In previous labs, you've seen that it's possible to define complex
expressions from simpler expressions. For example, we might write the
following for
express val explicitly as a rational number
.
(/ (inexact->exact (numerator val))
(inexact->exact (denominator val)))
What happens when we want to try this expression using different values?
One possibility is to redefine val and then re-execute the expression.
> (define val (sqrt 2))
> (/ (inexact->exact (numerator val))
(inexact->exact (denominator val)))
1592262918131443/1125899906842624
> (define val 5)
> (/ (inexact->exact (numerator val))
(inexact->exact (denominator val)))
5
> (define val (exp 1))
765128314358509/281474976710656
But this seems cumbersome. It would be nice to simply give a name
to this expression and use that name. Unfortunately, our current
way of naming doesn't quite work.
> (define val (sqrt 2))
> (define frac (/ (inexact->exact (numerator val))
(inexact->exact (denominator val)))
> frac
1592262918131443/1125899906842624
> (define val 5)
> frac
1592262918131443/1125899906842624
What's going on? Scheme evaluated the expression that accompnaies
frac once, when it was first defined. Hence,
since the expression had a particular value once, it retains that
value forever.
What we'd really like to do is to say that frac
is a procedure that takes a value as an input and returns
an appropriate fraction
. You know that Scheme has procedures, since
you've used lots of built-in procedures, including sqrt,
*, cons, and list. But can you
define your own procedures? Yes.
You use define to give names to procedures, just as you use it
to give names for values. The values just look different. The general
form of a procedure is
(lambda (formal-parameters)
expression)
For example, we might write our frac procedure as
(define frac
(lambda (val)
(/ (inexact->exact (numerator val))
(inexact->exact (denominator val)))))
Our frac procedure can now be called as if it were a built-in
procedure.
> (frac (sqrt 2))
1592262918131443/1125899906842624
> (frac 5)
5
> (frac 22/7)
22/7
We can define procedures for anything we already know how to do in Scheme.
For example, here is a simple square procedure.
(define square
(lambda (n)
(* n n)))
We can test it.
> (square 2)
4
> (square -4)
16
> (square square)
*: expects type <number> as 1st argument, given: #<procedure:square>; other arguments were: #<procedure:square>
> (square 'a)
*: expects type <number> as 1st argument, given: a; other arguments were: a
Convention in Scheme (and all programming languages) is that we carefully
document what our procedures do, including input values, output values,
and assumptions. We use comments provide information to the reader of
our program (that is, to people instead of the computer). In Scheme,
comments begin with a semicolon and end with the end of the line.
;;; Samuel A. Rebelsky
;;; Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
;;; Grinnell College
;;; rebelsky@cs.grinnell.edu
;;; Procedue:
;;; square
;;; Parameters:
;;; val, a number
;;; Purpose:
;;; Compute val*val
;;; Produces:
;;; The result of the computation
;;; Preconditions:
;;; val must be a number
;;; Postconditions:
;;; The result is the same "type" of number as val (e.g., if
;;; val is an integer, so is the result; if val is exact,
;;; so is the result).
;;; Citations:
;;; Based on code created by John David Stone dated March 17, 2000
;;; and contained in the Web page
;;; http://www.math.grin.edu/~stone/courses/scheme/procedure-definitions.xhtml
;;; Changes to
;;; Parameter names
;;; Formatting
;;; Comments
(define square
(lambda (value)
(* value value)))
Yes, that's a lot of documentation for very little code. However, it is
better to err on the side of too much documentation than too little
documentation. More importantly, as you start writing more procedures,
their purpose and details will be much less obvious. Finally, when you
carefully document procedures, you begin to think more carefully about
what they really need to do and how you ensure that they do so for
all cases.
Here's another set of documentation, this time for the frac
procedure that we wrote earlier.
When documenting frac, we are forced to think about (1) what
kinds of numbers it works on (in this case, it doesn't work on complex
numbers); (2) what, precisely, the relationship of the result to the
input is; and (3) what type the result has.
;;; Procedure:
;;; frac
;;; Parameters:
;;; val, a number
;;; Purpose:
;;; Express val as a fraction.
;;; Procedues:
;;; rat, a rational number.
;;; Preconditions:
;;; val cannot be complex.
;;; Postconditions:
;;; rat is exact.
;;; rat is approximately equal to val (within some unknown level
;;; of accuracy).
;;; rat is the ratio of two integers.
(define frac
(lambda (val)
(/ (inexact->exact (numerator val))
(inexact->exact (denominator val)))))
At times, we will want to write procedures that take more than one
parameter. Such procedures look just like procedures with one
parameter, except that you can list more parameters between the
parentheses.
(lambda (param1, param2 ... paramn)
expression
)
For example, here is a simple procedure that finds the average of two
nubmers
;;; Samuel A. Rebelsky
;;; Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
;;; Grinnell College
;;; rebelsky@cs.grinnell.edu
;;; Procedure:
;;; pairave
;;; Parameters:
;;; val1, an exact number
;;; val2, an exact number
;;; Purpose:
;;; Compute the average of two numbers.
;;; Produces:
;;; ave, The average of those two numbers.
;;; Preconditions:
;;; Both val1 and val2 are exact numbers.
;;; Postconditions:
;;; ave is an exact number.
;;; ave is equidistant from val1 and val2. That is
;;; (abs (- val1 ave)) equals (abs (- val2 ave))
(define pairave
(lambda (val1 val2)
(/ (+ val1 val2) 2)))
As this example may suggest, in your documentation it is particularly
important to think about what you can guarantee about the results of
your procedure. In this case, what does it mean to be the average
of two values.
Monday, 4 September 2000 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Monday, 9 September 2002 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
Wednesday, 22 September 2003 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
- Even more comments on the importance of documentation.
- Updated a reference to an old example so that it corresponded
to a new example.
- Reformatted slightly.
Friday, 24 Septemer 2003 [Samuel A. Rebelsky]
;
Check with Bobby