registers to hold +the parameters and body of the lambda expression so that they can be +passed to the `make-procedure' operation, along with the environment in +`env'. + +Evaluating procedure applications +................................. + +A procedure application is specified by a combination containing an +operator and operands. The operator is a subexpression whose value is +a procedure, and the operands are subexpressions whose values are the +arguments to which the procedure should be applied. The metacircular +`eval' handles applications by calling itself recursively to evaluate +each element of the combination, and then passing the results to +`apply', which performs the actual procedure application. The +explicit-control evaluator does the same thing; these recursive calls +are implemented by `goto' instructions, together with use of the stack +to save registers that will be restored after the recursive call +returns. Before each call we will be careful to identify which +registers must be saved (because their values will be needed later).(2) + + We begin the evaluation of an application by evaluating the operator +to produce a procedure, which will later be applied to the evaluated +operands. To evaluate the operator, we move it to the `exp' register +and go to `eval-dispatch'. The environment in the `env' register is +already the correct one in which to evaluate the operator. However, we +save `env' because we will need it later to evaluate the operands. We +also extract the operands into `unev' and save this on the stack. We +set up `continue' so that `eval-dispatch' will resume at +`ev-appl-did-operator' after the operator has been evaluated. First, +however, we save the old value of `continue', which tells the controller +where to continue after the application. + + ev-application + (save continue) + (save env) + (assign unev (op operands) (reg exp)) + (save unev) + (assign exp (op operator) (reg exp)) + (assign continue (label ev-appl-did-operator)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + + Upon returning from evaluating the operator subexpression, we +proceed to evaluate the operands of the combination and to accumulate +the resulting arguments in a list, held in `argl'. First we restore +the unevaluated operands and the environment. We initialize `argl' to +an empty list. Then we assign to the `proc' register the procedure +that was produced by evaluating the operator. If there are no +operands, we go directly to `apply-dispatch'. Otherwise we save `proc' +on the stack and start the argument-evaluation loop:(3) + + ev-appl-did-operator + (restore unev) ; the operands + (restore env) + (assign argl (op empty-arglist)) + (assign proc (reg val)) ; the operator + (test (op no-operands?) (reg unev)) + (branch (label apply-dispatch)) + (save proc) + + Each cycle of the argument-evaluation loop evaluates an operand from +the list in `unev' and accumulates the result into `argl'. To evaluate +an operand, we place it in the `exp' register and go to `eval-dispatch', +after setting `continue' so that execution will resume with the +argument-accumulation phase. But first we save the arguments +accumulated so far (held in `argl'), the environment (held in `env'), +and the remaining operands to be evaluated (held in `unev'). A special +case is made for the evaluation of the last operand, which is handled at +`ev-appl-last-arg'. + + ev-appl-operand-loop + (save argl) + (assign exp (op first-operand) (reg unev)) + (test (op last-operand?) (reg unev)) + (branch (label ev-appl-last-arg)) + (save env) + (save unev) + (assign continue (label ev-appl-accumulate-arg)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + + When an operand has been evaluated, the value is accumulated into +the list held in `argl'. The operand is then removed from the list of +unevaluated operands in `unev', and the argument-evaluation continues. + + ev-appl-accumulate-arg + (restore unev) + (restore env) + (restore argl) + (assign argl (op adjoin-arg) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (assign unev (op rest-operands) (reg unev)) + (goto (label ev-appl-operand-loop)) + + Evaluation of the last argument is handled differently. There is no +need to save the environment or the list of unevaluated operands before +going to `eval-dispatch', since they will not be required after the +last operand is evaluated. Thus, we return from the evaluation to a +special entry point `ev-appl-accum-last-arg', which restores the +argument list, accumulates the new argument, restores the saved +procedure, and goes off to perform the application.(4) + + ev-appl-last-arg + (assign continue (label ev-appl-accum-last-arg)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + ev-appl-accum-last-arg + (restore argl) + (assign argl (op adjoin-arg) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (restore proc) + (goto (label apply-dispatch)) + + The details of the argument-evaluation loop determine the order in +which the interpreter evaluates the operands of a combination (e.g., +left to right or right to left--see *Note Exercise 3-8::). This order +is not determined by the metacircular evaluator, which inherits its +control structure from the underlying Scheme in which it is +implemented.(5) Because the `first-operand' selector (used in +`ev-appl-operand-loop' to extract successive operands from `unev') is +implemented as `car' and the `rest-operands' selector is implemented as +`cdr', the explicit-control evaluator will evaluate the operands of a +combination in left-to-right order. + +Procedure application +..................... + +The entry point `apply-dispatch' corresponds to the `apply' procedure +of the metacircular evaluator. By the time we get to `apply-dispatch', +the `proc' register contains the procedure to apply and `argl' contains +the list of evaluated arguments to which it must be applied. The saved +value of `continue' (originally passed to `eval-dispatch' and saved at +`ev-application'), which tells where to return with the result of the +procedure application, is on the stack. When the application is +complete, the controller transfers to the entry point specified by the +saved `continue', with the result of the application in `val'. As with +the metacircular `apply', there are two cases to consider. Either the +procedure to be applied is a primitive or it is a compound procedure. + + apply-dispatch + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-apply)) + (test (op compound-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label compound-apply)) + (goto (label unknown-procedure-type)) + + We assume that each primitive is implemented so as to obtain its +arguments from `argl' and place its result in `val'. To specify how +the machine handles primitives, we would have to provide a sequence of +controller instructions to implement each primitive and arrange for +`primitive-apply' to dispatch to the instructions for the primitive +identified by the contents of `proc'. Since we are interested in the +structure of the evaluation process rather than the details of the +primitives, we will instead just use an `apply-primitive-procedure' +operation that applies the procedure in `proc' to the arguments in +`argl'. For the purpose of simulating the evaluator with the simulator +of section *Note 5-2:: we use the procedure +`apply-primitive-procedure', which calls on the underlying Scheme system +to perform the application, just as we did for the metacircular +evaluator in section *Note 4-1-4::. After computing the value of the +primitive application, we restore `continue' and go to the designated +entry point. + + primitive-apply + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) + (reg proc) + (reg argl)) + (restore continue) + (goto (reg continue)) + + To apply a compound procedure, we proceed just as with the +metacircular evaluator. We construct a frame that binds the +procedure's parameters to the arguments, use this frame to extend the +environment carried by the procedure, and evaluate in this extended +environment the sequence of expressions that forms the body of the +procedure. `Ev-sequence', described below in section *Note 5-4-2::, +handles the evaluation of the sequence. + + compound-apply + (assign unev (op procedure-parameters) (reg proc)) + (assign env (op procedure-environment) (reg proc)) + (assign env (op extend-environment) + (reg unev) (reg argl) (reg env)) + (assign unev (op procedure-body) (reg proc)) + (goto (label ev-sequence)) + + `Compound-apply' is the only place in the interpreter where the `env' +register is ever assigned a new value. Just as in the metacircular +evaluator, the new environment is constructed from the environment +carried by the procedure, together with the argument list and the +corresponding list of variables to be bound. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) In our controller, the dispatch is written as a sequence of +`test' and `branch' instructions. Alternatively, it could have been +written in a data-directed style (and in a real system it probably +would have been) to avoid the need to perform sequential tests and to +facilitate the definition of new expression types. A machine designed +to run Lisp would probably include a `dispatch-on-type' instruction +that would efficiently execute such data-directed dispatches. + + (2) This is an important but subtle point in translating algorithms +from a procedural language, such as Lisp, to a register-machine +language. As an alternative to saving only what is needed, we could +save all the registers (except `val') before each recursive call. This +is called a "framed-stack" discipline. This would work but might save +more registers than necessary; this could be an important consideration +in a system where stack operations are expensive. Saving registers +whose contents will not be needed later may also hold onto useless data +that could otherwise be garbage-collected, freeing space to be reused. + + (3) We add to the evaluator data-structure procedures in section +*Note 4-1-3:: the following two procedures for manipulating argument +lists: + + (define (empty-arglist) '()) + + (define (adjoin-arg arg arglist) + (append arglist (list arg))) + + We also use an additional syntax procedure to test for the last +operand in a combination: + + (define (last-operand? ops) + (null? (cdr ops))) + + (4) The optimization of treating the last operand specially is known +as "evlis tail recursion" (see Wand 1980). We could be somewhat more +efficient in the argument evaluation loop if we made evaluation of the +first operand a special case too. This would permit us to postpone +initializing `argl' until after evaluating the first operand, so as to +avoid saving `argl' in this case. The compiler in section *Note 5-5:: +performs this optimization. (Compare the `construct-arglist' procedure +of section *Note 5-5-3::.) + + (5) The order of operand evaluation in the metacircular evaluator is +determined by the order of evaluation of the arguments to `cons' in the +procedure `list-of-values' of section *Note 4-1-1:: (see *Note Exercise +4-1::). + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-4-2, Next: 5-4-3, Prev: 5-4-1, Up: 5-4 + +5.4.2 Sequence Evaluation and Tail Recursion +-------------------------------------------- + +The portion of the explicit-control evaluator at `ev-sequence' is +analogous to the metacircular evaluator's `eval-sequence' procedure. It +handles sequences of expressions in procedure bodies or in explicit +`begin' expressions. + + Explicit `begin' expressions are evaluated by placing the sequence of +expressions to be evaluated in `unev', saving `continue' on the stack, +and jumping to `ev-sequence'. + + ev-begin + (assign unev (op begin-actions) (reg exp)) + (save continue) + (goto (label ev-sequence)) + + The implicit sequences in procedure bodies are handled by jumping to +`ev-sequence' from `compound-apply', at which point `continue' is +already on the stack, having been saved at `ev-application'. + + The entries at `ev-sequence' and `ev-sequence-continue' form a loop +that successively evaluates each expression in a sequence. The list of +unevaluated expressions is kept in `unev'. Before evaluating each +expression, we check to see if there are additional expressions to be +evaluated in the sequence. If so, we save the rest of the unevaluated +expressions (held in `unev') and the environment in which these must be +evaluated (held in `env') and call `eval-dispatch' to evaluate the +expression. The two saved registers are restored upon the return from +this evaluation, at `ev-sequence-continue'. + + The final expression in the sequence is handled differently, at the +entry point `ev-sequence-last-exp'. Since there are no more +expressions to be evaluated after this one, we need not save `unev' or +`env' before going to `eval-dispatch'. The value of the whole sequence +is the value of the last expression, so after the evaluation of the +last expression there is nothing left to do except continue at the +entry point currently held on the stack (which was saved by +`ev-application' or `ev-begin'.) Rather than setting up `continue' to +arrange for `eval-dispatch' to return here and then restoring +`continue' from the stack and continuing at that entry point, we +restore `continue' from the stack before going to `eval-dispatch', so +that `eval-dispatch' will continue at that entry point after evaluating +the expression. + + ev-sequence + (assign exp (op first-exp) (reg unev)) + (test (op last-exp?) (reg unev)) + (branch (label ev-sequence-last-exp)) + (save unev) + (save env) + (assign continue (label ev-sequence-continue)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + ev-sequence-continue + (restore env) + (restore unev) + (assign unev (op rest-exps) (reg unev)) + (goto (label ev-sequence)) + ev-sequence-last-exp + (restore continue) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + +Tail recursion +.............. + +In *Note Chapter 1:: we said that the process described by a procedure +such as + + (define (sqrt-iter guess x) + (if (good-enough? guess x) + guess + (sqrt-iter (improve guess x) + x))) + +is an iterative process. Even though the procedure is syntactically +recursive (defined in terms of itself), it is not logically necessary +for an evaluator to save information in passing from one call to +`sqrt-iter' to the next.(1) An evaluator that can execute a procedure +such as `sqrt-iter' without requiring increasing storage as the +procedure continues to call itself is called a "tail-recursive" +evaluator. The metacircular implementation of the evaluator in *Note +Chapter 4:: does not specify whether the evaluator is tail-recursive, +because that evaluator inherits its mechanism for saving state from the +underlying Scheme. With the explicit-control evaluator, however, we +can trace through the evaluation process to see when procedure calls +cause a net accumulation of information on the stack. + + Our evaluator is tail-recursive, because in order to evaluate the +final expression of a sequence we transfer directly to `eval-dispatch' +without saving any information on the stack. Hence, evaluating the +final expression in a sequence--even if it is a procedure call (as in +`sqrt-iter', where the `if' expression, which is the last expression in +the procedure body, reduces to a call to `sqrt-iter')--will not cause +any information to be accumulated on the stack.(2) + + If we did not think to take advantage of the fact that it was +unnecessary to save information in this case, we might have implemented +`eval-sequence' by treating all the expressions in a sequence in the +same way--saving the registers, evaluating the expression, returning to +restore the registers, and repeating this until all the expressions +have been evaluated:(3) + + ev-sequence + (test (op no-more-exps?) (reg unev)) + (branch (label ev-sequence-end)) + (assign exp (op first-exp) (reg unev)) + (save unev) + (save env) + (assign continue (label ev-sequence-continue)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + ev-sequence-continue + (restore env) + (restore unev) + (assign unev (op rest-exps) (reg unev)) + (goto (label ev-sequence)) + ev-sequence-end + (restore continue) + (goto (reg continue)) + + This may seem like a minor change to our previous code for +evaluation of a sequence: The only difference is that we go through the +save-restore cycle for the last expression in a sequence as well as for +the others. The interpreter will still give the same value for any +expression. But this change is fatal to the tail-recursive +implementation, because we must now return after evaluating the final +expression in a sequence in order to undo the (useless) register saves. +These extra saves will accumulate during a nest of procedure calls. +Consequently, processes such as `sqrt-iter' will require space +proportional to the number of iterations rather than requiring constant +space. This difference can be significant. For example, with tail +recursion, an infinite loop can be expressed using only the +procedure-call mechanism: + + (define (count n) + (newline) + (display n) + (count (+ n 1))) + + Without tail recursion, such a procedure would eventually run out of +stack space, and expressing a true iteration would require some control +mechanism other than procedure call. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We saw in section *Note 5-1:: how to implement such a process +with a register machine that had no stack; the state of the process was +stored in a fixed set of registers. + + (2) This implementation of tail recursion in `ev-sequence' is one +variety of a well-known optimization technique used by many compilers. +In compiling a procedure that ends with a procedure call, one can +replace the call by a jump to the called procedure's entry point. +Building this strategy into the interpreter, as we have done in this +section, provides the optimization uniformly throughout the language. + + (3) We can define `no-more-exps?' as follows: + + (define (no-more-exps? seq) (null? seq)) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-4-3, Next: 5-4-4, Prev: 5-4-2, Up: 5-4 + +5.4.3 Conditionals, Assignments, and Definitions +------------------------------------------------ + +As with the metacircular evaluator, special forms are handled by +selectively evaluating fragments of the expression. For an `if' +expression, we must evaluate the predicate and decide, based on the +value of predicate, whether to evaluate the consequent or the +alternative. + + Before evaluating the predicate, we save the `if' expression itself +so that we can later extract the consequent or alternative. We also +save the environment, which we will need later in order to evaluate the +consequent or the alternative, and we save `continue', which we will +need later in order to return to the evaluation of the expression that +is waiting for the value of the `if'. + + ev-if + (save exp) ; save expression for later + (save env) + (save continue) + (assign continue (label ev-if-decide)) + (assign exp (op if-predicate) (reg exp)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) ; evaluate the predicate + + When we return from evaluating the predicate, we test whether it was +true or false and, depending on the result, place either the consequent +or the alternative in `exp' before going to `eval-dispatch'. Notice +that restoring `env' and `continue' here sets up `eval-dispatch' to +have the correct environment and to continue at the right place to +receive the value of the `if' expression. + + ev-if-decide + (restore continue) + (restore env) + (restore exp) + (test (op true?) (reg val)) + (branch (label ev-if-consequent)) + + ev-if-alternative + (assign exp (op if-alternative) (reg exp)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + ev-if-consequent + (assign exp (op if-consequent) (reg exp)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + +Assignments and definitions +........................... + +Assignments are handled by `ev-assignment', which is reached from +`eval-dispatch' with the assignment expression in `exp'. The code at +`ev-assignment' first evaluates the value part of the expression and +then installs the new value in the environment. `Set-variable-value!' +is assumed to be available as a machine operation. + + ev-assignment + (assign unev (op assignment-variable) (reg exp)) + (save unev) ; save variable for later + (assign exp (op assignment-value) (reg exp)) + (save env) + (save continue) + (assign continue (label ev-assignment-1)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) ; evaluate the assignment value + ev-assignment-1 + (restore continue) + (restore env) + (restore unev) + (perform + (op set-variable-value!) (reg unev) (reg val) (reg env)) + (assign val (const ok)) + (goto (reg continue)) + + Definitions are handled in a similar way: + + ev-definition + (assign unev (op definition-variable) (reg exp)) + (save unev) ; save variable for later + (assign exp (op definition-value) (reg exp)) + (save env) + (save continue) + (assign continue (label ev-definition-1)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) ; evaluate the definition value + ev-definition-1 + (restore continue) + (restore env) + (restore unev) + (perform + (op define-variable!) (reg unev) (reg val) (reg env)) + (assign val (const ok)) + (goto (reg continue)) + + *Exercise 5.23:* Extend the evaluator to handle derived + expressions such as `cond', `let', and so on (section *Note + 4-1-2::). You may "cheat" and assume that the syntax transformers + such as `cond->if' are available as machine operations.(1) + + *Exercise 5.24:* Implement `cond' as a new basic special form + without reducing it to `if'. You will have to construct a loop + that tests the predicates of successive `cond' clauses until you + find one that is true, and then use `ev-sequence' to evaluate the + actions of the clause. + + *Exercise 5.25:* Modify the evaluator so that it uses normal-order + evaluation, based on the lazy evaluator of section *Note 4-2::. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This isn't really cheating. In an actual implementation built +from scratch, we would use our explicit-control evaluator to interpret +a Scheme program that performs source-level transformations like +`cond->if' in a syntax phase that runs before execution. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-4-4, Prev: 5-4-3, Up: 5-4 + +5.4.4 Running the Evaluator +--------------------------- + +With the implementation of the explicit-control evaluator we come to +the end of a development, begun in *Note Chapter 1::, in which we have +explored successively more precise models of the evaluation process. +We started with the relatively informal substitution model, then +extended this in *Note Chapter 3:: to the environment model, which +enabled us to deal with state and change. In the metacircular +evaluator of *Note Chapter 4::, we used Scheme itself as a language for +making more explicit the environment structure constructed during +evaluation of an expression. Now, with register machines, we have +taken a close look at the evaluator's mechanisms for storage +management, argument passing, and control. At each new level of +description, we have had to raise issues and resolve ambiguities that +were not apparent at the previous, less precise treatment of +evaluation. To understand the behavior of the explicit-control +evaluator, we can simulate it and monitor its performance. + + We will install a driver loop in our evaluator machine. This plays +the role of the `driver-loop' procedure of section *Note 4-1-4::. The +evaluator will repeatedly print a prompt, read an expression, evaluate +the expression by going to `eval-dispatch', and print the result. The +following instructions form the beginning of the explicit-control +evaluator's controller sequence:(1) + + read-eval-print-loop + (perform (op initialize-stack)) + (perform + (op prompt-for-input) (const ";;; EC-Eval input:")) + (assign exp (op read)) + (assign env (op get-global-environment)) + (assign continue (label print-result)) + (goto (label eval-dispatch)) + print-result + (perform + (op announce-output) (const ";;; EC-Eval value:")) + (perform (op user-print) (reg val)) + (goto (label read-eval-print-loop)) + + When we encounter an error in a procedure (such as the "unknown +procedure type error" indicated at `apply-dispatch'), we print an error +message and return to the driver loop.(2) + + unknown-expression-type + (assign val (const unknown-expression-type-error)) + (goto (label signal-error)) + + unknown-procedure-type + (restore continue) ; clean up stack (from `apply-dispatch') + (assign val (const unknown-procedure-type-error)) + (goto (label signal-error)) + + signal-error + (perform (op user-print) (reg val)) + (goto (label read-eval-print-loop)) + + For the purposes of the simulation, we initialize the stack each +time through the driver loop, since it might not be empty after an +error (such as an undefined variable) interrupts an evaluation.(3) + + If we combine all the code fragments presented in sections *Note +5-4-1::-*Note 5-4-4::, we can create an evaluator machine model that we +can run using the register-machine simulator of section *Note 5-2::. + + (define eceval + (make-machine + '(exp env val proc argl continue unev) + eceval-operations + '( + read-eval-print-loop + <_entire machine controller as given above_> + ))) + + We must define Scheme procedures to simulate the operations used as +primitives by the evaluator. These are the same procedures we used for +the metacircular evaluator in section *Note 4-1::, together with the +few additional ones defined in footnotes throughout section *Note 5-4::. + + (define eceval-operations + (list (list 'self-evaluating? self-evaluating) + <_complete list of operations for eceval machine_>)) + + Finally, we can initialize the global environment and run the +evaluator: + + (define the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + + (start eceval) + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (define (append x y) + (if (null? x) + y + (cons (car x) + (append (cdr x) y)))) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (append '(a b c) '(d e f)) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + (a b c d e f) + + Of course, evaluating expressions in this way will take much longer +than if we had directly typed them into Scheme, because of the multiple +levels of simulation involved. Our expressions are evaluated by the +explicit-control-evaluator machine, which is being simulated by a Scheme +program, which is itself being evaluated by the Scheme interpreter. + +Monitoring the performance of the evaluator +........................................... + +Simulation can be a powerful tool to guide the implementation of +evaluators. Simulations make it easy not only to explore variations of +the register-machine design but also to monitor the performance of the +simulated evaluator. For example, one important factor in performance +is how efficiently the evaluator uses the stack. We can observe the +number of stack operations required to evaluate various expressions by +defining the evaluator register machine with the version of the +simulator that collects statistics on stack use (section *Note +5-2-4::), and adding an instruction at the evaluator's `print-result' +entry point to print the statistics: + + print-result + (perform (op print-stack-statistics)); added instruction + (perform + (op announce-output) (const ";;; EC-Eval value:")) + ... ; same as before + + Interactions with the evaluator now look like this: + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) + (total-pushes = 3 maximum-depth = 3) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (factorial 5) + (total-pushes = 144 maximum-depth = 28) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + 120 + + Note that the driver loop of the evaluator reinitializes the stack +at the start of each interaction, so that the statistics printed will +refer only to stack operations used to evaluate the previous expression. + + *Exercise 5.26:* Use the monitored stack to explore the + tail-recursive property of the evaluator (section *Note 5-4-2::). + Start the evaluator and define the iterative `factorial' procedure + from section *Note 1-2-1::: + + (define (factorial n) + (define (iter product counter) + (if (> counter n) + product + (iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1)))) + (iter 1 1)) + + Run the procedure with some small values of n. Record the maximum + stack depth and the number of pushes required to compute n! for + each of these values. + + a. You will find that the maximum depth required to evaluate n! + is independent of n. What is that depth? + + b. Determine from your data a formula in terms of n for the + total number of push operations used in evaluating n! for any + n >= 1. Note that the number of operations used is a linear + function of n and is thus determined by two constants. + + + *Exercise 5.27:* For comparison with *Note Exercise 5-26::, + explore the behavior of the following procedure for computing + factorials recursively: + + (define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) + + By running this procedure with the monitored stack, determine, as + a function of n, the maximum depth of the stack and the total + number of pushes used in evaluating n! for n >= 1. (Again, these + functions will be linear.) Summarize your experiments by filling + in the following table with the appropriate expressions in terms + of n: + + Maximum depth Number of pushes + + Recursive + factorial + + Iterative + factorial + + The maximum depth is a measure of the amount of space used by the + evaluator in carrying out the computation, and the number of + pushes correlates well with the time required. + + *Exercise 5.28:* Modify the definition of the evaluator by + changing `eval-sequence' as described in section *Note 5-4-2:: so + that the evaluator is no longer tail-recursive. Rerun your + experiments from *Note Exercise 5-26:: and *Note Exercise 5-27:: + to demonstrate that both versions of the `factorial' procedure now + require space that grows linearly with their input. + + *Exercise 5.29:* Monitor the stack operations in the + tree-recursive Fibonacci computation: + + (define (fib n) + (if (< n 2) + n + (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2))))) + + a. Give a formula in terms of n for the maximum depth of the + stack required to compute _Fib_(n) for n >= 2. Hint: In + section *Note 1-2-2:: we argued that the space used by this + process grows linearly with n. + + b. Give a formula for the total number of pushes used to compute + _Fib_(n) for n >= 2. You should find that the number of + pushes (which correlates well with the time used) grows + exponentially with n. Hint: Let S(n) be the number of pushes + used in computing _Fib_(n). You should be able to argue that + there is a formula that expresses S(n) in terms of S(n - 1), + S(n - 2), and some fixed "overhead" constant k that is + independent of n. Give the formula, and say what k is. Then + show that S(n) can be expressed as a _Fib_(n + 1) + b and + give the values of a and b. + + + *Exercise 5.30:* Our evaluator currently catches and signals only + two kinds of errors--unknown expression types and unknown + procedure types. Other errors will take us out of the evaluator + read-eval-print loop. When we run the evaluator using the + register-machine simulator, these errors are caught by the + underlying Scheme system. This is analogous to the computer + crashing when a user program makes an error.(4) It is a large + project to make a real error system work, but it is well worth the + effort to understand what is involved here. + + a. Errors that occur in the evaluation process, such as an + attempt to access an unbound variable, could be caught by + changing the lookup operation to make it return a + distinguished condition code, which cannot be a possible + value of any user variable. The evaluator can test for this + condition code and then do what is necessary to go to + `signal-error'. Find all of the places in the evaluator + where such a change is necessary and fix them. This is lots + of work. + + b. Much worse is the problem of handling errors that are + signaled by applying primitive procedures, such as an attempt + to divide by zero or an attempt to extract the `car' of a + symbol. In a professionally written high-quality system, + each primitive application is checked for safety as part of + the primitive. For example, every call to `car' could first + check that the argument is a pair. If the argument is not a + pair, the application would return a distinguished condition + code to the evaluator, which would then report the failure. + We could arrange for this in our register-machine simulator by + making each primitive procedure check for applicability and + returning an appropriate distinguished condition code on + failure. Then the `primitive-apply' code in the evaluator can + check for the condition code and go to `signal-error' if + necessary. Build this structure and make it work. This is a + major project. + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We assume here that `read' and the various printing operations +are available as primitive machine operations, which is useful for our +simulation, but completely unrealistic in practice. These are actually +extremely complex operations. In practice, they would be implemented +using low-level input-output operations such as transferring single +characters to and from a device. + + To support the `get-global-environment' operation we define + + (define the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + + (define (get-global-environment) + the-global-environment) + + (2) There are other errors that we would like the interpreter to +handle, but these are not so simple. See *Note Exercise 5-30::. + + (3) We could perform the stack initialization only after errors, but +doing it in the driver loop will be convenient for monitoring the +evaluator's performance, as described below. + + (4) Regrettably, this is the normal state of affairs in conventional +compiler-based language systems such as C. In UNIX(tm) the system +"dumps core," and in DOS/Windows(tm) it becomes catatonic. The +Macintosh(tm) displays a picture of an exploding bomb and offers you +the opportunity to reboot the computer--if you're lucky. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5, Prev: 5-4, Up: Chapter 5 + +5.5 Compilation +=============== + +The explicit-control evaluator of section *Note 5-4:: is a register +machine whose controller interprets Scheme programs. In this section +we will see how to run Scheme programs on a register machine whose +controller is not a Scheme interpreter. + + The explicit-control evaluator machine is universal--it can carry +out any computational process that can be described in Scheme. The +evaluator's controller orchestrates the use of its data paths to +perform the desired computation. Thus, the evaluator's data paths are +universal: They are sufficient to perform any computation we desire, +given an appropriate controller.(1) + + Commercial general-purpose computers are register machines organized +around a collection of registers and operations that constitute an +efficient and convenient universal set of data paths. The controller +for a general-purpose machine is an interpreter for a register-machine +language like the one we have been using. This language is called the "native +language" of the machine, or simply "machine language". Programs +written in machine language are sequences of instructions that use the +machine's data paths. For example, the explicit-control evaluator's +instruction sequence can be thought of as a machine-language program +for a general-purpose computer rather than as the controller for a +specialized interpreter machine. + + There are two common strategies for bridging the gap between +higher-level languages and register-machine languages. The +explicit-control evaluator illustrates the strategy of interpretation. +An interpreter written in the native language of a machine configures +the machine to execute programs written in a language (called the "source +language") that may differ from the native language of the machine +performing the evaluation. The primitive procedures of the source +language are implemented as a library of subroutines written in the +native language of the given machine. A program to be interpreted +(called the "source program") is represented as a data structure. The +interpreter traverses this data structure, analyzing the source +program. As it does so, it simulates the intended behavior of the +source program by calling appropriate primitive subroutines from the +library. + + In this section, we explore the alternative strategy of "compilation". +A compiler for a given source language and machine translates a source +program into an equivalent program (called the "object program") +written in the machine's native language. The compiler that we +implement in this section translates programs written in Scheme into +sequences of instructions to be executed using the explicit-control +evaluator machine's data paths.(2) + + Compared with interpretation, compilation can provide a great +increase in the efficiency of program execution, as we will explain +below in the overview of the compiler. On the other hand, an +interpreter provides a more powerful environment for interactive +program development and debugging, because the source program being +executed is available at run time to be examined and modified. In +addition, because the entire library of primitives is present, new +programs can be constructed and added to the system during debugging. + + In view of the complementary advantages of compilation and +interpretation, modern program-development environments pursue a mixed +strategy. Lisp interpreters are generally organized so that +interpreted procedures and compiled procedures can call each other. +This enables a programmer to compile those parts of a program that are +assumed to be debugged, thus gaining the efficiency advantage of +compilation, while retaining the interpretive mode of execution for +those parts of the program that are in the flux of interactive +development and debugging. In section *Note 5-5-7::, after we have +implemented the compiler, we will show how to interface it with our +interpreter to produce an integrated interpreter-compiler development +system. + +An overview of the compiler +........................... + +Our compiler is much like our interpreter, both in its structure and in +the function it performs. Accordingly, the mechanisms used by the +compiler for analyzing expressions will be similar to those used by the +interpreter. Moreover, to make it easy to interface compiled and +interpreted code, we will design the compiler to generate code that +obeys the same conventions of register usage as the interpreter: The +environment will be kept in the `env' register, argument lists will be +accumulated in `argl', a procedure to be applied will be in `proc', +procedures will return their answers in `val', and the location to +which a procedure should return will be kept in `continue'. In +general, the compiler translates a source program into an object +program that performs essentially the same register operations as would +the interpreter in evaluating the same source program. + + This description suggests a strategy for implementing a rudimentary +compiler: We traverse the expression in the same way the interpreter +does. When we encounter a register instruction that the interpreter +would perform in evaluating the expression, we do not execute the +instruction but instead accumulate it into a sequence. The resulting +sequence of instructions will be the object code. Observe the +efficiency advantage of compilation over interpretation. Each time the +interpreter evaluates an expression--for example, `(f 84 96)'--it +performs the work of classifying the expression (discovering that this +is a procedure application) and testing for the end of the operand list +(discovering that there are two operands). With a compiler, the +expression is analyzed only once, when the instruction sequence is +generated at compile time. The object code produced by the compiler +contains only the instructions that evaluate the operator and the two +operands, assemble the argument list, and apply the procedure (in +`proc') to the arguments (in `argl'). + + This is the same kind of optimization we implemented in the +analyzing evaluator of section *Note 4-1-7::. But there are further +opportunities to gain efficiency in compiled code. As the interpreter +runs, it follows a process that must be applicable to any expression in +the language. In contrast, a given segment of compiled code is meant +to execute some particular expression. This can make a big difference, +for example in the use of the stack to save registers. When the +interpreter evaluates an expression, it must be prepared for any +contingency. Before evaluating a subexpression, the interpreter saves +all registers that will be needed later, because the subexpression +might require an arbitrary evaluation. A compiler, on the other hand, +can exploit the structure of the particular expression it is processing +to generate code that avoids unnecessary stack operations. + + As a case in point, consider the combination `(f 84 96)'. Before the +interpreter evaluates the operator of the combination, it prepares for +this evaluation by saving the registers containing the operands and the +environment, whose values will be needed later. The interpreter then +evaluates the operator to obtain the result in `val', restores the +saved registers, and finally moves the result from `val' to `proc'. +However, in the particular expression we are dealing with, the operator +is the symbol `f', whose evaluation is accomplished by the machine +operation `lookup-variable-value', which does not alter any registers. +The compiler that we implement in this section will take advantage of +this fact and generate code that evaluates the operator using the +instruction + + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const f) (reg env)) + + This code not only avoids the unnecessary saves and restores but +also assigns the value of the lookup directly to `proc', whereas the +interpreter would obtain the result in `val' and then move this to +`proc'. + + A compiler can also optimize access to the environment. Having +analyzed the code, the compiler can in many cases know in which frame a +particular variable will be located and access that frame directly, +rather than performing the `lookup-variable-value' search. We will +discuss how to implement such variable access in section *Note 5-5-6::. +Until then, however, we will focus on the kind of register and stack +optimizations described above. There are many other optimizations that +can be performed by a compiler, such as coding primitive operations "in +line" instead of using a general `apply' mechanism (see *Note Exercise +5-38::); but we will not emphasize these here. Our main goal in this +section is to illustrate the compilation process in a simplified (but +still interesting) context. + +* Menu: + +* 5-5-1:: Structure of the Compiler +* 5-5-2:: Compiling Expressions +* 5-5-3:: Compiling Combinations +* 5-5-4:: Combining Instruction Sequences +* 5-5-5:: An Example of Compiled Code +* 5-5-6:: Lexical Addressing +* 5-5-7:: Interfacing Compiled Code to the Evaluator + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This is a theoretical statement. We are not claiming that the +evaluator's data paths are a particularly convenient or efficient set of +data paths for a general-purpose computer. For example, they are not +very good for implementing high-performance floating-point calculations +or calculations that intensively manipulate bit vectors. + + (2) Actually, the machine that runs compiled code can be simpler +than the interpreter machine, because we won't use the `exp' and `unev' +registers. The interpreter used these to hold pieces of unevaluated +expressions. With the compiler, however, these expressions get built +into the compiled code that the register machine will run. For the same +reason, we don't need the machine operations that deal with expression +syntax. But compiled code will use a few additional machine operations +(to represent compiled procedure objects) that didn't appear in the +explicit-control evaluator machine. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-1, Next: 5-5-2, Prev: 5-5, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.1 Structure of the Compiler +------------------------------- + +In section *Note 4-1-7:: we modified our original metacircular +interpreter to separate analysis from execution. We analyzed each +expression to produce an execution procedure that took an environment +as argument and performed the required operations. In our compiler, we +will do essentially the same analysis. Instead of producing execution +procedures, however, we will generate sequences of instructions to be +run by our register machine. + + The procedure `compile' is the top-level dispatch in the compiler. +It corresponds to the `eval' procedure of section *Note 4-1-1::, the +`analyze' procedure of section *Note 4-1-7::, and the `eval-dispatch' +entry point of the explicit-control-evaluator in section *Note 5-4-1::. +The compiler, like the interpreters, uses the expression-syntax +procedures defined in section *Note 4-1-2::.(1) `Compile' performs a +case analysis on the syntactic type of the expression to be compiled. +For each type of expression, it dispatches to a specialized "code +generator": + + (define (compile exp target linkage) + (cond ((self-evaluating? exp) + (compile-self-evaluating exp target linkage)) + ((quoted? exp) (compile-quoted exp target linkage)) + ((variable? exp) + (compile-variable exp target linkage)) + ((assignment? exp) + (compile-assignment exp target linkage)) + ((definition? exp) + (compile-definition exp target linkage)) + ((if? exp) (compile-if exp target linkage)) + ((lambda? exp) (compile-lambda exp target linkage)) + ((begin? exp) + (compile-sequence (begin-actions exp) + target + linkage)) + ((cond? exp) (compile (cond->if exp) target linkage)) + ((application? exp) + (compile-application exp target linkage)) + (else + (error "Unknown expression type -- COMPILE" exp)))) + +Targets and linkages +.................... + +`Compile' and the code generators that it calls take two arguments in +addition to the expression to compile. There is a "target", which +specifies the register in which the compiled code is to return the +value of the expression. There is also a "linkage descriptor", which +describes how the code resulting from the compilation of the expression +should proceed when it has finished its execution. The linkage +descriptor can require that the code do one of the following three +things: + + * continue at the next instruction in sequence (this is specified by + the linkage descriptor `next'), + + * return from the procedure being compiled (this is specified by the + linkage descriptor `return'), or + + * jump to a named entry point (this is specified by using the + designated label as the linkage descriptor). + + + For example, compiling the expression `5' (which is self-evaluating) +with a target of the `val' register and a linkage of `next' should +produce the instruction + + (assign val (const 5)) + +Compiling the same expression with a linkage of `return' should produce +the instructions + + (assign val (const 5)) + (goto (reg continue)) + + In the first case, execution will continue with the next instruction +in the sequence. In the second case, we will return from a procedure +call. In both cases, the value of the expression will be placed into +the target `val' register. + +Instruction sequences and stack usage +..................................... + +Each code generator returns an "instruction sequence" containing the +object code it has generated for the expression. Code generation for a +compound expression is accomplished by combining the output from +simpler code generators for component expressions, just as evaluation +of a compound expression is accomplished by evaluating the component +expressions. + + The simplest method for combining instruction sequences is a +procedure called `append-instruction-sequences'. It takes as arguments +any number of instruction sequences that are to be executed +sequentially; it appends them and returns the combined sequence. That +is, if <SEQ_1> and <SEQ_2> are sequences of instructions, then +evaluating + + (append-instruction-sequences <SEQ_1> <SEQ_2>) + +produces the sequence + + <SEQ_1> + <SEQ_2> + + Whenever registers might need to be saved, the compiler's code +generators use `preserving', which is a more subtle method for +combining instruction sequences. `Preserving' takes three arguments: a +set of registers and two instruction sequences that are to be executed +sequentially. It appends the sequences in such a way that the contents +of each register in the set is preserved over the execution of the +first sequence, if this is needed for the execution of the second +sequence. That is, if the first sequence modifies the register and the +second sequence actually needs the register's original contents, then +`preserving' wraps a `save' and a `restore' of the register around the +first sequence before appending the sequences. Otherwise, `preserving' +simply returns the appended instruction sequences. Thus, for example, + + (preserving (list <REG_1> <REG_2>) <SEQ_1> <SEQ_2>) + +produces one of the following four sequences of instructions, depending +on how <SEQ_1> and <SEQ_2> use <REG_1> and <REG_2>: + + <seq_1> | (save <reg_1>) | (save <reg_2>) | (save <reg_2>) + <seq_2> | <seq_1> | <seq_1> | (save <reg_1>) + | (restore <reg_1>) | (restore <reg_2>) | <seq_1> + | <seq_2> | <seq_2> | (restore <reg_1>) + | | | (restore <reg_2>) + | | | <seq_2> + + By using `preserving' to combine instruction sequences the compiler +avoids unnecessary stack operations. This also isolates the details of +whether or not to generate `save' and `restore' instructions within the +`preserving' procedure, separating them from the concerns that arise in +writing each of the individual code generators. In fact no `save' or +`restore' instructions are explicitly produced by the code generators. + + In principle, we could represent an instruction sequence simply as a +list of instructions. `Append-instruction-sequences' could then combine +instruction sequences by performing an ordinary list `append'. However, +`preserving' would then be a complex operation, because it would have to +analyze each instruction sequence to determine how the sequence uses its +registers. `Preserving' would be inefficient as well as complex, +because it would have to analyze each of its instruction sequence +arguments, even though these sequences might themselves have been +constructed by calls to `preserving', in which case their parts would +have already been analyzed. To avoid such repetitious analysis we will +associate with each instruction sequence some information about its +register use. When we construct a basic instruction sequence we will +provide this information explicitly, and the procedures that combine +instruction sequences will derive register-use information for the +combined sequence from the information associated with the component +sequences. + + An instruction sequence will contain three pieces of information: + + * the set of registers that must be initialized before the + instructions in the sequence are executed (these registers are + said to be "needed" by the sequence), + + * the set of registers whose values are modified by the instructions + in the sequence, and + + * the actual instructions (also called "statements") in the sequence. + + + We will represent an instruction sequence as a list of its three +parts. The constructor for instruction sequences is thus + + (define (make-instruction-sequence needs modifies statements) + (list needs modifies statements)) + + For example, the two-instruction sequence that looks up the value of +the variable `x' in the current environment, assigns the result to +`val', and then returns, requires registers `env' and `continue' to have +been initialized, and modifies register `val'. This sequence would +therefore be constructed as + + (make-instruction-sequence '(env continue) '(val) + '((assign val + (op lookup-variable-value) (const x) (reg env)) + (goto (reg continue)))) + + We sometimes need to construct an instruction sequence with no +statements: + + (define (empty-instruction-sequence) + (make-instruction-sequence '() '() '())) + + The procedures for combining instruction sequences are shown in +section *Note 5-5-4::. + + *Exercise 5.31:* In evaluating a procedure application, the + explicit-control evaluator always saves and restores the `env' + register around the evaluation of the operator, saves and restores + `env' around the evaluation of each operand (except the final + one), saves and restores `argl' around the evaluation of each + operand, and saves and restores `proc' around the evaluation of + the operand sequence. For each of the following combinations, say + which of these `save' and `restore' operations are superfluous and + thus could be eliminated by the compiler's `preserving' mechanism: + + (f 'x 'y) + + ((f) 'x 'y) + + (f (g 'x) y) + + (f (g 'x) 'y) + + *Exercise 5.32:* Using the `preserving' mechanism, the compiler + will avoid saving and restoring `env' around the evaluation of the + operator of a combination in the case where the operator is a + symbol. We could also build such optimizations into the + evaluator. Indeed, the explicit-control evaluator of section + *Note 5-4:: already performs a similar optimization, by treating + combinations with no operands as a special case. + + a. Extend the explicit-control evaluator to recognize as a + separate class of expressions combinations whose operator is + a symbol, and to take advantage of this fact in evaluating + such expressions. + + b. Alyssa P. Hacker suggests that by extending the evaluator to + recognize more and more special cases we could incorporate + all the compiler's optimizations, and that this would + eliminate the advantage of compilation altogether. What do + you think of this idea? + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Notice, however, that our compiler is a Scheme program, and the +syntax procedures that it uses to manipulate expressions are the actual +Scheme procedures used with the metacircular evaluator. For the +explicit-control evaluator, in contrast, we assumed that equivalent +syntax operations were available as operations for the register +machine. (Of course, when we simulated the register machine in Scheme, +we used the actual Scheme procedures in our register machine +simulation.) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-2, Next: 5-5-3, Prev: 5-5-1, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.2 Compiling Expressions +--------------------------- + +In this section and the next we implement the code generators to which +the `compile' procedure dispatches. + +Compiling linkage code +...................... + +In general, the output of each code generator will end with +instructions--generated by the procedure `compile-linkage'--that +implement the required linkage. If the linkage is `return' then we must +generate the instruction `(goto (reg continue))'. This needs the +`continue' register and does not modify any registers. If the linkage +is `next', then we needn't include any additional instructions. +Otherwise, the linkage is a label, and we generate a `goto' to that +label, an instruction that does not need or modify any registers.(1) + + (define (compile-linkage linkage) + (cond ((eq? linkage 'return) + (make-instruction-sequence '(continue) '() + '((goto (reg continue))))) + ((eq? linkage 'next) + (empty-instruction-sequence)) + (else + (make-instruction-sequence '() '() + `((goto (label ,linkage))))))) + + The linkage code is appended to an instruction sequence by +`preserving' the `continue' register, since a `return' linkage will +require the `continue' register: If the given instruction sequence +modifies `continue' and the linkage code needs it, `continue' will be +saved and restored. + + (define (end-with-linkage linkage instruction-sequence) + (preserving '(continue) + instruction-sequence + (compile-linkage linkage))) + +Compiling simple expressions +............................ + +The code generators for self-evaluating expressions, quotations, and +variables construct instruction sequences that assign the required +value to the target register and then proceed as specified by the +linkage descriptor. + + (define (compile-self-evaluating exp target linkage) + (end-with-linkage linkage + (make-instruction-sequence '() (list target) + `((assign ,target (const ,exp)))))) + + (define (compile-quoted exp target linkage) + (end-with-linkage linkage + (make-instruction-sequence '() (list target) + `((assign ,target (const ,(text-of-quotation exp))))))) + + (define (compile-variable exp target linkage) + (end-with-linkage linkage + (make-instruction-sequence '(env) (list target) + `((assign ,target + (op lookup-variable-value) + (const ,exp) + (reg env)))))) + + All these assignment instructions modify the target register, and +the one that looks up a variable needs the `env' register. + + Assignments and definitions are handled much as they are in the +interpreter. We recursively generate code that computes the value to +be assigned to the variable, and append to it a two-instruction +sequence that actually sets or defines the variable and assigns the +value of the whole expression (the symbol `ok') to the target register. +The recursive compilation has target `val' and linkage `next' so that +the code will put its result into `val' and continue with the code that +is appended after it. The appending is done preserving `env', since +the environment is needed for setting or defining the variable and the +code for the variable value could be the compilation of a complex +expression that might modify the registers in arbitrary ways. + + (define (compile-assignment exp target linkage) + (let ((var (assignment-variable exp)) + (get-value-code + (compile (assignment-value exp) 'val 'next))) + (end-with-linkage linkage + (preserving '(env) + get-value-code + (make-instruction-sequence '(env val) (list target) + `((perform (op set-variable-value!) + (const ,var) + (reg val) + (reg env)) + (assign ,target (const ok)))))))) + + (define (compile-definition exp target linkage) + (let ((var (definition-variable exp)) + (get-value-code + (compile (definition-value exp) 'val 'next))) + (end-with-linkage linkage + (preserving '(env) + get-value-code + (make-instruction-sequence '(env val) (list target) + `((perform (op define-variable!) + (const ,var) + (reg val) + (reg env)) + (assign ,target (const ok)))))))) + + The appended two-instruction sequence requires `env' and `val' and +modifies the target. Note that although we preserve `env' for this +sequence, we do not preserve `val', because the `get-value-code' is +designed to explicitly place its result in `val' for use by this +sequence. (In fact, if we did preserve `val', we would have a bug, +because this would cause the previous contents of `val' to be restored +right after the `get-value-code' is run.) + +Compiling conditional expressions +................................. + +The code for an `if' expression compiled with a given target and linkage +has the form + + <_compilation of predicate, target `val', linkage `next'_> + (test (op false?) (reg val)) + (branch (label false-branch)) + true-branch + <_compilation of consequent with given target and given linkage or `after-if'_> + false-branch + <_compilation of alternative with given target and linkage_> + after-if + + To generate this code, we compile the predicate, consequent, and +alternative, and combine the resulting code with instructions to test +the predicate result and with newly generated labels to mark the true +and false branches and the end of the conditional.(2) In this +arrangement of code, we must branch around the true branch if the test +is false. The only slight complication is in how the linkage for the +true branch should be handled. If the linkage for the conditional is +`return' or a label, then the true and false branches will both use +this same linkage. If the linkage is `next', the true branch ends with +a jump around the code for the false branch to the label at the end of +the conditional. + + (define (compile-if exp target linkage) + (let ((t-branch (make-label 'true-branch)) + (f-branch (make-label 'false-branch)) + (after-if (make-label 'after-if))) + (let ((consequent-linkage + (if (eq? linkage 'next) after-if linkage))) + (let ((p-code (compile (if-predicate exp) 'val 'next)) + (c-code + (compile + (if-consequent exp) target consequent-linkage)) + (a-code + (compile (if-alternative exp) target linkage))) + (preserving '(env continue) + p-code + (append-instruction-sequences + (make-instruction-sequence '(val) '() + `((test (op false?) (reg val)) + (branch (label ,f-branch)))) + (parallel-instruction-sequences + (append-instruction-sequences t-branch c-code) + (append-instruction-sequences f-branch a-code)) + after-if)))))) + + `Env' is preserved around the predicate code because it could be +needed by the true and false branches, and `continue' is preserved +because it could be needed by the linkage code in those branches. The +code for the true and false branches (which are not executed +sequentially) is appended using a special combiner +`parallel-instruction-sequences' described in section *Note 5-5-4::. + + Note that `cond' is a derived expression, so all that the compiler +needs to do handle it is to apply the `cond->if' transformer (from +section *Note 4-1-2::) and compile the resulting `if' expression. + +Compiling sequences +................... + +The compilation of sequences (from procedure bodies or explicit `begin' +expressions) parallels their evaluation. Each expression of the +sequence is compiled--the last expression with the linkage specified +for the sequence, and the other expressions with linkage `next' (to +execute the rest of the sequence). The instruction sequences for the +individual expressions are appended to form a single instruction +sequence, such that `env' (needed for the rest of the sequence) and +`continue' (possibly needed for the linkage at the end of the sequence) +are preserved. + + (define (compile-sequence seq target linkage) + (if (last-exp? seq) + (compile (first-exp seq) target linkage) + (preserving '(env continue) + (compile (first-exp seq) target 'next) + (compile-sequence (rest-exps seq) target linkage)))) + +Compiling `lambda' expressions +.............................. + +`Lambda' expressions construct procedures. The object code for a +`lambda' expression must have the form + + <_construct procedure object and assign it to target register_> + <LINKAGE> + + When we compile the `lambda' expression, we also generate the code +for the procedure body. Although the body won't be executed at the +time of procedure construction, it is convenient to insert it into the +object code right after the code for the `lambda'. If the linkage for +the `lambda' expression is a label or `return', this is fine. But if +the linkage is `next', we will need to skip around the code for the +procedure body by using a linkage that jumps to a label that is +inserted after the body. The object code thus has the form + + <_construct procedure object and assign it to target register_> + <_code for given linkage_> _or_ `(goto (label after-lambda))' + <_compilation of procedure body_> + after-lambda + + `Compile-lambda' generates the code for constructing the procedure +object followed by the code for the procedure body. The procedure +object will be constructed at run time by combining the current +environment (the environment at the point of definition) with the entry +point to the compiled procedure body (a newly generated label).(3) + + (define (compile-lambda exp target linkage) + (let ((proc-entry (make-label 'entry)) + (after-lambda (make-label 'after-lambda))) + (let ((lambda-linkage + (if (eq? linkage 'next) after-lambda linkage))) + (append-instruction-sequences + (tack-on-instruction-sequence + (end-with-linkage lambda-linkage + (make-instruction-sequence '(env) (list target) + `((assign ,target + (op make-compiled-procedure) + (label ,proc-entry) + (reg env))))) + (compile-lambda-body exp proc-entry)) + after-lambda)))) + + `Compile-lambda' uses the special combiner +`tack-on-instruction-sequence' (section *Note 5-5-4::) rather than +`append-instruction-sequences' to append the procedure body to the +`lambda' expression code, because the body is not part of the sequence +of instructions that will be executed when the combined sequence is +entered; rather, it is in the sequence only because that was a +convenient place to put it. + + `Compile-lambda-body' constructs the code for the body of the +procedure. This code begins with a label for the entry point. Next +come instructions that will cause the run-time evaluation environment +to switch to the correct environment for evaluating the procedure +body--namely, the definition environment of the procedure, extended to +include the bindings of the formal parameters to the arguments with +which the procedure is called. After this comes the code for the +sequence of expressions that makes up the procedure body. The sequence +is compiled with linkage `return' and target `val' so that it will end +by returning from the procedure with the procedure result in `val'. + + (define (compile-lambda-body exp proc-entry) + (let ((formals (lambda-parameters exp))) + (append-instruction-sequences + (make-instruction-sequence '(env proc argl) '(env) + `(,proc-entry + (assign env (op compiled-procedure-env) (reg proc)) + (assign env + (op extend-environment) + (const ,formals) + (reg argl) + (reg env)))) + (compile-sequence (lambda-body exp) 'val 'return)))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This procedure uses a feature of Lisp called "backquote" (or "quasiquote") +that is handy for constructing lists. Preceding a list with a +backquote symbol is much like quoting it, except that anything in the +list that is flagged with a comma is evaluated. + + For example, if the value of `linkage' is the symbol +`branch25', then the expression +``((goto (label ,linkage)))' +evaluates to the list +`((goto (label branch25)))'. +Similarly, if the value of `x' is the list `(a b c)', then +``(1 2 ,(car x))' +evaluates to the list +`(1 2 a)'. + + (2) We can't just use the labels `true-branch', `false-branch', and +`after-if' as shown above, because there might be more than one `if' in +the program. The compiler uses the procedure `make-label' to generate +labels. `Make-label' takes a symbol as argument and returns a new +symbol that begins with the given symbol. For example, successive +calls to `(make-label 'a)' would return `a1', `a2', and so on. +`Make-label' can be implemented similarly to the generation of unique +variable names in the query language, as follows: + + (define label-counter 0) + + (define (new-label-number) + (set! label-counter (+ 1 label-counter)) + label-counter) + + (define (make-label name) + (string->symbol + (string-append (symbol->string name) + (number->string (new-label-number))))) + + (3) [Footnote 38] We need machine operations to implement a data +structure for representing compiled procedures, analogous to the +structure for compound procedures described in section *Note 4-1-3::: + + (define (make-compiled-procedure entry env) + (list 'compiled-procedure entry env)) + + (define (compiled-procedure? proc) + (tagged-list? proc 'compiled-procedure)) + + (define (compiled-procedure-entry c-proc) (cadr c-proc)) + + (define (compiled-procedure-env c-proc) (caddr c-proc)) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-3, Next: 5-5-4, Prev: 5-5-2, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.3 Compiling Combinations +---------------------------- + +The essence of the compilation process is the compilation of procedure +applications. The code for a combination compiled with a given target +and linkage has the form + + <_compilation of operator, target `proc', linkage `next'_> + <_evaluate operands and construct argument list in `argl'_> + <_compilation of procedure call with given target and linkage_> + + The registers `env', `proc', and `argl' may have to be saved and +restored during evaluation of the operator and operands. Note that +this is the only place in the compiler where a target other than `val' +is specified. + + The required code is generated by `compile-application'. This +recursively compiles the operator, to produce code that puts the +procedure to be applied into `proc', and compiles the operands, to +produce code that evaluates the individual operands of the application. +The instruction sequences for the operands are combined (by +`construct-arglist') with code that constructs the list of arguments in +`argl', and the resulting argument-list code is combined with the +procedure code and the code that performs the procedure call (produced +by `compile-procedure-call'). In appending the code sequences, the +`env' register must be preserved around the evaluation of the operator +(since evaluating the operator might modify `env', which will be needed +to evaluate the operands), and the `proc' register must be preserved +around the construction of the argument list (since evaluating the +operands might modify `proc', which will be needed for the actual +procedure application). `Continue' must also be preserved throughout, +since it is needed for the linkage in the procedure call. + + (define (compile-application exp target linkage) + (let ((proc-code (compile (operator exp) 'proc 'next)) + (operand-codes + (map (lambda (operand) (compile operand 'val 'next)) + (operands exp)))) + (preserving '(env continue) + proc-code + (preserving '(proc continue) + (construct-arglist operand-codes) + (compile-procedure-call target linkage))))) + + The code to construct the argument list will evaluate each operand +into `val' and then `cons' that value onto the argument list being +accumulated in `argl'. Since we `cons' the arguments onto `argl' in +sequence, we must start with the last argument and end with the first, +so that the arguments will appear in order from first to last in the +resulting list. Rather than waste an instruction by initializing `argl' +to the empty list to set up for this sequence of evaluations, we make +the first code sequence construct the initial `argl'. The general form +of the argument-list construction is thus as follows: + + <_compilation of last operand, targeted to `val'_> + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + <_compilation of next operand, targeted to `val'_> + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + ... + <_compilation of first operand, targeted to `val'_> + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + + `Argl' must be preserved around each operand evaluation except the +first (so that arguments accumulated so far won't be lost), and `env' +must be preserved around each operand evaluation except the last (for +use by subsequent operand evaluations). + + Compiling this argument code is a bit tricky, because of the special +treatment of the first operand to be evaluated and the need to preserve +`argl' and `env' in different places. The `construct-arglist' +procedure takes as arguments the code that evaluates the individual +operands. If there are no operands at all, it simply emits the +instruction + + (assign argl (const ())) + + Otherwise, `construct-arglist' creates code that initializes `argl' +with the last argument, and appends code that evaluates the rest of the +arguments and adjoins them to `argl' in succession. In order to process +the arguments from last to first, we must reverse the list of operand +code sequences from the order supplied by `compile-application'. + + (define (construct-arglist operand-codes) + (let ((operand-codes (reverse operand-codes))) + (if (null? operand-codes) + (make-instruction-sequence '() '(argl) + '((assign argl (const ())))) + (let ((code-to-get-last-arg + (append-instruction-sequences + (car operand-codes) + (make-instruction-sequence '(val) '(argl) + '((assign argl (op list) (reg val))))))) + (if (null? (cdr operand-codes)) + code-to-get-last-arg + (preserving '(env) + code-to-get-last-arg + (code-to-get-rest-args + (cdr operand-codes)))))))) + + (define (code-to-get-rest-args operand-codes) + (let ((code-for-next-arg + (preserving '(argl) + (car operand-codes) + (make-instruction-sequence '(val argl) '(argl) + '((assign argl + (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl))))))) + (if (null? (cdr operand-codes)) + code-for-next-arg + (preserving '(env) + code-for-next-arg + (code-to-get-rest-args (cdr operand-codes)))))) + +Applying procedures +................... + +After evaluating the elements of a combination, the compiled code must +apply the procedure in `proc' to the arguments in `argl'. The code +performs essentially the same dispatch as the `apply' procedure in the +metacircular evaluator of section *Note 4-1-1:: or the `apply-dispatch' +entry point in the explicit-control evaluator of section *Note 5-4-1::. +It checks whether the procedure to be applied is a primitive procedure +or a compiled procedure. For a primitive procedure, it uses +`apply-primitive-procedure'; we will see shortly how it handles compiled +procedures. The procedure-application code has the following form: + + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch)) + compiled-branch + <_code to apply compiled procedure with given target and appropriate linkage_> + primitive-branch + (assign <TARGET> + (op apply-primitive-procedure) + (reg proc) + (reg argl)) + <LINKAGE> + after-call + + Observe that the compiled branch must skip around the primitive +branch. Therefore, if the linkage for the original procedure call was +`next', the compound branch must use a linkage that jumps to a label +that is inserted after the primitive branch. (This is similar to the +linkage used for the true branch in `compile-if'.) + + (define (compile-procedure-call target linkage) + (let ((primitive-branch (make-label 'primitive-branch)) + (compiled-branch (make-label 'compiled-branch)) + (after-call (make-label 'after-call))) + (let ((compiled-linkage + (if (eq? linkage 'next) after-call linkage))) + (append-instruction-sequences + (make-instruction-sequence '(proc) '() + `((test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label ,primitive-branch)))) + (parallel-instruction-sequences + (append-instruction-sequences + compiled-branch + (compile-proc-appl target compiled-linkage)) + (append-instruction-sequences + primitive-branch + (end-with-linkage linkage + (make-instruction-sequence '(proc argl) + (list target) + `((assign ,target + (op apply-primitive-procedure) + (reg proc) + (reg argl))))))) + after-call)))) + + The primitive and compound branches, like the true and false +branches in `compile-if', are appended using +`parallel-instruction-sequences' rather than the ordinary +`append-instruction-sequences', because they will not be executed +sequentially. + +Applying compiled procedures +............................ + +The code that handles procedure application is the most subtle part of +the compiler, even though the instruction sequences it generates are +very short. A compiled procedure (as constructed by `compile-lambda') +has an entry point, which is a label that designates where the code for +the procedure starts. The code at this entry point computes a result +in `val' and returns by executing the instruction `(goto (reg +continue))'. Thus, we might expect the code for a compiled-procedure +application (to be generated by `compile-proc-appl') with a given +target and linkage to look like this if the linkage is a label + + (assign continue (label proc-return)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + proc-return + (assign <TARGET> (reg val)) ; included if target is not `val' + (goto (label <LINKAGE>)) ; linkage code + +or like this if the linkage is `return'. + + (save continue) + (assign continue (label proc-return)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + proc-return + (assign <TARGET> (reg val)) ; included if target is not `val' + (restore continue) + (goto (reg continue)) ; linkage code + + This code sets up `continue' so that the procedure will return to a +label `proc-return' and jumps to the procedure's entry point. The code +at `proc-return' transfers the procedure's result from `val' to the +target register (if necessary) and then jumps to the location specified +by the linkage. (The linkage is always `return' or a label, because +`compile-procedure-call' replaces a `next' linkage for the +compound-procedure branch by an `after-call' label.) + + In fact, if the target is not `val', that is exactly the code our +compiler will generate.(1) Usually, however, the target is `val' (the +only time the compiler specifies a different register is when targeting +the evaluation of an operator to `proc'), so the procedure result is +put directly into the target register and there is no need to return to +a special location that copies it. Instead, we simplify the code by +setting up `continue' so that the procedure will "return" directly to +the place specified by the caller's linkage: + + <_set up `continue' for linkage_> + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + + If the linkage is a label, we set up `continue' so that the +procedure will return to that label. (That is, the `(goto (reg +continue))' the procedure ends with becomes equivalent to the `(goto +(label <LINKAGE>))' at `proc-return' above.) + + (assign continue (label <LINKAGE>)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + + If the linkage is `return', we don't need to set up `continue' at +all: It already holds the desired location. (That is, the `(goto (reg +continue))' the procedure ends with goes directly to the place where the +`(goto (reg continue))' at `proc-return' would have gone.) + + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + + With this implementation of the `return' linkage, the compiler +generates tail-recursive code. Calling a procedure as the final step +in a procedure body does a direct transfer, without saving any +information on the stack. + + Suppose instead that we had handled the case of a procedure call +with a linkage of `return' and a target of `val' as shown above for a +non-`val' target. This would destroy tail recursion. Our system would +still give the same value for any expression. But each time we called +a procedure, we would save `continue' and return after the call to undo +the (useless) save. These extra saves would accumulate during a nest +of procedure calls.(2) + + `Compile-proc-appl' generates the above procedure-application code by +considering four cases, depending on whether the target for the call is +`val' and whether the linkage is `return'. Observe that the +instruction sequences are declared to modify all the registers, since +executing the procedure body can change the registers in arbitrary +ways.(3) Also note that the code sequence for the case with target +`val' and linkage `return' is declared to need `continue': Even though +`continue' is not explicitly used in the two-instruction sequence, we +must be sure that `continue' will have the correct value when we enter +the compiled procedure. + + (define (compile-proc-appl target linkage) + (cond ((and (eq? target 'val) (not (eq? linkage 'return))) + (make-instruction-sequence '(proc) all-regs + `((assign continue (label ,linkage)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) + (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val))))) + ((and (not (eq? target 'val)) + (not (eq? linkage 'return))) + (let ((proc-return (make-label 'proc-return))) + (make-instruction-sequence '(proc) all-regs + `((assign continue (label ,proc-return)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) + (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + ,proc-return + (assign ,target (reg val)) + (goto (label ,linkage)))))) + ((and (eq? target 'val) (eq? linkage 'return)) + (make-instruction-sequence '(proc continue) all-regs + '((assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) + (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val))))) + ((and (not (eq? target 'val)) (eq? linkage 'return)) + (error "return linkage, target not val -- COMPILE" + target)))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Actually, we signal an error when the target is not `val' and +the linkage is `return', since the only place we request `return' +linkages is in compiling procedures, and our convention is that +procedures return their values in `val'. + + (2) Making a compiler generate tail-recursive code might seem like a +straightforward idea. But most compilers for common languages, +including C and Pascal, do not do this, and therefore these languages +cannot represent iterative processes in terms of procedure call alone. +The difficulty with tail recursion in these languages is that their +implementations use the stack to store procedure arguments and local +variables as well as return addresses. The Scheme implementations +described in this book store arguments and variables in memory to be +garbage-collected. The reason for using the stack for variables and +arguments is that it avoids the need for garbage collection in languages +that would not otherwise require it, and is generally believed to be +more efficient. Sophisticated Lisp compilers can, in fact, use the +stack for arguments without destroying tail recursion. (See Hanson +1990 for a description.) There is also some debate about whether stack +allocation is actually more efficient than garbage collection in the +first place, but the details seem to hinge on fine points of computer +architecture. (See Appel 1987 and Miller and Rozas 1994 for opposing +views on this issue.) + + (3) The variable `all-regs' is bound to the list of names of all the +registers: + + (define all-regs '(env proc val argl continue)) + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-4, Next: 5-5-5, Prev: 5-5-3, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.4 Combining Instruction Sequences +------------------------------------- + +This section describes the details on how instruction sequences are +represented and combined. Recall from section *Note 5-5-1:: that an +instruction sequence is represented as a list of the registers needed, +the registers modified, and the actual instructions. We will also +consider a label (symbol) to be a degenerate case of an instruction +sequence, which doesn't need or modify any registers. So to determine +the registers needed and modified by instruction sequences we use the +selectors + + (define (registers-needed s) + (if (symbol? s) '() (car s))) + + (define (registers-modified s) + (if (symbol? s) '() (cadr s))) + + (define (statements s) + (if (symbol? s) (list s) (caddr s))) + +and to determine whether a given sequence needs or modifies a given +register we use the predicates + + (define (needs-register? seq reg) + (memq reg (registers-needed seq))) + + (define (modifies-register? seq reg) + (memq reg (registers-modified seq))) + + In terms of these predicates and selectors, we can implement the +various instruction sequence combiners used throughout the compiler. + + The basic combiner is `append-instruction-sequences'. This takes as +arguments an arbitrary number of instruction sequences that are to be +executed sequentially and returns an instruction sequence whose +statements are the statements of all the sequences appended together. +The subtle point is to determine the registers that are needed and +modified by the resulting sequence. It modifies those registers that +are modified by any of the sequences; it needs those registers that +must be initialized before the first sequence can be run (the registers +needed by the first sequence), together with those registers needed by +any of the other sequences that are not initialized (modified) by +sequences preceding it. + + The sequences are appended two at a time by `append-2-sequences'. +This takes two instruction sequences `seq1' and `seq2' and returns the +instruction sequence whose statements are the statements of `seq1' +followed by the statements of `seq2', whose modified registers are those +registers that are modified by either `seq1' or `seq2', and whose +needed registers are the registers needed by `seq1' together with those +registers needed by `seq2' that are not modified by `seq1'. (In terms +of set operations, the new set of needed registers is the union of the +set of registers needed by `seq1' with the set difference of the +registers needed by `seq2' and the registers modified by `seq1'.) Thus, +`append-instruction-sequences' is implemented as follows: + + (define (append-instruction-sequences . seqs) + (define (append-2-sequences seq1 seq2) + (make-instruction-sequence + (list-union (registers-needed seq1) + (list-difference (registers-needed seq2) + (registers-modified seq1))) + (list-union (registers-modified seq1) + (registers-modified seq2)) + (append (statements seq1) (statements seq2)))) + (define (append-seq-list seqs) + (if (null? seqs) + (empty-instruction-sequence) + (append-2-sequences (car seqs) + (append-seq-list (cdr seqs))))) + (append-seq-list seqs)) + + This procedure uses some simple operations for manipulating sets +represented as lists, similar to the (unordered) set representation +described in section *Note 2-3-3::: + + (define (list-union s1 s2) + (cond ((null? s1) s2) + ((memq (car s1) s2) (list-union (cdr s1) s2)) + (else (cons (car s1) (list-union (cdr s1) s2))))) + + (define (list-difference s1 s2) + (cond ((null? s1) '()) + ((memq (car s1) s2) (list-difference (cdr s1) s2)) + (else (cons (car s1) + (list-difference (cdr s1) s2))))) + + `Preserving', the second major instruction sequence combiner, takes +a list of registers `regs' and two instruction sequences `seq1' and +`seq2' that are to be executed sequentially. It returns an instruction +sequence whose statements are the statements of `seq1' followed by the +statements of `seq2', with appropriate `save' and `restore' +instructions around `seq1' to protect the registers in `regs' that are +modified by `seq1' but needed by `seq2'. To accomplish this, +`preserving' first creates a sequence that has the required `save's +followed by the statements of `seq1' followed by the required +`restore's. This sequence needs the registers being saved and restored +in addition to the registers needed by `seq1', and modifies the +registers modified by `seq1' except for the ones being saved and +restored. This augmented sequence and `seq2' are then appended in the +usual way. The following procedure implements this strategy +recursively, walking down the list of registers to be preserved:(1) + + (define (preserving regs seq1 seq2) + (if (null? regs) + (append-instruction-sequences seq1 seq2) + (let ((first-reg (car regs))) + (if (and (needs-register? seq2 first-reg) + (modifies-register? seq1 first-reg)) + (preserving (cdr regs) + (make-instruction-sequence + (list-union (list first-reg) + (registers-needed seq1)) + (list-difference (registers-modified seq1) + (list first-reg)) + (append `((save ,first-reg)) + (statements seq1) + `((restore ,first-reg)))) + seq2) + (preserving (cdr regs) seq1 seq2))))) + + Another sequence combiner, `tack-on-instruction-sequence', is used by +`compile-lambda' to append a procedure body to another sequence. +Because the procedure body is not "in line" to be executed as part of +the combined sequence, its register use has no impact on the register +use of the sequence in which it is embedded. We thus ignore the +procedure body's sets of needed and modified registers when we tack it +onto the other sequence. + + (define (tack-on-instruction-sequence seq body-seq) + (make-instruction-sequence + (registers-needed seq) + (registers-modified seq) + (append (statements seq) (statements body-seq)))) + + `Compile-if' and `compile-procedure-call' use a special combiner +called `parallel-instruction-sequences' to append the two alternative +branches that follow a test. The two branches will never be executed +sequentially; for any particular evaluation of the test, one branch or +the other will be entered. Because of this, the registers needed by +the second branch are still needed by the combined sequence, even if +these are modified by the first branch. + + (define (parallel-instruction-sequences seq1 seq2) + (make-instruction-sequence + (list-union (registers-needed seq1) + (registers-needed seq2)) + (list-union (registers-modified seq1) + (registers-modified seq2)) + (append (statements seq1) (statements seq2)))) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Note that `preserving' calls `append' with three arguments. +Though the definition of `append' shown in this book accepts only two +arguments, Scheme standardly provides an `append' procedure that takes +an arbitrary number of arguments. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-5, Next: 5-5-6, Prev: 5-5-4, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.5 An Example of Compiled Code +--------------------------------- + +Now that we have seen all the elements of the compiler, let us examine +an example of compiled code to see how things fit together. We will +compile the definition of a recursive `factorial' procedure by calling +`compile': + + (compile + '(define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n))) + 'val + 'next) + + We have specified that the value of the `define' expression should be +placed in the `val' register. We don't care what the compiled code does +after executing the `define', so our choice of `next' as the linkage +descriptor is arbitrary. + + `Compile' determines that the expression is a definition, so it calls +`compile-definition' to compile code to compute the value to be assigned +(targeted to `val'), followed by code to install the definition, +followed by code to put the value of the `define' (which is the symbol +`ok') into the target register, followed finally by the linkage code. +`Env' is preserved around the computation of the value, because it is +needed in order to install the definition. Because the linkage is +`next', there is no linkage code in this case. The skeleton of the +compiled code is thus + + <_save `env' if modified by code to compute value_> + <_compilation of definition value, target `val', linkage `next'_> + <_restore `env' if saved above_> + (perform (op define-variable!) + (const factorial) + (reg val) + (reg env)) + (assign val (const ok)) + + The expression that is to be compiled to produce the value for the +variable `factorial' is a `lambda' expression whose value is the +procedure that computes factorials. `Compile' handles this by calling +`compile-lambda', which compiles the procedure body, labels it as a new +entry point, and generates the instruction that will combine the +procedure body at the new entry point with the run-time environment and +assign the result to `val'. The sequence then skips around the +compiled procedure code, which is inserted at this point. The +procedure code itself begins by extending the procedure's definition +environment by a frame that binds the formal parameter `n' to the +procedure argument. Then comes the actual procedure body. Since this +code for the value of the variable doesn't modify the `env' register, +the optional `save' and `restore' shown above aren't generated. (The +procedure code at `entry2' isn't executed at this point, so its use of +`env' is irrelevant.) Therefore, the skeleton for the compiled code +becomes + + (assign val (op make-compiled-procedure) + (label entry2) + (reg env)) + (goto (label after-lambda1)) + entry2 + (assign env (op compiled-procedure-env) (reg proc)) + (assign env (op extend-environment) + (const (n)) + (reg argl) + (reg env)) + <_compilation of procedure body_> + after-lambda1 + (perform (op define-variable!) + (const factorial) + (reg val) + (reg env)) + (assign val (const ok)) + + A procedure body is always compiled (by `compile-lambda-body') as a +sequence with target `val' and linkage `return'. The sequence in this +case consists of a single `if' expression: + + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n)) + + `Compile-if' generates code that first computes the predicate +(targeted to `val'), then checks the result and branches around the +true branch if the predicate is false. `Env' and `continue' are +preserved around the predicate code, since they may be needed for the +rest of the `if' expression. Since the `if' expression is the final +expression (and only expression) in the sequence making up the +procedure body, its target is `val' and its linkage is `return', so the +true and false branches are both compiled with target `val' and linkage +`return'. (That is, the value of the conditional, which is the value +computed by either of its branches, is the value of the procedure.) + + <_save `continue', `env' if modified by predicate and needed by branches_> + <_compilation of predicate, target `val', linkage `next'_> + <_restore `continue', `env' if saved above_> + (test (op false?) (reg val)) + (branch (label false-branch4)) + true-branch5 + <_compilation of true branch, target `val', linkage `return'_> + false-branch4 + <_compilation of false branch, target `val', linkage `return'_> + after-if3 + + The predicate `(= n 1)' is a procedure call. This looks up the +operator (the symbol `=') and places this value in `proc'. It then +assembles the arguments `1' and the value of `n' into `argl'. Then it +tests whether `proc' contains a primitive or a compound procedure, and +dispatches to a primitive branch or a compound branch accordingly. Both +branches resume at the `after-call' label. The requirements to preserve +registers around the evaluation of the operator and operands don't +result in any saving of registers, because in this case those +evaluations don't modify the registers in question. + + (assign proc + (op lookup-variable-value) (const =) (reg env)) + (assign val (const 1)) + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const n) (reg env)) + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch17)) + compiled-branch16 + (assign continue (label after-call15)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch17 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) + (reg proc) + (reg argl)) + after-call15 + + The true branch, which is the constant 1, compiles (with target +`val' and linkage `return') to + + (assign val (const 1)) + (goto (reg continue)) + + The code for the false branch is another a procedure call, where the +procedure is the value of the symbol `*', and the arguments are `n' and +the result of another procedure call (a call to `factorial'). Each of +these calls sets up `proc' and `argl' and its own primitive and compound +branches. *Note Figure 5-17:: shows the complete compilation of the +definition of the `factorial' procedure. Notice that the possible +`save' and `restore' of `continue' and `env' around the predicate, shown +above, are in fact generated, because these registers are modified by +the procedure call in the predicate and needed for the procedure call +and the `return' linkage in the branches. + + *Exercise 5.33:* Consider the following definition of a factorial + procedure, which is slightly different from the one given above: + + (define (factorial-alt n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* n (factorial-alt (- n 1))))) + + Compile this procedure and compare the resulting code with that + produced for `factorial'. Explain any differences you find. Does + either program execute more efficiently than the other? + + *Exercise 5.34:* Compile the iterative factorial procedure + + (define (factorial n) + (define (iter product counter) + (if (> counter n) + product + (iter (* counter product) + (+ counter 1)))) + (iter 1 1)) + + Annotate the resulting code, showing the essential difference + between the code for iterative and recursive versions of + `factorial' that makes one process build up stack space and the + other run in constant stack space. + + *Figure 5.17:* Compilation of the definition of the `factorial' + procedure + + ;; construct the procedure and skip over code for the procedure body + (assign val + (op make-compiled-procedure) (label entry2) (reg env)) + (goto (label after-lambda1)) + + entry2 ; calls to `factorial' will enter here + (assign env (op compiled-procedure-env) (reg proc)) + (assign env + (op extend-environment) (const (n)) (reg argl) (reg env)) + ;; begin actual procedure body + (save continue) + (save env) + + ;; compute `(= n 1)' + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const =) (reg env)) + (assign val (const 1)) + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const n) (reg env)) + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch17)) + compiled-branch16 + (assign continue (label after-call15)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch17 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + + after-call15 ; `val' now contains result of `(= n 1)' + (restore env) + (restore continue) + (test (op false?) (reg val)) + (branch (label false-branch4)) + true-branch5 ; return 1 + (assign val (const 1)) + (goto (reg continue)) + + false-branch4 + ;; compute and return `(* (factorial (- n 1)) n)' + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const *) (reg env)) + (save continue) + (save proc) ; save `*' procedure + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const n) (reg env)) + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (save argl) ; save partial argument list for `*' + + ;; compute `(factorial (- n 1))', which is the other argument for `*' + (assign proc + (op lookup-variable-value) (const factorial) (reg env)) + (save proc) ; save `factorial' procedure + + ;; compute `(- n 1)', which is the argument for `factorial' + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const -) (reg env)) + (assign val (const 1)) + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const n) (reg env)) + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch8)) + compiled-branch7 + (assign continue (label after-call6)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch8 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + + after-call6 ; `val' now contains result of `(- n 1)' + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (restore proc) ; restore `factorial' + ;; apply `factorial' + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch11)) + compiled-branch10 + (assign continue (label after-call9)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch11 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + + after-call9 ; `val' now contains result of `(factorial (- n 1))' + (restore argl) ; restore partial argument list for `*' + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (restore proc) ; restore `*' + (restore continue) + ;; apply `*' and return its value + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch14)) + compiled-branch13 + ;; note that a compound procedure here is called tail-recursively + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch14 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + (goto (reg continue)) + after-call12 + after-if3 + after-lambda1 + ;; assign the procedure to the variable `factorial' + (perform + (op define-variable!) (const factorial) (reg val) (reg env)) + (assign val (const ok)) + + + *Exercise 5.35:* What expression was compiled to produce the code + shown in *Note Figure 5-18::? + + *Figure 5.18:* An example of compiler output. See *Note Exercise + 5-35::. + + (assign val (op make-compiled-procedure) (label entry16) + (reg env)) + (goto (label after-lambda15)) + entry16 + (assign env (op compiled-procedure-env) (reg proc)) + (assign env + (op extend-environment) (const (x)) (reg argl) (reg env)) + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const +) (reg env)) + (save continue) + (save proc) + (save env) + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const g) (reg env)) + (save proc) + (assign proc (op lookup-variable-value) (const +) (reg env)) + (assign val (const 2)) + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const x) (reg env)) + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch19)) + compiled-branch18 + (assign continue (label after-call17)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch19 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + after-call17 + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (restore proc) + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch22)) + compiled-branch21 + (assign continue (label after-call20)) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch22 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + + after-call20 + (assign argl (op list) (reg val)) + (restore env) + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const x) (reg env)) + (assign argl (op cons) (reg val) (reg argl)) + (restore proc) + (restore continue) + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-branch25)) + compiled-branch24 + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + primitive-branch25 + (assign val (op apply-primitive-procedure) (reg proc) (reg argl)) + (goto (reg continue)) + after-call23 + after-lambda15 + (perform (op define-variable!) (const f) (reg val) (reg env)) + (assign val (const ok)) + + + *Exercise 5.36:* What order of evaluation does our compiler + produce for operands of a combination? Is it left-to-right, + right-to-left, or some other order? Where in the compiler is this + order determined? Modify the compiler so that it produces some + other order of evaluation. (See the discussion of order of + evaluation for the explicit-control evaluator in section *Note + 5-4-1::.) How does changing the order of operand evaluation + affect the efficiency of the code that constructs the argument + list? + + *Exercise 5.37:* One way to understand the compiler's `preserving' + mechanism for optimizing stack usage is to see what extra + operations would be generated if we did not use this idea. Modify + `preserving' so that it always generates the `save' and `restore' + operations. Compile some simple expressions and identify the + unnecessary stack operations that are generated. Compare the code + to that generated with the `preserving' mechanism intact. + + *Exercise 5.38:* Our compiler is clever about avoiding unnecessary + stack operations, but it is not clever at all when it comes to + compiling calls to the primitive procedures of the language in + terms of the primitive operations supplied by the machine. For + example, consider how much code is compiled to compute `(+ a 1)': + The code sets up an argument list in `argl', puts the primitive + addition procedure (which it finds by looking up the symbol `+' in + the environment) into `proc', and tests whether the procedure is + primitive or compound. The compiler always generates code to + perform the test, as well as code for primitive and compound + branches (only one of which will be executed). We have not shown + the part of the controller that implements primitives, but we + presume that these instructions make use of primitive arithmetic + operations in the machine's data paths. Consider how much less + code would be generated if the compiler could "open-code" + primitives--that is, if it could generate code to directly use + these primitive machine operations. The expression `(+ a 1)' + might be compiled into something as simple as (1) + + (assign val (op lookup-variable-value) (const a) (reg env)) + (assign val (op +) (reg val) (const 1)) + + In this exercise we will extend our compiler to support open + coding of selected primitives. Special-purpose code will be + generated for calls to these primitive procedures instead of the + general procedure-application code. In order to support this, we + will augment our machine with special argument registers `arg1' + and `arg2'. The primitive arithmetic operations of the machine + will take their inputs from `arg1' and `arg2'. The results may be + put into `val', `arg1', or `arg2'. + + The compiler must be able to recognize the application of an + open-coded primitive in the source program. We will augment the + dispatch in the `compile' procedure to recognize the names of + these primitives in addition to the reserved words (the special + forms) it currently recognizes.(2) For each special form our + compiler has a code generator. In this exercise we will construct + a family of code generators for the open-coded primitives. + + a. The open-coded primitives, unlike the special forms, all need + their operands evaluated. Write a code generator + `spread-arguments' for use by all the open-coding code + generators. `Spread-arguments' should take an operand list + and compile the given operands targeted to successive + argument registers. Note that an operand may contain a call + to an open-coded primitive, so argument registers will have + to be preserved during operand evaluation. + + b. For each of the primitive procedures `=', `*', `-', and `+', + write a code generator that takes a combination with that + operator, together with a target and a linkage descriptor, + and produces code to spread the arguments into the registers + and then perform the operation targeted to the given target + with the given linkage. You need only handle expressions + with two operands. Make `compile' dispatch to these code + generators. + + c. Try your new compiler on the `factorial' example. Compare + the resulting code with the result produced without open + coding. + + d. Extend your code generators for `+' and `*' so that they can + handle expressions with arbitrary numbers of operands. An + expression with more than two operands will have to be + compiled into a sequence of operations, each with only two + inputs. + + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) We have used the same symbol `+' here to denote both the +source-language procedure and the machine operation. In general there +will not be a one-to-one correspondence between primitives of the +source language and primitives of the machine. + + (2) Making the primitives into reserved words is in general a bad +idea, since a user cannot then rebind these names to different +procedures. Moreover, if we add reserved words to a compiler that is +in use, existing programs that define procedures with these names will +stop working. See *Note Exercise 5-44:: for ideas on how to avoid this +problem. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-6, Next: 5-5-7, Prev: 5-5-5, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.6 Lexical Addressing +------------------------ + +One of the most common optimizations performed by compilers is the +optimization of variable lookup. Our compiler, as we have implemented +it so far, generates code that uses the `lookup-variable-value' +operation of the evaluator machine. This searches for a variable by +comparing it with each variable that is currently bound, working frame +by frame outward through the run-time environment. This search can be +expensive if the frames are deeply nested or if there are many +variables. For example, consider the problem of looking up the value +of `x' while evaluating the expression `(* x y z)' in an application of +the procedure that is returned by + + (let ((x 3) (y 4)) + (lambda (a b c d e) + (let ((y (* a b x)) + (z (+ c d x))) + (* x y z)))) + + Since a `let' expression is just syntactic sugar for a `lambda' +combination, this expression is equivalent to + + ((lambda (x y) + (lambda (a b c d e) + ((lambda (y z) (* x y z)) + (* a b x) + (+ c d x)))) + 3 + 4) + + Each time `lookup-variable-value' searches for `x', it must determine +that the symbol `x' is not `eq?' to `y' or `z' (in the first frame), +nor to `a', `b', `c', `d', or `e' (in the second frame). We will +assume, for the moment, that our programs do not use `define'--that +variables are bound only with `lambda'. Because our language is +lexically scoped, the run-time environment for any expression will have +a structure that parallels the lexical structure of the program in +which the expression appears.(1) Thus, the compiler can know, when it +analyzes the above expression, that each time the procedure is applied +the variable `x' in `(* x y z)' will be found two frames out from the +current frame and will be the first variable in that frame. + + We can exploit this fact by inventing a new kind of variable-lookup +operation, `lexical-address-lookup', that takes as arguments an +environment and a "lexical address" that consists of two numbers: a number +"frame number", which specifies how many frames to pass over, and a "displacement +number", which specifies how many variables to pass over in that frame. +`Lexical-address-lookup' will produce the value of the variable stored +at that lexical address relative to the current environment. If we add +the `lexical-address-lookup' operation to our machine, we can make the +compiler generate code that references variables using this operation, +rather than `lookup-variable-value'. Similarly, our compiled code can +use a new `lexical-address-set!' operation instead of +`set-variable-value!'. + + In order to generate such code, the compiler must be able to +determine the lexical address of a variable it is about to compile a +reference to. The lexical address of a variable in a program depends +on where one is in the code. For example, in the following program, +the address of `x' in expression <E1> is (2,0)--two frames back and the +first variable in the frame. At that point `y' is at address (0,0) and +`c' is at address (1,2). In expression <E2>, `x' is at (1,0), `y' is +at (1,1), and `c' is at (0,2). + + ((lambda (x y) + (lambda (a b c d e) + ((lambda (y z) <E1>) + <E2> + (+ c d x)))) + 3 + 4) + + One way for the compiler to produce code that uses lexical +addressing is to maintain a data structure called a "compile-time +environment". This keeps track of which variables will be at which +positions in which frames in the run-time environment when a particular +variable-access operation is executed. The compile-time environment is +a list of frames, each containing a list of variables. (There will of +course be no values bound to the variables, since values are not +computed at compile time.) The compile-time environment becomes an +additional argument to `compile' and is passed along to each code +generator. The top-level call to `compile' uses an empty compile-time +environment. When a `lambda' body is compiled, `compile-lambda-body' +extends the compile-time environment by a frame containing the +procedure's parameters, so that the sequence making up the body is +compiled with that extended environment. At each point in the +compilation, `compile-variable' and `compile-assignment' use the +compile-time environment in order to generate the appropriate lexical +addresses. + + *Note Exercise 5-39:: through *Note Exercise 5-43:: describe how to +complete this sketch of the lexical-addressing strategy in order to +incorporate lexical lookup into the compiler. *Note Exercise 5-44:: +describes another use for the compile-time environment. + + *Exercise 5.39:* Write a procedure `lexical-address-lookup' that + implements the new lookup operation. It should take two + arguments--a lexical address and a run-time environment--and + return the value of the variable stored at the specified lexical + address. `Lexical-address-lookup' should signal an error if the + value of the variable is the symbol `*unassigned*'.(2) Also write + a procedure `lexical-address-set!' that implements the operation + that changes the value of the variable at a specified lexical + address. + + *Exercise 5.40:* Modify the compiler to maintain the compile-time + environment as described above. That is, add a + compile-time-environment argument to `compile' and the various code + generators, and extend it in `compile-lambda-body'. + + *Exercise 5.41:* Write a procedure `find-variable' that takes as + arguments a variable and a compile-time environment and returns + the lexical address of the variable with respect to that + environment. For example, in the program fragment that is shown + above, the compile-time environment during the compilation of + expression <E1> is `((y z) (a b c d e) (x y))'. `Find-variable' + should produce + + (find-variable 'c '((y z) (a b c d e) (x y))) + (1 2) + + (find-variable 'x '((y z) (a b c d e) (x y))) + (2 0) + + (find-variable 'w '((y z) (a b c d e) (x y))) + not-found + + *Exercise 5.42:* Using `find-variable' from *Note Exercise 5-41::, + rewrite `compile-variable' and `compile-assignment' to output + lexical-address instructions. In cases where `find-variable' + returns `not-found' (that is, where the variable is not in the + compile-time environment), you should have the code generators use + the evaluator operations, as before, to search for the binding. + (The only place a variable that is not found at compile time can + be is in the global environment, which is part of the run-time + environment but is not part of the compile-time environment.(3) + Thus, if you wish, you may have the evaluator operations look + directly in the global environment, which can be obtained with the + operation `(op get-global-environment)', instead of having them + search the whole run-time environment found in `env'.) Test the + modified compiler on a few simple cases, such as the nested + `lambda' combination at the beginning of this section. + + *Exercise 5.43:* We argued in section *Note 4-1-6:: that internal + definitions for block structure should not be considered "real" + `define's. Rather, a procedure body should be interpreted as if + the internal variables being defined were installed as ordinary + `lambda' variables initialized to their correct values using + `set!'. Section *Note 4-1-6:: and *Note Exercise 4-16:: showed + how to modify the metacircular interpreter to accomplish this by + scanning out internal definitions. Modify the compiler to perform + the same transformation before it compiles a procedure body. + + *Exercise 5.44:* In this section we have focused on the use of the + compile-time environment to produce lexical addresses. But there + are other uses for compile-time environments. For instance, in + *Note Exercise 5-38:: we increased the efficiency of compiled code + by open-coding primitive procedures. Our implementation treated + the names of open-coded procedures as reserved words. If a + program were to rebind such a name, the mechanism described in + *Note Exercise 5-38:: would still open-code it as a primitive, + ignoring the new binding. For example, consider the procedure + + (lambda (+ * a b x y) + (+ (* a x) (* b y))) + + which computes a linear combination of `x' and `y'. We might call + it with arguments `+matrix', `*matrix', and four matrices, but the + open-coding compiler would still open-code the `+' and the `*' in + `(+ (* a x) (* b y))' as primitive `+' and `*'. Modify the + open-coding compiler to consult the compile-time environment in + order to compile the correct code for expressions involving the + names of primitive procedures. (The code will work correctly as + long as the program does not `define' or `set!' these names.) + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) This is not true if we allow internal definitions, unless we +scan them out. See *Note Exercise 5-43::. + + (2) This is the modification to variable lookup required if we +implement the scanning method to eliminate internal definitions (*Note +Exercise 5-43::). We will need to eliminate these definitions in order +for lexical addressing to work. + + (3) Lexical addresses cannot be used to access variables in the +global environment, because these names can be defined and redefined +interactively at any time. With internal definitions scanned out, as +in *Note Exercise 5-43::, the only definitions the compiler sees are +those at top level, which act on the global environment. Compilation +of a definition does not cause the defined name to be entered in the +compile-time environment. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: 5-5-7, Prev: 5-5-6, Up: 5-5 + +5.5.7 Interfacing Compiled Code to the Evaluator +------------------------------------------------ + +We have not yet explained how to load compiled code into the evaluator +machine or how to run it. We will assume that the +explicit-control-evaluator machine has been defined as in section *Note +5-4-4::, with the additional operations specified in footnote *Note +Footnote 38::. We will implement a procedure `compile-and-go' that +compiles a Scheme expression, loads the resulting object code into the +evaluator machine, and causes the machine to run the code in the +evaluator global environment, print the result, and enter the +evaluator's driver loop. We will also modify the evaluator so that +interpreted expressions can call compiled procedures as well as +interpreted ones. We can then put a compiled procedure into the +machine and use the evaluator to call it: + + (compile-and-go + '(define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n)))) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (factorial 5) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + 120 + + To allow the evaluator to handle compiled procedures (for example, +to evaluate the call to `factorial' above), we need to change the code +at `apply-dispatch' (section *Note 5-4-1::) so that it recognizes +compiled procedures (as distinct from compound or primitive procedures) +and transfers control directly to the entry point of the compiled +code:(1) + + apply-dispatch + (test (op primitive-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label primitive-apply)) + (test (op compound-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label compound-apply)) + (test (op compiled-procedure?) (reg proc)) + (branch (label compiled-apply)) + (goto (label unknown-procedure-type)) + + compiled-apply + (restore continue) + (assign val (op compiled-procedure-entry) (reg proc)) + (goto (reg val)) + + Note the restore of `continue' at `compiled-apply'. Recall that the +evaluator was arranged so that at `apply-dispatch', the continuation +would be at the top of the stack. The compiled code entry point, on +the other hand, expects the continuation to be in `continue', so +`continue' must be restored before the compiled code is executed. + + To enable us to run some compiled code when we start the evaluator +machine, we add a `branch' instruction at the beginning of the +evaluator machine, which causes the machine to go to a new entry point +if the `flag' register is set.(2) + + (branch (label external-entry)) ; branches if `flag' is set + read-eval-print-loop + (perform (op initialize-stack)) + ... + + `External-entry' assumes that the machine is started with `val' +containing the location of an instruction sequence that puts a result +into `val' and ends with `(goto (reg continue))'. Starting at this +entry point jumps to the location designated by `val', but first assigns +`continue' so that execution will return to `print-result', which +prints the value in `val' and then goes to the beginning of the +evaluator's read-eval-print loop.(3) + + external-entry + (perform (op initialize-stack)) + (assign env (op get-global-environment)) + (assign continue (label print-result)) + (goto (reg val)) + + Now we can use the following procedure to compile a procedure +definition, execute the compiled code, and run the read-eval-print loop +so we can try the procedure. Because we want the compiled code to +return to the location in `continue' with its result in `val', we +compile the expression with a target of `val' and a linkage of +`return'. In order to transform the object code produced by the +compiler into executable instructions for the evaluator register +machine, we use the procedure `assemble' from the register-machine +simulator (section *Note 5-2-2::). We then initialize the `val' +register to point to the list of instructions, set the `flag' so that +the evaluator will go to `external-entry', and start the evaluator. + + (define (compile-and-go expression) + (let ((instructions + (assemble (statements + (compile expression 'val 'return)) + eceval))) + (set! the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + (set-register-contents! eceval 'val instructions) + (set-register-contents! eceval 'flag true) + (start eceval))) + + If we have set up stack monitoring, as at the end of section *Note +5-4-4::, we can examine the stack usage of compiled code: + + (compile-and-go + '(define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n)))) + + (total-pushes = 0 maximum-depth = 0) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (factorial 5) + (total-pushes = 31 maximum-depth = 14) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + 120 + + Compare this example with the evaluation of `(factorial 5)' using the +interpreted version of the same procedure, shown at the end of section +*Note 5-4-4::. The interpreted version required 144 pushes and a +maximum stack depth of 28. This illustrates the optimization that +results from our compilation strategy. + +Interpretation and compilation +.............................. + +With the programs in this section, we can now experiment with the +alternative execution strategies of interpretation and compilation.(4) +An interpreter raises the machine to the level of the user program; a +compiler lowers the user program to the level of the machine language. +We can regard the Scheme language (or any programming language) as a +coherent family of abstractions erected on the machine language. +Interpreters are good for interactive program development and debugging +because the steps of program execution are organized in terms of these +abstractions, and are therefore more intelligible to the programmer. +Compiled code can execute faster, because the steps of program +execution are organized in terms of the machine language, and the +compiler is free to make optimizations that cut across the higher-level +abstractions.(5) + + The alternatives of interpretation and compilation also lead to +different strategies for porting languages to new computers. Suppose +that we wish to implement Lisp for a new machine. One strategy is to +begin with the explicit-control evaluator of section *Note 5-4:: and +translate its instructions to instructions for the new machine. A +different strategy is to begin with the compiler and change the code +generators so that they generate code for the new machine. The second +strategy allows us to run any Lisp program on the new machine by first +compiling it with the compiler running on our original Lisp system, and +linking it with a compiled version of the run-time library.(6) Better +yet, we can compile the compiler itself, and run this on the new +machine to compile other Lisp programs.(7) Or we can compile one of +the interpreters of section *Note 4-1:: to produce an interpreter that +runs on the new machine. + + *Exercise 5.45:* By comparing the stack operations used by + compiled code to the stack operations used by the evaluator for the + same computation, we can determine the extent to which the + compiler optimizes use of the stack, both in speed (reducing the + total number of stack operations) and in space (reducing the + maximum stack depth). Comparing this optimized stack use to the + performance of a special-purpose machine for the same computation + gives some indication of the quality of the compiler. + + a. *Note Exercise 5-27:: asked you to determine, as a function + of n, the number of pushes and the maximum stack depth needed + by the evaluator to compute n! using the recursive factorial + procedure given above. *Note Exercise 5-14:: asked you to do + the same measurements for the special-purpose factorial + machine shown in *Note Figure 5-11::. Now perform the same + analysis using the compiled `factorial' procedure. + + Take the ratio of the number of pushes in the compiled + version to the number of pushes in the interpreted version, + and do the same for the maximum stack depth. Since the + number of operations and the stack depth used to compute n! + are linear in n, these ratios should approach constants as n + becomes large. What are these constants? Similarly, find + the ratios of the stack usage in the special-purpose machine + to the usage in the interpreted version. + + Compare the ratios for special-purpose versus interpreted + code to the ratios for compiled versus interpreted code. You + should find that the special-purpose machine does much better + than the compiled code, since the hand-tailored controller + code should be much better than what is produced by our + rudimentary general-purpose compiler. + + b. Can you suggest improvements to the compiler that would help + it generate code that would come closer in performance to the + hand-tailored version? + + + *Exercise 5.46:* Carry out an analysis like the one in *Note + Exercise 5-45:: to determine the effectiveness of compiling the + tree-recursive Fibonacci procedure + + (define (fib n) + (if (< n 2) + n + (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2))))) + + compared to the effectiveness of using the special-purpose + Fibonacci machine of *Note Figure 5-12::. (For measurement of the + interpreted performance, see *Note Exercise 5-29::.) For + Fibonacci, the time resource used is not linear in n; hence the + ratios of stack operations will not approach a limiting value that + is independent of n. + + *Exercise 5.47:* This section described how to modify the + explicit-control evaluator so that interpreted code can call + compiled procedures. Show how to modify the compiler so that + compiled procedures can call not only primitive procedures and + compiled procedures, but interpreted procedures as well. This + requires modifying `compile-procedure-call' to handle the case of + compound (interpreted) procedures. Be sure to handle all the same + `target' and `linkage' combinations as in `compile-proc-appl'. To + do the actual procedure application, the code needs to jump to the + evaluator's `compound-apply' entry point. This label cannot be + directly referenced in object code (since the assembler requires + that all labels referenced by the code it is assembling be defined + there), so we will add a register called `compapp' to the + evaluator machine to hold this entry point, and add an instruction + to initialize it: + + (assign compapp (label compound-apply)) + (branch (label external-entry)) ; branches if `flag' is set + read-eval-print-loop + ... + + To test your code, start by defining a procedure `f' that calls a + procedure `g'. Use `compile-and-go' to compile the definition of + `f' and start the evaluator. Now, typing at the evaluator, define + `g' and try to call `f'. + + *Exercise 5.48:* The `compile-and-go' interface implemented in + this section is awkward, since the compiler can be called only + once (when the evaluator machine is started). Augment the + compiler-interpreter interface by providing a `compile-and-run' + primitive that can be called from within the explicit-control + evaluator as follows: + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (compile-and-run + '(define (factorial n) + (if (= n 1) + 1 + (* (factorial (- n 1)) n)))) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + ok + + ;;; EC-Eval input: + (factorial 5) + ;;; EC-Eval value: + 120 + + *Exercise 5.49:* As an alternative to using the explicit-control + evaluator's read-eval-print loop, design a register machine that + performs a read-compile-execute-print loop. That is, the machine + should run a loop that reads an expression, compiles it, assembles + and executes the resulting code, and prints the result. This is + easy to run in our simulated setup, since we can arrange to call + the procedures `compile' and `assemble' as "register-machine + operations." + + *Exercise 5.50:* Use the compiler to compile the metacircular + evaluator of section *Note 4-1:: and run this program using the + register-machine simulator. (To compile more than one definition + at a time, you can package the definitions in a `begin'.) The + resulting interpreter will run very slowly because of the multiple + levels of interpretation, but getting all the details to work is + an instructive exercise. + + *Exercise 5.51:* Develop a rudimentary implementation of Scheme in + C (or some other low-level language of your choice) by translating + the explicit-control evaluator of section *Note 5-4:: into C. In + order to run this code you will need to also provide appropriate + storage-allocation routines and other run-time support. + + *Exercise 5.52:* As a counterpoint to exercise *Note Exercise + 5-51::, modify the compiler so that it compiles Scheme procedures + into sequences of C instructions. Compile the metacircular + evaluator of section *Note 4-1:: to produce a Scheme interpreter + written in C. + + ---------- Footnotes ---------- + + (1) Of course, compiled procedures as well as interpreted procedures +are compound (nonprimitive). For compatibility with the terminology +used in the explicit-control evaluator, in this section we will use +"compound" to mean interpreted (as opposed to compiled). + + (2) Now that the evaluator machine starts with a `branch', we must +always initialize the `flag' register before starting the evaluator +machine. To start the machine at its ordinary read-eval-print loop, we +could use + + (define (start-eceval) + (set! the-global-environment (setup-environment)) + (set-register-contents! eceval 'flag false) + (start eceval)) + + (3) Since a compiled procedure is an object that the system may try +to print, we also modify the system print operation `user-print' (from +section *Note 4-1-4::) so that it will not attempt to print the +components of a compiled procedure: + + (define (user-print object) + (cond ((compound-procedure? object) + (display (list 'compound-procedure + (procedure-parameters object) + (procedure-body object) + '<procedure-env>))) + ((compiled-procedure? object) + (display '<compiled-procedure>)) + (else (display object)))) + + (4) We can do even better by extending the compiler to allow +compiled code to call interpreted procedures. See *Note Exercise +5-47::. + + (5) Independent of the strategy of execution, we incur significant +overhead if we insist that errors encountered in execution of a user +program be detected and signaled, rather than being allowed to kill the +system or produce wrong answers. For example, an out-of-bounds array +reference can be detected by checking the validity of the reference +before performing it. The overhead of checking, however, can be many +times the cost of the array reference itself, and a programmer should +weigh speed against safety in determining whether such a check is +desirable. A good compiler should be able to produce code with such +checks, should avoid redundant checks, and should allow programmers to +control the extent and type of error checking in the compiled code. + + Compilers for popular languages, such as C and C++, put hardly any +error-checking operations into running code, so as to make things run +as fast as possible. As a result, it falls to programmers to +explicitly provide error checking. Unfortunately, people often neglect +to do this, even in critical applications where speed is not a +constraint. Their programs lead fast and dangerous lives. For +example, the notorious "Worm" that paralyzed the Internet in 1988 +exploited the UNIX(tm) operating system's failure to check whether the +input buffer has overflowed in the finger daemon. (See Spafford 1989.) + + (6) Of course, with either the interpretation or the compilation +strategy we must also implement for the new machine storage allocation, +input and output, and all the various operations that we took as +"primitive" in our discussion of the evaluator and compiler. One +strategy for minimizing work here is to write as many of these +operations as possible in Lisp and then compile them for the new +machine. Ultimately, everything reduces to a small kernel (such as +garbage collection and the mechanism for applying actual machine +primitives) that is hand-coded for the new machine. + + (7) This strategy leads to amusing tests of correctness of the +compiler, such as checking whether the compilation of a program on the +new machine, using the compiled compiler, is identical with the +compilation of the program on the original Lisp system. Tracking down +the source of differences is fun but often frustrating, because the +results are extremely sensitive to minuscule details. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: References, Next: Index, Prev: Chapter 5, Up: Top + +References +********** + +Abelson, Harold, Andrew Berlin, Jacob Katzenelson, William McAllister, +Guillermo Rozas, Gerald Jay Sussman, and Jack Wisdom. 1992. The +Supercomputer Toolkit: A general framework for special-purpose +computing. `International Journal of High-Speed Electronics' +3(3):337-361. + + Allen, John. 1978. `Anatomy of Lisp'. New York: McGraw-Hill. + + ANSI X3.226-1994. `American National Standard for Information +Systems--Programming Language--Common Lisp'. + + Appel, Andrew W. 1987. Garbage collection can be faster than stack +allocation. `Information Processing Letters' 25(4):275-279. + + Backus, John. 1978. Can programming be liberated from the von +Neumann style? `Communications of the ACM' 21(8):613-641. + + Baker, Henry G., Jr. 1978. List processing in real time on a +serial computer. `Communications of the ACM' 21(4):280-293. + + Batali, John, Neil Mayle, Howard Shrobe, Gerald Jay Sussman, and +Daniel Weise. 1982. The Scheme-81 architecture--System and chip. In +`Proceedings of the MIT Conference on Advanced Research in VLSI', +edited by Paul Penfield, Jr. Dedham, MA: Artech House. + + Borning, Alan. 1977. ThingLab--An object-oriented system for +building simulations using constraints. In `Proceedings of the 5th +International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence'. + + Borodin, Alan, and Ian Munro. 1975. `The Computational Complexity +of Algebraic and Numeric Problems'. New York: American Elsevier. + + Chaitin, Gregory J. 1975. Randomness and mathematical proof. +`Scientific American' 232(5):47-52. + + Church, Alonzo. 1941. `The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion'. +Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. + + Clark, Keith L. 1978. Negation as failure. In `Logic and Data +Bases'. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 293-322. + + Clinger, William. 1982. Nondeterministic call by need is neither +lazy nor by name. In `Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Lisp and +Functional Programming', pp. 226-234. + + Clinger, William, and Jonathan Rees. 1991. Macros that work. In +`Proceedings of the 1991 ACM Conference on Principles of Programming +Languages', pp. 155-162. + + Colmerauer A., H. Kanoui, R. Pasero, and P. Roussel. 1973. Un +syste`me de communication homme-machine en franc,ais. Technical +report, Groupe Intelligence Artificielle, Universite' d'Aix Marseille, +Luminy. + + Cormen, Thomas, Charles Leiserson, and Ronald Rivest. 1990. +`Introduction to Algorithms'. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. + + Darlington, John, Peter Henderson, and David Turner. 1982. +`Functional Programming and Its Applications'. New York: Cambridge +University Press. + + Dijkstra, Edsger W. 1968a. The structure of the "THE" +multiprogramming system. `Communications of the ACM' 11(5):341-346. + + Dijkstra, Edsger W. 1968b. Cooperating sequential processes. In +`Programming Languages', edited by F. Genuys. New York: Academic Press, +pp. 43-112. + + Dinesman, Howard P. 1968. `Superior Mathematical Puzzles'. New +York: Simon and Schuster. + + deKleer, Johan, Jon Doyle, Guy Steele, and Gerald J. Sussman. 1977. +AMORD: Explicit control of reasoning. In `Proceedings of the ACM +Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Programming Languages', pp. +116-125. + + Doyle, Jon. 1979. A truth maintenance system. `Artificial +Intelligence' 12:231-272. + + Feigenbaum, Edward, and Howard Shrobe. 1993. The Japanese National +Fifth Generation Project: Introduction, survey, and evaluation. In +`Future Generation Computer Systems', vol. 9, pp. 105-117. + + Feeley, Marc. 1986. Deux approches a` l'implantation du language +Scheme. Masters thesis, Universite' de Montre'al. + + Feeley, Marc and Guy Lapalme. 1987. Using closures for code +generation. `Journal of Computer Languages' 12(1):47-66. + + Feller, William. 1957. `An Introduction to Probability Theory and +Its Applications', volume 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons. + + Fenichel, R., and J. Yochelson. 1969. A Lisp garbage collector for +virtual memory computer systems. `Communications of the ACM' +12(11):611-612. + + Floyd, Robert. 1967. Nondeterministic algorithms. `JACM', +14(4):636-644. + + Forbus, Kenneth D., and Johan deKleer. 1993. `Building Problem +Solvers'. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. + + Friedman, Daniel P., and David S. Wise. 1976. CONS should not +evaluate its arguments. In `Automata, Languages, and Programming: Third +International Colloquium', edited by S. Michaelson and R. Milner, pp. +257-284. + + Friedman, Daniel P., Mitchell Wand, and Christopher T. Haynes. 1992. +`Essentials of Programming Languages'. Cambridge, MA: MIT +Press/McGraw-Hill. + + Gabriel, Richard P. 1988. The Why of _Y_. `Lisp Pointers' +2(2):15-25. + + Goldberg, Adele, and David Robson. 1983. `Smalltalk-80: The +Language and Its Implementation'. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. + + Gordon, Michael, Robin Milner, and Christopher Wadsworth. 1979. +`Edinburgh LCF'. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 78. New York: +Springer-Verlag. + + Gray, Jim, and Andreas Reuter. 1993. `Transaction Processing: +Concepts and Models'. San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufman. + + Green, Cordell. 1969. Application of theorem proving to problem +solving. In `Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on +Artificial Intelligence', pp. 219-240. + + Green, Cordell, and Bertram Raphael. 1968. The use of +theorem-proving techniques in question-answering systems. In +`Proceedings of the ACM National Conference', pp. 169-181. + + Griss, Martin L. 1981. Portable Standard Lisp, a brief overview. +Utah Symbolic Computation Group Operating Note 58, University of Utah. + + Guttag, John V. 1977. Abstract data types and the development of +data structures. `Communications of the ACM' 20(6):397-404. + + Hamming, Richard W. 1980. `Coding and Information Theory'. +Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. + + Hanson, Christopher P. 1990. Efficient stack allocation for +tail-recursive languages. In `Proceedings of ACM Conference on Lisp and +Functional Programming', pp. 106-118. + + Hanson, Christopher P. 1991. A syntactic closures macro facility. +`Lisp Pointers', 4(3). + + Hardy, Godfrey H. 1921. Srinivasa Ramanujan. `Proceedings of the +London Mathematical Society' XIX(2). + + Hardy, Godfrey H., and E. M. Wright. 1960. `An Introduction to the +Theory of Numbers'. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press. + + Havender, J. 1968. Avoiding deadlocks in multi-tasking systems. `IBM +Systems Journal' 7(2):74-84. + + Hearn, Anthony C. 1969. Standard Lisp. Technical report AIM-90, +Artificial Intelligence Project, Stanford University. + + Henderson, Peter. 1980. `Functional Programming: Application and +Implementation'. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. + + Henderson. Peter. 1982. Functional Geometry. In `Conference Record +of the 1982 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming', pp. +179-187. + + Hewitt, Carl E. 1969. PLANNER: A language for proving theorems in +robots. In `Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on +Artificial Intelligence', pp. 295-301. + + Hewitt, Carl E. 1977. Viewing control structures as patterns of +passing messages. `Journal of Artificial Intelligence' 8(3):323-364. + + Hoare, C. A. R. 1972. Proof of correctness of data representations. +`Acta Informatica' 1(1). + + Hodges, Andrew. 1983. `Alan Turing: The Enigma'. New York: Simon and +Schuster. + + Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1979. `Go"del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal +Golden Braid'. New York: Basic Books. + + Hughes, R. J. M. 1990. Why functional programming matters. In +`Research Topics in Functional Programming', edited by David Turner. +Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 17-42. + + IEEE Std 1178-1990. 1990. `IEEE Standard for the Scheme +Programming Language'. + + Ingerman, Peter, Edgar Irons, Kirk Sattley, and Wallace Feurzeig; +assisted by M. Lind, Herbert Kanner, and Robert Floyd. 1960. THUNKS: +A way of compiling procedure statements, with some comments on +procedure declarations. Unpublished manuscript. (Also, private +communication from Wallace Feurzeig.) + + Kaldewaij, Anne. 1990. `Programming: The Derivation of Algorithms'. +New York: Prentice-Hall. + + Kohlbecker, Eugene Edmund, Jr. 1986. Syntactic extensions in the +programming language Lisp. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University. + + Konopasek, Milos, and Sundaresan Jayaraman. 1984. `The TK!Solver +Book: A Guide to Problem-Solving in Science, Engineering, Business, and +Education'. Berkeley, CA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill. + + Knuth, Donald E. 1973. `Fundamental Algorithms'. Volume 1 of `The +Art of Computer Programming'. 2nd edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. + + Knuth, Donald E. 1981. `Seminumerical Algorithms'. Volume 2 of `The +Art of Computer Programming'. 2nd edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. + + Kowalski, Robert. 1973. Predicate logic as a programming language. +Technical report 70, Department of Computational Logic, School of +Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh. + + Kowalski, Robert. 1979. `Logic for Problem Solving'. New York: +North-Holland. + + Lamport, Leslie. 1978. Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a +distributed system. `Communications of the ACM' 21(7):558-565. + + Lampson, Butler, J. J. Horning, R. London, J. G. Mitchell, and G. +K. Popek. 1981. Report on the programming language Euclid. +Technical report, Computer Systems Research Group, University of +Toronto. + + Landin, Peter. 1965. A correspondence between Algol 60 and +Church's lambda notation: Part I. `Communications of the ACM' +8(2):89-101. + + Lieberman, Henry, and Carl E. Hewitt. 1983. A real-time garbage +collector based on the lifetimes of objects. `Communications of the ACM' +26(6):419-429. + + Liskov, Barbara H., and Stephen N. Zilles. 1975. Specification +techniques for data abstractions. `IEEE Transactions on Software +Engineering' 1(1):7-19. + + McAllester, David Allen. 1978. A three-valued truth-maintenance +system. Memo 473, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. + + McAllester, David Allen. 1980. An outlook on truth maintenance. +Memo 551, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. + + McCarthy, John. 1960. Recursive functions of symbolic expressions +and their computation by machine. `Communications of the ACM' +3(4):184-195. + + McCarthy, John. 1967. A basis for a mathematical theory of +computation. In `Computer Programing and Formal Systems', edited by P. +Braffort and D. Hirschberg. North-Holland. + + McCarthy, John. 1978. The history of Lisp. In `Proceedings of the +ACM SIGPLAN Conference on the History of Programming Languages'. + + McCarthy, John, P. W. Abrahams, D. J. Edwards, T. P. Hart, and M. I. +Levin. 1965. `Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual'. 2nd edition. +Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. + + McDermott, Drew, and Gerald Jay Sussman. 1972. Conniver reference +manual. Memo 259, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. + + Miller, Gary L. 1976. Riemann's Hypothesis and tests for primality. +`Journal of Computer and System Sciences' 13(3):300-317. + + Miller, James S., and Guillermo J. Rozas. 1994. Garbage collection +is fast, but a stack is faster. Memo 1462, MIT Artificial Intelligence +Laboratory. + + Moon, David. 1978. MacLisp reference manual, Version 0. Technical +report, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. + + Moon, David, and Daniel Weinreb. 1981. Lisp machine manual. +Technical report, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. + + Morris, J. H., Eric Schmidt, and Philip Wadler. 1980. Experience +with an applicative string processing language. In `Proceedings of the +7th Annual ACM SIGACT/SIGPLAN Symposium on the Principles of +Programming Languages'. + + Phillips, Hubert. 1934. `The Sphinx Problem Book'. London: Faber +and Faber. + + Pitman, Kent. 1983. The revised MacLisp Manual (Saturday evening +edition). Technical report 295, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. + + Rabin, Michael O. 1980. Probabilistic algorithm for testing +primality. `Journal of Number Theory' 12:128-138. + + Raymond, Eric. 1993. `The New Hacker's Dictionary'. 2nd edition. +Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. + + Raynal, Michel. 1986. `Algorithms for Mutual Exclusion'. Cambridge, +MA: MIT Press. + + Rees, Jonathan A., and Norman I. Adams IV. 1982. T: A dialect of +Lisp or, lambda: The ultimate software tool. In `Conference Record of +the 1982 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming', pp. +114-122. + + Rees, Jonathan, and William Clinger (eds). 1991. The revised^4 +report on the algorithmic language Scheme. `Lisp Pointers', 4(3). + + Rivest, Ronald, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman. 1977. A method +for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. +Technical memo LCS/TM82, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. + + Robinson, J. A. 1965. A machine-oriented logic based on the +resolution principle. `Journal of the ACM' 12(1):23. + + Robinson, J. A. 1983. Logic programming--Past, present, and future. +`New Generation Computing' 1:107-124. + + Spafford, Eugene H. 1989. The Internet Worm: Crisis and aftermath. +`Communications of the ACM' 32(6):678-688. + + Steele, Guy Lewis, Jr. 1977. Debunking the "expensive procedure +call" myth. In `Proceedings of the National Conference of the ACM', +pp. 153-62. + + Steele, Guy Lewis, Jr. 1982. An overview of Common Lisp. In +`Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming', +pp. 98-107. + + Steele, Guy Lewis, Jr. 1990. `Common Lisp: The Language'. 2nd +edition. Digital Press. + + Steele, Guy Lewis, Jr., and Gerald Jay Sussman. 1975. Scheme: An +interpreter for the extended lambda calculus. Memo 349, MIT Artificial +Intelligence Laboratory. + + Steele, Guy Lewis, Jr., Donald R. Woods, Raphael A. Finkel, Mark R. +Crispin, Richard M. Stallman, and Geoffrey S. Goodfellow. 1983. `The +Hacker's Dictionary'. New York: Harper & Row. + + Stoy, Joseph E. 1977. `Denotational Semantics'. Cambridge, MA: MIT +Press. + + Sussman, Gerald Jay, and Richard M. Stallman. 1975. Heuristic +techniques in computer-aided circuit analysis. `IEEE Transactions on +Circuits and Systems' CAS-22(11):857-865. + + Sussman, Gerald Jay, and Guy Lewis Steele Jr. 1980. Constraints--A +language for expressing almost-hierachical descriptions. `AI Journal' +14:1-39. + + Sussman, Gerald Jay, and Jack Wisdom. 1992. Chaotic evolution of +the solar system. `Science' 257:256-262. + + Sussman, Gerald Jay, Terry Winograd, and Eugene Charniak. 1971. +Microplanner reference manual. Memo 203A, MIT Artificial Intelligence +Laboratory. + + Sutherland, Ivan E. 1963. SKETCHPAD: A man-machine graphical +communication system. Technical report 296, MIT Lincoln Laboratory. + + Teitelman, Warren. 1974. Interlisp reference manual. Technical +report, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. + + Thatcher, James W., Eric G. Wagner, and Jesse B. Wright. 1978. Data +type specification: Parameterization and the power of specification +techniques. In `Conference Record of the Tenth Annual ACM Symposium on +Theory of Computing', pp. 119-132. + + Turner, David. 1981. The future of applicative languages. In +`Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Informatics', Lecture +Notes in Computer Science, volume 123. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. +334-348. + + Wand, Mitchell. 1980. Continuation-based program transformation +strategies. `Journal of the ACM' 27(1):164-180. + + Waters, Richard C. 1979. A method for analyzing loop programs. +`IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering' 5(3):237-247. + + Winograd, Terry. 1971. Procedures as a representation for data in +a computer program for understanding natural language. Technical +report AI TR-17, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. + + Winston, Patrick. 1992. `Artificial Intelligence'. 3rd edition. +Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. + + Zabih, Ramin, David McAllester, and David Chapman. 1987. +Non-deterministic Lisp with dependency-directed backtracking. +`AAAI-87', pp. 59-64. + + Zippel, Richard. 1979. Probabilistic algorithms for sparse +polynomials. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering +and Computer Science, MIT. + + Zippel, Richard. 1993. `Effective Polynomial Computation'. +Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. + + +File: sicp.info, Node: Index, Prev: References, Up: Top + +Index +***** + + +* Menu: + +* abstract: 2-1-3. (line 139) +* abstract syntax: 4-1-1. (line 44) +* abstraction: 2-1-2. (line 16) +* abstraction barriers: Chapter 2. (line 118) +* accumulator <1>: 3-1-1. (line 216) +* accumulator: 2-2-3. (line 76) +* acquired: 3-4-2. (line 388) +* action: 5-1-1. (line 164) +* additive: 2-4-3. (line 26) +* additively <1>: 2-4. (line 51) +* additively: Chapter 2. (line 158) +* address: 5-3-1. (line 8) +* address arithmetic: 5-3-1. (line 16) +* agenda: 3-3-4. (line 345) +* algebraic specification: 2-1-3. (line 149) +* aliasing: 3-1-3. (line 313) +* and-gate: 3-3-4. (line 30) +* applicative-order: 4-2-1. (line 7) +* applicative-order evaluation: 1-1-5. (line 127) +* arbiter: 3-4-2. (line 633) +* arguments: 1-1-1. (line 47) +* assembler: 5-2-1. (line 20) +* assertions: 4-4-1. (line 20) +* assignment: 3-1. (line 37) +* atomically: 3-4-2. (line 447) +* automatic storage allocation: 5-3. (line 30) +* average damping: 1-3-3. (line 180) +* B-trees: 2-3-3. (line 459) +* backbone: 3-3-3. (line 19) +* backquote: 5-5-2. (line 279) +* backtracks: 4-3-1. (line 82) +* balanced: 2-2-2. (line 195) +* barrier synchronization: 3-4-2. (line 652) +* base: 5-3-1. (line 35) +* Bertrand's: 3-5-2. (line 411) +* bignum: 5-3-1. (line 97) +* bindings: 3-2. (line 24) +* binds: 1-1-8. (line 109) +* binomial coefficients: 1-2-2. (line 251) +* block structure: 1-1-8. (line 182) +* bound variable: 1-1-8. (line 108) +* box-and-pointer notation: 2-2. (line 9) +* breakpoint: 5-2-4. (line 109) +* broken heart: 5-3-2. (line 125) +* bugs: Chapter 1. (line 38) +* cache-coherence: 3-4-1. (line 222) +* call-by-name <1>: 3-5-1. (line 405) +* call-by-name: 4-2-2. (line 383) +* call-by-name thunks: 3-5-1. (line 412) +* call-by-need <1>: 3-5-1. (line 411) +* call-by-need: 4-2-2. (line 383) +* call-by-need thunks: 3-5-1. (line 413) +* capturing: 1-1-8. (line 123) +* Carmichael numbers: 1-2-6. (line 305) +* case analysis: 1-1-6. (line 20) +* cell: 3-4-2. (line 409) +* chronological: 4-3-1. (line 86) +* Church numerals: 2-1-3. (line 126) +* Church-Turing thesis: 4-1-5. (line 147) +* clauses: 1-1-6. (line 41) +* closed world assumption: 4-4-3. (line 153) +* closure: Chapter 2. (line 130) +* closure property: 2-2. (line 56) +* code generator: 5-5-1. (line 21) +* coerce: 2-5-2. (line 270) +* coercion: 2-5-2. (line 63) +* combinations: 1-1-1. (line 44) +* comments: 2-2-3. (line 671) +* compacting: 5-3-2. (line 309) +* compilation: 5-5. (line 45) +* compile-time environment: 5-5-6. (line 77) +* composition: 1-3-4. (line 233) +* compound data: Chapter 2. (line 37) +* compound data object: Chapter 2. (line 64) +* compound procedure: 1-1-4. (line 34) +* computability: 4-1-5. (line 142) +* computational process: Chapter 1. (line 18) +* concurrently: 3-4. (line 38) +* congruent modulo: 1-2-6. (line 56) +* connectors: 3-3-5. (line 35) +* consequent: 1-1-6. (line 48) +* constraint networks: 3-3-5. (line 35) +* constructors: 2-1. (line 27) +* continuation procedures: 4-3-3. (line 27) +* continued fraction: 1-3-3. (line 199) +* control: 4-4-3. (line 11) +* controller: 5-1. (line 7) +* conventional interfaces <1>: Chapter 2. (line 133) +* conventional interfaces: 2-2-3. (line 11) +* current time: 3-3-4. (line 491) +* data <1>: 2-1-3. (line 13) +* data: Chapter 1. (line 20) +* data abstraction <1>: Chapter 2. (line 75) +* data abstraction: 2-1. (line 15) +* data paths: 5-1. (line 6) +* data-directed <1>: Chapter 2. (line 156) +* data-directed <2>: 2-4-3. (line 42) +* data-directed: 2-4. (line 61) +* deadlock: 3-4-2. (line 497) +* deadlock-recovery: 3-4-2. (line 646) +* debug: Chapter 1. (line 53) +* deep binding: 4-1-3. (line 227) +* deferred: 1-2-1. (line 96) +* delayed: 3-5-1. (line 137) +* delayed argument: 3-5-4. (line 73) +* delayed evaluation <1>: Chapter 3. (line 64) +* delayed evaluation: 3-5. (line 40) +* dense: 2-5-3. (line 252) +* dependency-directed backtracking: 4-3-1. (line 215) +* depth-first search: 4-3-1. (line 86) +* deque: 3-3-2. (line 253) +* derived expressions: 4-1-2. (line 230) +* digital signals: 3-3-4. (line 19) +* dispatching on type: 2-4-3. (line 7) +* displacement number: 5-5-6. (line 49) +* dotted-tail: 2-2-1. (line 239) +* driver loop: 4-1-4. (line 77) +* empty list: 2-2-1. (line 90) +* encapsulated: 3-1-1. (line 300) +* enclosing: 3-2. (line 26) +* entry points: 5-1-1. (line 23) +* enumerator: 2-2-3. (line 71) +* environment: 1-1-2. (line 55) +* environment model: Chapter 3. (line 56) +* environments: 3-2. (line 21) +* Euclid's: 1-2-5. (line 38) +* Euclidean ring: 2-5-3. (line 684) +* evaluating: 1-1-1. (line 9) +* evaluator: Chapter 4. (line 56) +* event-driven simulation: 3-3-4. (line 13) +* evlis tail recursion: 5-4-1. (line 288) +* execution procedure: 4-1-7. (line 30) +* explicit-control evaluator: 5-4. (line 11) +* expression: 1-1-1. (line 8) +* failure continuation: 4-3-3. (line 31) +* FIFO: 3-3-2. (line 17) +* filter <1>: 2-2-3. (line 73) +* filter: 1-3-1. (line 218) +* first-class: 1-3-4. (line 200) +* fixed point: 1-3-3. (line 102) +* fixed-length: 2-3-4. (line 28) +* forcing: 4-2-2. (line 22) +* forwarding address: 5-3-2. (line 126) +* frame <1>: 4-4-2. (line 47) +* frame: 5-5-6. (line 48) +* frame coordinate map: 2-2-4. (line 265) +* framed-stack: 5-4-1. (line 266) +* frames: 3-2. (line 23) +* free: 1-1-8. (line 112) +* free list: 5-3-1. (line 290) +* front: 3-3-2. (line 13) +* full-adder: 3-3-4. (line 127) +* function boxes: 3-3-4. (line 21) +* functional programming: 3-1-3. (line 18) +* functional programming languages: 3-5-5. (line 172) +* garbage: 5-3-2. (line 12) +* garbage collection <1>: 5-3. (line 35) +* garbage collection: 5-3-2. (line 27) +* garbage collector: 3-3-1. (line 454) +* garbage-collected: 4-2-2. (line 398) +* generic operations: Chapter 2. (line 152) +* generic procedures <1>: 2-3-4. (line 220) +* generic procedures: 2-4. (line 56) +* glitches: Chapter 1. (line 38) +* global <1>: 3-2. (line 28) +* global: 1-2. (line 35) +* global environment: 1-1-2. (line 55) +* golden ratio: 1-2-2. (line 70) +* grammar: 4-3-2. (line 148) +* half-adder: 3-3-4. (line 52) +* half-interval method: 1-3-3. (line 20) +* Halting Theorem: 4-1-5. (line 185) +* headed list: 3-3-3. (line 21) +* hiding principle: 3-1-1. (line 301) +* hierarchical: 2-2. (line 60) +* hierarchy of types: 2-5-2. (line 159) +* higher-order procedures: 1-3. (line 39) +* Horner's rule: 2-2-3. (line 285) +* imperative programming: 3-1-3. (line 223) +* indeterminates: 2-5-3. (line 39) +* index: 5-3-1. (line 36) +* indexing: 4-4-2. (line 421) +* instantiated with: 4-4-1. (line 202) +* instruction: 5-2-4. (line 80) +* instruction execution: 5-2-1. (line 119) +* instruction sequence: 5-5-1. (line 88) +* instruction tracing: 5-2-4. (line 86) +* instructions <1>: Chapter 5. (line 37) +* instructions: 5-1-1. (line 22) +* integerizing factor: 2-5-3. (line 534) +* integers: 1-1. (line 54) +* integrator: 3-5-3. (line 421) +* interning: 5-3-1. (line 117) +* interpreter <1>: Chapter 1. (line 74) +* interpreter: Chapter 4. (line 56) +* invariant quantity: 1-2-4. (line 95) +* inverter: 3-3-4. (line 25) +* iterative improvement: 1-3-4. (line 290) +* iterative process: 1-2-1. (line 110) +* k-term: 1-3-3. (line 215) +* key: 2-3-3. (line 389) +* labels: 5-1-1. (line 23) +* lazy: 4-2-1. (line 13) +* lexical address: 5-5-6. (line 48) +* lexical addressing: 4-1-3. (line 228) +* lexical scoping: 1-1-8. (line 192) +* linear iterative process: 1-2-1. (line 117) +* linear recursive process: 1-2-1. (line 105) +* linkage descriptor: 5-5-1. (line 52) +* list: 2-2-1. (line 404) +* list structure: 2-2-1. (line 405) +* list-structured: 2-1-1. (line 121) +* list-structured memory: 5-3. (line 8) +* local evolution: 1-2. (line 32) +* local state variables: 3-1. (line 29) +* location: 5-3-1. (line 8) +* logic-programming: Chapter 4. (line 129) +* logical and: 3-3-4. (line 33) +* logical deductions: 4-4-1. (line 474) +* logical or: 3-3-4. (line 37) +* machine language: 5-5. (line 23) +* macro: 4-1-2. (line 401) +* map: 2-2-3. (line 74) +* mark-sweep: 5-3-2. (line 298) +* means of abstraction: 1-1. (line 21) +* means of combination: 1-1. (line 18) +* Memoization: 3-3-3. (line 258) +* memoization: 1-2-2. (line 245) +* memoize: 4-2-2. (line 27) +* merge: 3-5-5. (line 206) +* message passing <1>: 2-4-3. (line 359) +* message passing: 2-1-3. (line 91) +* message-passing: 3-1-1. (line 187) +* metacircular: 4-1. (line 12) +* Metalinguistic abstraction: Chapter 4. (line 52) +* Miller-Rabin test: 1-2-6. (line 253) +* modular: Chapter 3. (line 24) +* modulo: 1-2-6. (line 59) +* modus ponens: 4-4-3. (line 257) +* moments in time: 3-4. (line 30) +* Monte Carlo: 3-1-2. (line 43) +* Monte Carlo integration: 3-1-2. (line 140) +* mutable data: 3-3. (line 26) +* mutators: 3-3. (line 18) +* mutex: 3-4-2. (line 387) +* mutual exclusion: 3-4-2. (line 593) +* n-fold smoothed function: 1-3-4. (line 267) +* native language: 5-5. (line 22) +* needed: 5-5-1. (line 162) +* networks: Chapter 4. (line 147) +* Newton's method: 1-3-4. (line 67) +* nil: 2-2-1. (line 90) +* non-computable: 4-1-5. (line 186) +* non-strict: 4-2-1. (line 44) +* nondeterministic: 3-4-1. (line 237) +* nondeterministic choice point: 4-3-1. (line 59) +* nondeterministic computing <1>: Chapter 4. (line 120) +* nondeterministic computing: 4-3. (line 7) +* normal-order: 4-2-1. (line 9) +* normal-order evaluation <1>: 1-1-5. (line 125) +* normal-order evaluation: Chapter 4. (line 116) +* obarray: 5-3-1. (line 109) +* object program: 5-5. (line 47) +* objects: Chapter 3. (line 45) +* open-code: 5-5-5. (line 383) +* operands: 1-1-1. (line 45) +* operator <1>: 4-1-6. (line 302) +* operator: 1-1-1. (line 45) +* or-gate: 3-3-4. (line 35) +* order of growth: 1-2-3. (line 8) +* ordinary: 2-5-1. (line 25) +* output prompt: 4-1-4. (line 81) +* package: 2-4-3. (line 97) +* painter: 2-2-4. (line 31) +* pair: 2-1-1. (line 85) +* parse: 4-3-2. (line 135) +* Pascal's triangle: 1-2-2. (line 211) +* pattern: 4-4-1. (line 124) +* pattern matcher: 4-4-2. (line 37) +* pattern matching: 4-4-2. (line 23) +* pattern variable: 4-4-1. (line 128) +* pipelining: 3-4. (line 73) +* pointer: 2-2. (line 10) +* poly: 2-5-3. (line 77) +* power series: 3-5-2. (line 293) +* predicate: 1-1-6. (line 41) +* prefix: 2-3-4. (line 56) +* prefix code: 2-3-4. (line 57) +* prefix notation: 1-1-1. (line 51) +* pretty-printing: 1-1-1. (line 89) +* primitive constraints: 3-3-5. (line 27) +* primitive expressions: 1-1. (line 14) +* probabilistic algorithms: 1-2-6. (line 144) +* procedural abstraction: 1-1-8. (line 45) +* procedural epistemology: Preface 1e. (line 66) +* procedure: 1-2-1. (line 132) +* procedure definitions: 1-1-4. (line 18) +* procedures: Chapter 1. (line 119) +* process: 1-2-1. (line 131) +* program: Chapter 1. (line 21) +* programming languages: Chapter 1. (line 31) +* prompt: 4-1-4. (line 79) +* pseudo-random: 3-1-2. (line 200) +* pseudodivision: 2-5-3. (line 538) +* pseudoremainder: 2-5-3. (line 539) +* quasiquote: 5-5-2. (line 279) +* queries: 4-4. (line 99) +* query language: 4-4. (line 98) +* queue: 3-3-2. (line 12) +* quote: 2-3-1. (line 20) +* Ramanujan numbers: 3-5-3. (line 398) +* rational: 2-5-3. (line 426) +* RC circuit: 3-5-3. (line 465) +* read-eval-print loop: 1-1-1. (line 97) +* reader macro characters: 4-4-4-7. (line 128) +* real numbers: 1-1. (line 55) +* rear: 3-3-2. (line 13) +* Recursion: 4-1-5. (line 162) +* recursion equations: Chapter 1. (line 68) +* recursive <1>: 1-1-8. (line 7) +* recursive: 1-1-3. (line 23) +* recursive process: 1-2-1. (line 100) +* red-black trees: 2-3-3. (line 459) +* referentially transparent: 3-1-3. (line 156) +* register: Chapter 5. (line 36) +* register table: 5-2-1. (line 105) +* registers: Chapter 5. (line 38) +* released: 3-4-2. (line 388) +* remainder of: 1-2-6. (line 58) +* resolution: 4-4. (line 134) +* ripple-carry adder: 3-3-4. (line 238) +* robust: 2-2-4. (line 530) +* RSA algorithm: 1-2-6. (line 322) +* rules <1>: 4-4-1. (line 334) +* rules: 4-4. (line 113) +* satisfy: 4-4-1. (line 201) +* scope: 1-1-8. (line 113) +* selectors: 2-1. (line 27) +* semaphore: 3-4-2. (line 596) +* separator code: 2-3-4. (line 53) +* sequence: 2-2-1. (line 18) +* sequence accelerator: 3-5-3. (line 97) +* sequences: 1-3-1. (line 254) +* serializer: 3-4-2. (line 30) +* serializers: 3-4-2. (line 91) +* series RLC circuit: 3-5-4. (line 161) +* shadow: 3-2. (line 62) +* shared: 3-3-1. (line 248) +* side-effect bugs: 3-1-3. (line 320) +* sieve of: 3-5-2. (line 55) +* smoothing: 1-3-4. (line 259) +* source language: 5-5. (line 34) +* source program: 5-5. (line 39) +* sparse: 2-5-3. (line 254) +* special: 1-1-3. (line 96) +* stack <1>: 5-1-4. (line 82) +* stack: 1-2-1. (line 233) +* state variables <1>: 1-2-1. (line 112) +* state variables: 3-1. (line 11) +* statements: 5-5-1. (line 167) +* stop-and-copy: 5-3-2. (line 36) +* stratified design: 2-2-4. (line 499) +* stream processing: 1-1-5. (line 157) +* streams <1>: 3-5. (line 11) +* streams: Chapter 3. (line 48) +* strict: 4-2-1. (line 46) +* subroutine: 5-1-3. (line 75) +* substitution: 1-1-5. (line 153) +* substitution model: 1-1-5. (line 58) +* subtype: 2-5-2. (line 159) +* success continuation: 4-3-3. (line 29) +* summation of a series: 1-3-1. (line 50) +* summer: 3-5-3. (line 422) +* supertype: 2-5-2. (line 162) +* symbolic expressions: Chapter 2. (line 139) +* syntactic sugar: 1-1-3. (line 118) +* syntax: 4-1. (line 42) +* systematically search: 4-3-1. (line 75) +* systems: Chapter 4. (line 148) +* tableau: 3-5-3. (line 138) +* tabulation <1>: 1-2-2. (line 245) +* tabulation: 3-3-3. (line 258) +* tagged: 5-3-1. (line 274) +* tail-recursive <1>: 1-2-1. (line 155) +* tail-recursive: 5-4-2. (line 82) +* target: 5-5-1. (line 50) +* thrashing: UTF. (line 22) +* thunk: 4-2-2. (line 369) +* thunks: 4-2-2. (line 16) +* time: 3-4. (line 14) +* time segments: 3-3-4. (line 473) +* tower: 2-5-2. (line 165) +* tree accumulation: 1-1-3. (line 46) +* tree recursion: 1-2-2. (line 6) +* trees: 2-2-2. (line 36) +* truth maintenance: 4-3-1. (line 220) +* Turing machine: 4-1-5. (line 145) +* type: 2-4. (line 59) +* type field: 5-3-1. (line 268) +* type tag: 2-4-2. (line 25) +* type-inferencing: 3-5-4. (line 310) +* typed pointers: 5-3-1. (line 51) +* unbound: 3-2. (line 32) +* unification <1>: 4-4-2. (line 24) +* unification: 4-4. (line 43) +* unification algorithm: 4-4. (line 133) +* univariate polynomials: 2-5-3. (line 41) +* universal: 4-1-5. (line 73) +* upward-compatible extension: 4-2-2. (line 341) +* value: 1-1-2. (line 8) +* value of a variable: 3-2. (line 28) +* values: 2-3-1. (line 22) +* variable: 1-1-2. (line 8) +* variable-length: 2-3-4. (line 30) +* vector: 5-3-1. (line 19) +* width: 2-1-4. (line 87) +* wires: 3-3-4. (line 19) +* wishful thinking: 2-1-1. (line 24) +* zero crossings: 3-5-3. (line 506) + + + +Tag Table: +Node: Top225 +Node: UTF8481 +Node: Dedication11431 +Node: Foreword12780 +Node: Preface23514 +Node: Preface 1e26433 +Node: Acknowledgements32802 +Node: Chapter 139392 +Ref: Chapter 1-Footnote-147124 +Ref: Chapter 1-Footnote-247319 +Ref: Chapter 1-Footnote-348528 +Node: 1-149041 +Ref: 1-1-Footnote-151065 +Node: 1-1-152259 +Ref: 1-1-1-Footnote-155747 +Ref: 1-1-1-Footnote-255947 +Ref: 1-1-1-Footnote-356265 +Node: 1-1-256566 +Ref: 1-1-2-Footnote-158730 +Ref: 1-1-2-Footnote-258868 +Node: 1-1-359032 +Ref: Figure 1-161250 +Ref: 1-1-3-Footnote-164012 +Ref: 1-1-3-Footnote-264436 +Node: 1-1-465276 +Ref: 1-1-4-Footnote-168410 +Ref: 1-1-4-Footnote-268795 +Ref: 1-1-4-Footnote-369041 +Node: 1-1-569295 +Ref: 1-1-5-Footnote-175700 +Ref: 1-1-5-Footnote-276276 +Node: 1-1-676576 +Ref: Exercise 1-181726 +Ref: Exercise 1-282482 +Ref: Exercise 1-382676 +Ref: Exercise 1-482827 +Ref: Exercise 1-583111 +Ref: 1-1-6-Footnote-184069 +Ref: 1-1-6-Footnote-284527 +Ref: 1-1-6-Footnote-384652 +Node: 1-1-785063 +Ref: Exercise 1-689582 +Ref: Exercise 1-790524 +Ref: Exercise 1-891287 +Ref: 1-1-7-Footnote-191825 +Ref: 1-1-7-Footnote-292926 +Ref: 1-1-7-Footnote-393268 +Ref: 1-1-7-Footnote-493516 +Ref: 1-1-7-Footnote-594360 +Node: 1-1-894547 +Ref: Figure 1-295697 +Ref: 1-1-8-Footnote-1104460 +Ref: 1-1-8-Footnote-2104793 +Ref: 1-1-8-Footnote-3104943 +Ref: Footnote 28104963 +Ref: 1-1-8-Footnote-4105303 +Node: 1-2105480 +Node: 1-2-1108417 +Ref: Figure 1-3108567 +Ref: Figure 1-4110699 +Ref: Exercise 1-9116096 +Ref: Exercise 1-10116718 +Ref: 1-2-1-Footnote-1117593 +Ref: 1-2-1-Footnote-2118093 +Ref: 1-2-1-Footnote-3118455 +Node: 1-2-2119066 +Ref: Figure 1-5119923 +Ref: Exercise 1-11128012 +Ref: Exercise 1-12128301 +Ref: Exercise 1-13128760 +Ref: 1-2-2-Footnote-1129136 +Ref: 1-2-2-Footnote-2129280 +Ref: 1-2-2-Footnote-3129427 +Ref: 1-2-2-Footnote-4130108 +Node: 1-2-3130786 +Ref: Exercise 1-14133950 +Ref: Exercise 1-15134254 +Ref: 1-2-3-Footnote-1135390 +Node: 1-2-4135918 +Ref: Exercise 1-16138846 +Ref: Exercise 1-17139630 +Ref: Exercise 1-18140493 +Ref: Exercise 1-19140770 +Ref: 1-2-4-Footnote-1142685 +Ref: 1-2-4-Footnote-2143135 +Ref: 1-2-4-Footnote-3143251 +Ref: 1-2-4-Footnote-4143488 +Ref: 1-2-4-Footnote-5143816 +Node: 1-2-5143910 +Ref: Exercise 1-20146587 +Ref: 1-2-5-Footnote-1147386 +Ref: 1-2-5-Footnote-2147825 +Node: 1-2-6149468 +Ref: Exercise 1-21156079 +Ref: Exercise 1-22156230 +Ref: Exercise 1-23157945 +Ref: Exercise 1-24159069 +Ref: Exercise 1-25159530 +Ref: Exercise 1-26159941 +Ref: Exercise 1-27160942 +Ref: Exercise 1-28161261 +Ref: 1-2-6-Footnote-1162805 +Ref: 1-2-6-Footnote-2162909 +Ref: 1-2-6-Footnote-3163822 +Ref: 1-2-6-Footnote-4164455 +Ref: Footnote 1-47164477 +Ref: 1-2-6-Footnote-5165134 +Node: 1-3165968 +Node: 1-3-1168215 +Ref: Exercise 1-29172621 +Ref: Exercise 1-30173401 +Ref: Exercise 1-31173845 +Ref: Exercise 1-32174704 +Ref: Exercise 1-33175791 +Ref: 1-3-1-Footnote-1176755 +Ref: 1-3-1-Footnote-2176976 +Ref: 1-3-1-Footnote-3177262 +Ref: 1-3-1-Footnote-4178014 +Node: 1-3-2178112 +Ref: Exercise 1-34184435 +Ref: 1-3-2-Footnote-1184781 +Ref: 1-3-2-Footnote-2185370 +Node: 1-3-3185749 +Ref: Exercise 1-35193848 +Ref: Exercise 1-36194073 +Ref: Exercise 1-37194650 +Ref: Exercise 1-38196639 +Ref: Exercise 1-39197124 +Ref: 1-3-3-Footnote-1197774 +Ref: 1-3-3-Footnote-2198161 +Ref: 1-3-3-Footnote-3198288 +Ref: 1-3-3-Footnote-4198443 +Node: 1-3-4198613 +Ref: Exercise 1-40207466 +Ref: Exercise 1-41207720 +Ref: Exercise 1-42208104 +Ref: Exercise 1-43208434 +Ref: Exercise 1-44209314 +Ref: Exercise 1-45210053 +Ref: Exercise 1-46211135 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-1212101 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-2212452 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-3212516 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-4212779 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-5213072 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-6213189 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-7213338 +Ref: 1-3-4-Footnote-8213430 +Node: Chapter 2213777 +Ref: Chapter 2-Footnote-1223544 +Node: 2-1224396 +Node: 2-1-1226351 +Ref: Exercise 2-1232129 +Ref: 2-1-1-Footnote-1232493 +Ref: 2-1-1-Footnote-2232902 +Ref: 2-1-1-Footnote-3233769 +Node: 2-1-2234092 +Ref: Figure 2-1235801 +Ref: Exercise 2-2239032 +Ref: Exercise 2-3240136 +Node: 2-1-3240633 +Ref: Exercise 2-4245489 +Ref: Exercise 2-5245961 +Ref: Exercise 2-6246262 +Ref: 2-1-3-Footnote-1247140 +Node: 2-1-4248368 +Ref: Exercise 2-7251742 +Ref: Exercise 2-8252077 +Ref: Exercise 2-9252280 +Ref: Exercise 2-10252996 +Ref: Exercise 2-11253290 +Ref: Exercise 2-12254707 +Ref: Exercise 2-13255038 +Ref: Exercise 2-14256458 +Ref: Exercise 2-15256902 +Ref: Exercise 2-16257404 +Node: 2-2257686 +Ref: Figure 2-2258461 +Ref: Figure 2-3259139 +Ref: 2-2-Footnote-1261544 +Ref: 2-2-Footnote-2262051 +Node: 2-2-1263195 +Ref: Figure 2-4263329 +Ref: Exercise 2-17269117 +Ref: Exercise 2-18269325 +Ref: Exercise 2-19269534 +Ref: Exercise 2-20271409 +Ref: Exercise 2-21275272 +Ref: Exercise 2-22275800 +Ref: Exercise 2-23276818 +Ref: 2-2-1-Footnote-1277624 +Ref: 2-2-1-Footnote-2277830 +Ref: 2-2-1-Footnote-3278324 +Ref: 2-2-1-Footnote-4279122 +Ref: 2-2-1-Footnote-5279259 +Ref: Footnote 12279279 +Node: 2-2-2279803 +Ref: Figure 2-5280428 +Ref: Figure 2-6281728 +Ref: Exercise 2-24283697 +Ref: Exercise 2-25283961 +Ref: Exercise 2-26284158 +Ref: Exercise 2-27284480 +Ref: Exercise 2-28284950 +Ref: Exercise 2-29285332 +Ref: Exercise 2-30288704 +Ref: Exercise 2-31289170 +Ref: Exercise 2-32289402 +Ref: 2-2-2-Footnote-1290053 +Node: 2-2-3290182 +Ref: Figure 2-7293341 +Ref: Exercise 2-33300870 +Ref: Exercise 2-34301287 +Ref: Exercise 2-35302315 +Ref: Exercise 2-36302502 +Ref: Exercise 2-37303409 +Ref: Exercise 2-38304996 +Ref: Exercise 2-39305968 +Ref: Exercise 2-40310779 +Ref: Exercise 2-41311017 +Ref: Figure 2-8311209 +Ref: Exercise 2-42312017 +Ref: Exercise 2-43314847 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-1315774 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-2315970 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-3316694 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-4317641 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-5317734 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-6318085 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-7318252 +Ref: 2-2-3-Footnote-8318320 +Node: 2-2-4318587 +Ref: Figure 2-9319451 +Ref: Figure 2-10321413 +Ref: Figure 2-11321629 +Ref: Figure 2-12322127 +Ref: Figure 2-13323974 +Ref: Figure 2-14325687 +Ref: Exercise 2-44326516 +Ref: Exercise 2-45328445 +Ref: Figure 2-15329747 +Ref: Exercise 2-46331633 +Ref: Exercise 2-47332341 +Ref: Exercise 2-48334318 +Ref: Exercise 2-49334773 +Ref: Exercise 2-50339384 +Ref: Exercise 2-51339582 +Ref: Exercise 2-52343309 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-1344068 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-2344369 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-3347076 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-4347204 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-5347415 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-6347722 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-7347909 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-8348718 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-9348859 +Ref: 2-2-4-Footnote-10349015 +Node: 2-3349075 +Node: 2-3-1349615 +Ref: Exercise 2-53352845 +Ref: Exercise 2-54353239 +Ref: Exercise 2-55353912 +Ref: 2-3-1-Footnote-1354123 +Ref: 2-3-1-Footnote-2355077 +Ref: 2-3-1-Footnote-3355397 +Ref: 2-3-1-Footnote-4356300 +Ref: 2-3-1-Footnote-5356611 +Node: 2-3-2357090 +Ref: Exercise 2-56366282 +Ref: Exercise 2-57366894 +Ref: Exercise 2-58367388 +Node: 2-3-3368621 +Ref: Exercise 2-59372758 +Ref: Exercise 2-60372869 +Ref: Exercise 2-61377483 +Ref: Exercise 2-62377792 +Ref: Figure 2-16378668 +Ref: Figure 2-17383184 +Ref: Exercise 2-63383461 +Ref: Exercise 2-64384666 +Ref: Exercise 2-65386447 +Ref: Exercise 2-66389408 +Ref: 2-3-3-Footnote-1389619 +Ref: 2-3-3-Footnote-2390362 +Ref: 2-3-3-Footnote-3390611 +Ref: 2-3-3-Footnote-4390986 +Ref: 2-3-3-Footnote-5391177 +Node: 2-3-4391264 +Ref: Figure 2-18394846 +Ref: Exercise 2-67404897 +Ref: Exercise 2-68405406 +Ref: Exercise 2-69406219 +Ref: Exercise 2-70407200 +Ref: Exercise 2-71408132 +Ref: Exercise 2-72408470 +Ref: 2-3-4-Footnote-1409141 +Node: 2-4409232 +Ref: Figure 2-19413883 +Node: 2-4-1415135 +Ref: Figure 2-20416917 +Ref: 2-4-1-Footnote-1422407 +Ref: 2-4-1-Footnote-2422837 +Node: 2-4-2423084 +Ref: Figure 2-21429781 +Node: 2-4-3432113 +Ref: Figure 2-22436024 +Ref: Exercise 2-73442131 +Ref: Exercise 2-74444642 +Ref: Exercise 2-75449905 +Ref: Exercise 2-76450098 +Ref: 2-4-3-Footnote-1450711 +Ref: 2-4-3-Footnote-2450882 +Ref: 2-4-3-Footnote-3451033 +Ref: 2-4-3-Footnote-4451594 +Node: 2-5451693 +Ref: Figure 2-23453629 +Node: 2-5-1454784 +Ref: Figure 2-24462133 +Ref: Exercise 2-77462972 +Ref: Exercise 2-78464110 +Ref: Exercise 2-79465056 +Ref: Exercise 2-80465316 +Node: 2-5-2465559 +Ref: Figure 2-25474465 +Ref: Figure 2-26477175 +Ref: Exercise 2-81479477 +Ref: Exercise 2-82481274 +Ref: Exercise 2-83481831 +Ref: Exercise 2-84482238 +Ref: Exercise 2-85482721 +Ref: Exercise 2-86484213 +Ref: 2-5-2-Footnote-1484702 +Ref: 2-5-2-Footnote-2484810 +Ref: 2-5-2-Footnote-3484865 +Ref: 2-5-2-Footnote-4485497 +Ref: 2-5-2-Footnote-5486767 +Node: 2-5-3486900 +Ref: Exercise 2-87501069 +Ref: Exercise 2-88501276 +Ref: Exercise 2-89501450 +Ref: Exercise 2-90501599 +Ref: Exercise 2-91502211 +Ref: Exercise 2-92507097 +Ref: Exercise 2-93508218 +Ref: Exercise 2-94509819 +Ref: Exercise 2-95510533 +Ref: Exercise 2-96512557 +Ref: Exercise 2-97514593 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-1517208 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-2517485 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-3518048 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-4518377 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-5518781 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-6519101 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-7519639 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-8520441 +Ref: 2-5-3-Footnote-9520731 +Node: Chapter 3521067 +Node: 3-1524664 +Node: 3-1-1527051 +Ref: Exercise 3-1535441 +Ref: Exercise 3-2535989 +Ref: Exercise 3-3536986 +Ref: Exercise 3-4537575 +Ref: 3-1-1-Footnote-1537880 +Ref: 3-1-1-Footnote-2538295 +Ref: 3-1-1-Footnote-3538764 +Ref: 3-1-1-Footnote-4539037 +Ref: 3-1-1-Footnote-5539458 +Node: 3-1-2539753 +Ref: Exercise 3-5546537 +Ref: Exercise 3-6548796 +Ref: 3-1-2-Footnote-1549449 +Ref: 3-1-2-Footnote-2550475 +Ref: 3-1-2-Footnote-3550581 +Node: 3-1-3550810 +Ref: Exercise 3-7561953 +Ref: Exercise 3-8563026 +Ref: 3-1-3-Footnote-1563743 +Ref: 3-1-3-Footnote-2563969 +Ref: 3-1-3-Footnote-3564782 +Node: 3-2565442 +Ref: Figure 3-1567103 +Node: 3-2-1569751 +Ref: Figure 3-2571818 +Ref: Figure 3-3573821 +Ref: 3-2-1-Footnote-1576625 +Ref: 3-2-1-Footnote-2577302 +Node: 3-2-2577716 +Ref: Figure 3-4578518 +Ref: Figure 3-5579977 +Ref: Exercise 3-9583109 +Ref: 3-2-2-Footnote-1583893 +Node: 3-2-3584207 +Ref: Figure 3-6585276 +Ref: Figure 3-7587015 +Ref: Figure 3-8589212 +Ref: Figure 3-9591388 +Ref: Figure 3-10593188 +Ref: Exercise 3-10594417 +Ref: 3-2-3-Footnote-1595652 +Node: 3-2-4595900 +Ref: Figure 3-11596811 +Ref: Exercise 3-11601164 +Node: 3-3602612 +Node: 3-3-1604790 +Ref: Figure 3-12605322 +Ref: Figure 3-13606446 +Ref: Figure 3-14607596 +Ref: Figure 3-15608759 +Ref: Exercise 3-12612020 +Ref: Exercise 3-13613349 +Ref: Exercise 3-14613778 +Ref: Figure 3-16615472 +Ref: Figure 3-17615896 +Ref: Exercise 3-15618802 +Ref: Exercise 3-16618938 +Ref: Exercise 3-17619721 +Ref: Exercise 3-18620047 +Ref: Exercise 3-19620346 +Ref: Exercise 3-20622108 +Ref: 3-3-1-Footnote-1622484 +Ref: 3-3-1-Footnote-2622615 +Ref: 3-3-1-Footnote-3622917 +Ref: 3-3-1-Footnote-4623106 +Ref: 3-3-1-Footnote-5623471 +Ref: 3-3-1-Footnote-6624341 +Node: 3-3-2624592 +Ref: Figure 3-18625488 +Ref: Figure 3-19628495 +Ref: Figure 3-20630634 +Ref: Figure 3-21632126 +Ref: Exercise 3-21633233 +Ref: Exercise 3-22634543 +Ref: Exercise 3-23635187 +Ref: 3-3-2-Footnote-1635788 +Ref: 3-3-2-Footnote-2636093 +Node: 3-3-3636217 +Ref: Figure 3-22637535 +Ref: Figure 3-23640640 +Ref: Exercise 3-24646213 +Ref: Exercise 3-25646880 +Ref: Exercise 3-26647229 +Ref: Exercise 3-27647787 +Ref: 3-3-3-Footnote-1649789 +Ref: 3-3-3-Footnote-2649896 +Node: 3-3-4650234 +Ref: Figure 3-24652630 +Ref: Figure 3-25653606 +Ref: Figure 3-26656527 +Ref: Exercise 3-28660018 +Ref: Exercise 3-29660153 +Ref: Exercise 3-30660450 +Ref: Figure 3-27661415 +Ref: Exercise 3-31668906 +Ref: Exercise 3-32673581 +Ref: 3-3-4-Footnote-1674194 +Ref: 3-3-4-Footnote-2674579 +Ref: Footnote 27674599 +Ref: 3-3-4-Footnote-3675366 +Ref: 3-3-4-Footnote-4675578 +Ref: 3-3-4-Footnote-5675901 +Node: 3-3-5676141 +Ref: Figure 3-28678861 +Ref: Exercise 3-33694633 +Ref: Exercise 3-34694921 +Ref: Exercise 3-35695354 +Ref: Exercise 3-36696066 +Ref: Exercise 3-37696603 +Ref: 3-3-5-Footnote-1697548 +Ref: 3-3-5-Footnote-2698067 +Ref: 3-3-5-Footnote-3698176 +Node: 3-4700134 +Ref: 3-4-Footnote-1703605 +Node: 3-4-1703940 +Ref: Figure 3-29708702 +Ref: Figure 3-30711527 +Ref: Exercise 3-38714425 +Ref: 3-4-1-Footnote-1715364 +Ref: 3-4-1-Footnote-2715510 +Ref: 3-4-1-Footnote-3716318 +Ref: 3-4-1-Footnote-4716423 +Ref: 3-4-1-Footnote-5716709 +Ref: Footnote 39716729 +Node: 3-4-2717055 +Ref: Exercise 3-39723243 +Ref: Exercise 3-40723602 +Ref: Exercise 3-41724115 +Ref: Exercise 3-42725311 +Ref: Exercise 3-43730773 +Ref: Exercise 3-44731634 +Ref: Exercise 3-45732622 +Ref: Exercise 3-46737908 +Ref: Exercise 3-47738275 +Ref: Exercise 3-48740140 +Ref: Exercise 3-49740618 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-1743726 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-2744087 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-3744249 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-4744536 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-5744663 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-6745534 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-7745814 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-8746245 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-9747377 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-10747816 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-11748413 +Ref: 3-4-2-Footnote-12748753 +Node: 3-5748974 +Ref: 3-5-Footnote-1752049 +Node: 3-5-1752393 +Ref: Exercise 3-50765791 +Ref: Exercise 3-51766314 +Ref: Exercise 3-52766807 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-1767660 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-2767771 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-3767905 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-4768374 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-5768800 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-6769102 +Ref: 3-5-1-Footnote-7769840 +Node: 3-5-2770622 +Ref: Figure 3-31774565 +Ref: Exercise 3-53779541 +Ref: Exercise 3-54779701 +Ref: Exercise 3-55780097 +Ref: Exercise 3-56780366 +Ref: Exercise 3-57782294 +Ref: Exercise 3-58782733 +Ref: Exercise 3-59783208 +Ref: Exercise 3-60785531 +Ref: Exercise 3-61785997 +Ref: Exercise 3-62786775 +Ref: 3-5-2-Footnote-1787328 +Ref: 3-5-2-Footnote-2787914 +Ref: 3-5-2-Footnote-3788266 +Ref: 3-5-2-Footnote-4788352 +Ref: 3-5-2-Footnote-5788950 +Node: 3-5-3789303 +Ref: Exercise 3-63796170 +Ref: Exercise 3-64796973 +Ref: Exercise 3-65797449 +Ref: Exercise 3-66802137 +Ref: Exercise 3-67802596 +Ref: Exercise 3-68802841 +Ref: Exercise 3-69803458 +Ref: Exercise 3-70803800 +Ref: Exercise 3-71805240 +Ref: Exercise 3-72805976 +Ref: Figure 3-32807605 +Ref: Exercise 3-73808274 +Ref: Figure 3-33809445 +Ref: Exercise 3-74810281 +Ref: Exercise 3-75812190 +Ref: Exercise 3-76813456 +Ref: 3-5-3-Footnote-1814139 +Ref: 3-5-3-Footnote-2814332 +Ref: 3-5-3-Footnote-3814436 +Ref: 3-5-3-Footnote-4814525 +Ref: 3-5-3-Footnote-5814965 +Ref: 3-5-3-Footnote-6815134 +Node: 3-5-4815769 +Ref: Figure 3-34817508 +Ref: Exercise 3-77820295 +Ref: Figure 3-35821315 +Ref: Exercise 3-78822184 +Ref: Exercise 3-79822954 +Ref: Exercise 3-80823151 +Ref: Figure 3-36824328 +Ref: Figure 3-37824766 +Ref: 3-5-4-Footnote-1828660 +Ref: 3-5-4-Footnote-2828962 +Node: 3-5-5830205 +Ref: Exercise 3-81833112 +Ref: Exercise 3-82833626 +Ref: Figure 3-38839983 +Ref: 3-5-5-Footnote-1841967 +Ref: 3-5-5-Footnote-2842197 +Ref: 3-5-5-Footnote-3842538 +Ref: 3-5-5-Footnote-4843069 +Node: Chapter 4843642 +Ref: Chapter 4-Footnote-1851710 +Ref: Chapter 4-Footnote-2853189 +Node: 4-1853514 +Ref: 4-1-Footnote-1856851 +Ref: 4-1-Footnote-2857273 +Node: 4-1-1858879 +Ref: Figure 4-1859019 +Ref: Exercise 4-1868118 +Ref: 4-1-1-Footnote-1868913 +Ref: 4-1-1-Footnote-2869406 +Ref: 4-1-1-Footnote-3869617 +Ref: 4-1-1-Footnote-4869843 +Node: 4-1-2870013 +Ref: Exercise 4-2877896 +Ref: Exercise 4-3879035 +Ref: Exercise 4-4879377 +Ref: Exercise 4-5880427 +Ref: Exercise 4-6880989 +Ref: Exercise 4-7881521 +Ref: Exercise 4-8882407 +Ref: Exercise 4-9883284 +Ref: Exercise 4-10883787 +Ref: 4-1-2-Footnote-1884154 +Ref: 4-1-2-Footnote-2884440 +Ref: 4-1-2-Footnote-3884763 +Ref: 4-1-2-Footnote-4885069 +Ref: 4-1-2-Footnote-5885238 +Node: 4-1-3885801 +Ref: Exercise 4-11893079 +Ref: Exercise 4-12893334 +Ref: Exercise 4-13893684 +Ref: 4-1-3-Footnote-1894260 +Ref: 4-1-3-Footnote-2894537 +Node: 4-1-4894941 +Ref: Exercise 4-14899988 +Ref: 4-1-4-Footnote-1900466 +Ref: 4-1-4-Footnote-2900931 +Ref: 4-1-4-Footnote-3901728 +Node: 4-1-5902105 +Ref: Figure 4-2903023 +Ref: Figure 4-3904610 +Ref: Exercise 4-15907238 +Ref: 4-1-5-Footnote-1908135 +Ref: 4-1-5-Footnote-2909764 +Ref: 4-1-5-Footnote-3910256 +Ref: 4-1-5-Footnote-4910875 +Ref: 4-1-5-Footnote-5911074 +Node: 4-1-6911462 +Ref: Exercise 4-16915321 +Ref: Exercise 4-17916073 +Ref: Exercise 4-18916728 +Ref: Exercise 4-19917612 +Ref: Exercise 4-20918981 +Ref: Exercise 4-21921509 +Ref: 4-1-6-Footnote-1923241 +Ref: 4-1-6-Footnote-2924005 +Ref: 4-1-6-Footnote-3924389 +Ref: 4-1-6-Footnote-4924848 +Node: 4-1-7925221 +Ref: Exercise 4-22933103 +Ref: Exercise 4-23933232 +Ref: Exercise 4-24934892 +Ref: 4-1-7-Footnote-1935210 +Ref: 4-1-7-Footnote-2935550 +Ref: 4-1-7-Footnote-3935911 +Node: 4-2935996 +Ref: 4-2-Footnote-1937497 +Node: 4-2-1937816 +Ref: Exercise 4-25940789 +Ref: Exercise 4-26941213 +Ref: 4-2-1-Footnote-1941956 +Ref: 4-2-1-Footnote-2942348 +Node: 4-2-2942776 +Ref: Exercise 4-27951267 +Ref: Exercise 4-28951889 +Ref: Exercise 4-29952135 +Ref: Exercise 4-30952747 +Ref: Exercise 4-31955664 +Ref: 4-2-2-Footnote-1957272 +Ref: 4-2-2-Footnote-2957612 +Ref: 4-2-2-Footnote-3957973 +Ref: 4-2-2-Footnote-4958673 +Ref: 4-2-2-Footnote-5959409 +Node: 4-2-3959607 +Ref: Exercise 4-32963502 +Ref: Exercise 4-33963738 +Ref: Exercise 4-34964271 +Ref: 4-2-3-Footnote-1964625 +Ref: 4-2-3-Footnote-2964719 +Ref: 4-2-3-Footnote-3965193 +Node: 4-3965364 +Ref: 4-3-Footnote-1969993 +Node: 4-3-1970682 +Ref: Exercise 4-35975869 +Ref: Exercise 4-36976500 +Ref: Exercise 4-37977094 +Ref: 4-3-1-Footnote-1977800 +Ref: 4-3-1-Footnote-2977925 +Ref: 4-3-1-Footnote-3978395 +Ref: 4-3-1-Footnote-4978960 +Ref: 4-3-1-Footnote-5979191 +Ref: Footnote 4-47979213 +Node: 4-3-2981515 +Ref: Exercise 4-38983852 +Ref: Exercise 4-39984059 +Ref: Exercise 4-40984400 +Ref: Exercise 4-41985210 +Ref: Exercise 4-42985310 +Ref: Exercise 4-43986171 +Ref: Exercise 4-44987060 +Ref: Exercise 4-45994191 +Ref: Exercise 4-46994470 +Ref: Exercise 4-47994795 +Ref: Exercise 4-48995413 +Ref: Exercise 4-49995655 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-1996160 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-2996564 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-3996737 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-4996877 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-5997059 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-6997173 +Ref: 4-3-2-Footnote-7997729 +Node: 4-3-3998130 +Ref: Exercise 4-501018381 +Ref: Exercise 4-511018634 +Ref: Exercise 4-521019432 +Ref: Exercise 4-531020349 +Ref: Exercise 4-541020746 +Ref: 4-3-3-Footnote-11021816 +Ref: 4-3-3-Footnote-21022184 +Ref: 4-3-3-Footnote-31022318 +Node: 4-41022456 +Ref: 4-4-Footnote-11029014 +Ref: 4-4-Footnote-21030983 +Ref: 4-4-Footnote-31031215 +Ref: 4-4-Footnote-41031670 +Node: 4-4-11032564 +Ref: Exercise 4-551040249 +Ref: Exercise 4-561043701 +Ref: Exercise 4-571046592 +Ref: Exercise 4-581047092 +Ref: Exercise 4-591047287 +Ref: Exercise 4-601048862 +Ref: Exercise 4-611052088 +Ref: Exercise 4-621052481 +Ref: Exercise 4-631052863 +Ref: 4-4-1-Footnote-11053775 +Ref: 4-4-1-Footnote-21053855 +Ref: 4-4-1-Footnote-31054060 +Ref: 4-4-1-Footnote-41054363 +Ref: 4-4-1-Footnote-51055069 +Node: 4-4-21055244 +Ref: Figure 4-41060001 +Ref: Figure 4-51062128 +Ref: Figure 4-61063177 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-11074440 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-21075178 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-31075350 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-41075484 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-51075647 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-61075807 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-71076224 +Ref: 4-4-2-Footnote-81076511 +Node: 4-4-31076881 +Ref: Exercise 4-641084192 +Ref: Exercise 4-651084974 +Ref: Exercise 4-661085496 +Ref: Exercise 4-671086850 +Ref: Exercise 4-681087530 +Ref: Exercise 4-691087844 +Ref: 4-4-3-Footnote-11088656 +Ref: 4-4-3-Footnote-21089039 +Ref: 4-4-3-Footnote-31090079 +Ref: 4-4-3-Footnote-41091066 +Ref: 4-4-3-Footnote-51091465 +Node: 4-4-41091576 +Node: 4-4-4-11092224 +Node: 4-4-4-21095805 +Node: 4-4-4-31102085 +Node: 4-4-4-41108361 +Ref: 4-4-4-4-Footnote-11116077 +Node: 4-4-4-51117516 +Ref: Exercise 4-701122838 +Node: 4-4-4-61123374 +Node: 4-4-4-71125324 +Ref: 4-4-4-7-Footnote-11129811 +Node: 4-4-4-81130461 +Ref: Exercise 4-711131036 +Ref: Exercise 4-721131947 +Ref: Exercise 4-731132203 +Ref: Exercise 4-741132566 +Ref: Exercise 4-751133348 +Ref: Exercise 4-761135338 +Ref: Exercise 4-771136553 +Ref: Exercise 4-781137301 +Ref: Exercise 4-791137989 +Node: Chapter 51139620 +Node: 5-11144169 +Ref: Figure 5-11148205 +Ref: Figure 5-21150257 +Ref: Exercise 5-11150758 +Node: 5-1-11151464 +Ref: Figure 5-31153704 +Ref: Exercise 5-21158024 +Ref: Figure 5-41160159 +Ref: 5-1-1-Footnote-11161965 +Node: 5-1-21162143 +Ref: Figure 5-51163626 +Ref: Figure 5-61165264 +Ref: Exercise 5-31165848 +Node: 5-1-31166687 +Ref: Figure 5-71167558 +Ref: Figure 5-81171094 +Ref: Figure 5-91171788 +Ref: Figure 5-101172715 +Node: 5-1-41175717 +Ref: Figure 5-111185233 +Ref: Figure 5-121187875 +Ref: Exercise 5-41189572 +Ref: Exercise 5-51190244 +Ref: Exercise 5-61190491 +Ref: 5-1-4-Footnote-11190752 +Ref: 5-1-4-Footnote-21191069 +Node: 5-1-51191176 +Node: 5-21192494 +Ref: Exercise 5-71195523 +Node: 5-2-11195827 +Ref: Figure 5-131201010 +Node: 5-2-21204835 +Ref: Exercise 5-81210256 +Ref: 5-2-2-Footnote-11210916 +Node: 5-2-31212370 +Ref: Exercise 5-91224230 +Ref: Exercise 5-101224536 +Ref: Exercise 5-111224801 +Ref: Exercise 5-121226235 +Ref: Exercise 5-131227372 +Node: 5-2-41227753 +Ref: Exercise 5-141230258 +Ref: Exercise 5-151231210 +Ref: Exercise 5-161231548 +Ref: Exercise 5-171231849 +Ref: Exercise 5-181232284 +Ref: Exercise 5-191232791 +Node: 5-31234069 +Node: 5-3-11236352 +Ref: Figure 5-141240036 +Ref: Exercise 5-201246149 +Ref: Exercise 5-211246527 +Ref: Exercise 5-221247401 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-11247815 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-21248013 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-31248219 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-41248470 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-51249366 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-61249835 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-71250013 +Ref: 5-3-1-Footnote-81250329 +Node: 5-3-21250562 +Ref: Figure 5-151255146 +Ref: 5-3-2-Footnote-11264355 +Ref: 5-3-2-Footnote-21265083 +Ref: 5-3-2-Footnote-31265266 +Ref: 5-3-2-Footnote-41266966 +Ref: 5-3-2-Footnote-51267164 +Ref: 5-3-2-Footnote-61267323 +Node: 5-41267818 +Ref: Figure 5-161270514 +Ref: 5-4-Footnote-11271857 +Node: 5-4-11271962 +Ref: 5-4-1-Footnote-11283533 +Ref: 5-4-1-Footnote-21284008 +Ref: 5-4-1-Footnote-31284638 +Ref: 5-4-1-Footnote-41285047 +Ref: 5-4-1-Footnote-51285570 +Node: 5-4-21285795 +Ref: 5-4-2-Footnote-11292180 +Ref: 5-4-2-Footnote-21292358 +Ref: 5-4-2-Footnote-31292770 +Node: 5-4-31292867 +Ref: Exercise 5-231296343 +Ref: Exercise 5-241296606 +Ref: Exercise 5-251296912 +Ref: 5-4-3-Footnote-11297084 +Node: 5-4-41297348 +Ref: Exercise 5-261303310 +Ref: Exercise 5-271304361 +Ref: Exercise 5-281305339 +Ref: Exercise 5-291305739 +Ref: Exercise 5-301306872 +Ref: 5-4-4-Footnote-11309117 +Ref: 5-4-4-Footnote-21309694 +Ref: 5-4-4-Footnote-31309828 +Ref: 5-4-4-Footnote-41310012 +Node: 5-51310342 +Ref: 5-5-Footnote-11319540 +Ref: 5-5-Footnote-21319883 +Node: 5-5-11320483 +Ref: Exercise 5-311329255 +Ref: Exercise 5-321329973 +Ref: 5-5-1-Footnote-11331010 +Node: 5-5-21331497 +Ref: 5-5-2-Footnote-11343888 +Ref: 5-5-2-Footnote-21344431 +Ref: 5-5-2-Footnote-31345261 +Ref: Footnote 381345281 +Node: 5-5-31345774 +Ref: 5-5-3-Footnote-11359741 +Ref: 5-5-3-Footnote-21359982 +Ref: 5-5-3-Footnote-31361183 +Node: 5-5-41361321 +Ref: 5-5-4-Footnote-11368641 +Node: 5-5-51368884 +Ref: Exercise 5-331375666 +Ref: Exercise 5-341376138 +Ref: Figure 5-171376685 +Ref: Exercise 5-351381308 +Ref: Figure 5-181381415 +Ref: Exercise 5-361384062 +Ref: Exercise 5-371384613 +Ref: Exercise 5-381385094 +Ref: 5-5-5-Footnote-11388949 +Ref: 5-5-5-Footnote-21389198 +Node: 5-5-61389553 +Ref: Exercise 5-391394292 +Ref: Exercise 5-401394853 +Ref: Exercise 5-411395108 +Ref: Exercise 5-421395760 +Ref: Exercise 5-431396786 +Ref: Exercise 5-441397409 +Ref: 5-5-6-Footnote-11398685 +Ref: 5-5-6-Footnote-21398797 +Ref: 5-5-6-Footnote-31399039 +Node: 5-5-71399480 +Ref: Exercise 5-451406558 +Ref: Exercise 5-461408687 +Ref: Exercise 5-471409349 +Ref: Exercise 5-481410758 +Ref: Exercise 5-491411445 +Ref: Exercise 5-501411953 +Ref: Exercise 5-511412401 +Ref: Exercise 5-521412748 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-11413071 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-21413338 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-31413719 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-41414378 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-51414517 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-61415891 +Ref: 5-5-7-Footnote-71416476 +Node: References1416871 +Node: Index1432991 + +End Tag Table |