[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cond(itionals) with optional execution of statements
From: |
Zelphir Kaltstahl |
Subject: |
Re: cond(itionals) with optional execution of statements |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Sep 2021 18:36:03 +0000 |
Hi Damien!
I see! Indeed, some indentation happening there. I get the point now, thank you.
Could be well worth it, but it depends on how much you get out of it, compared
to how much additional mental load you get for introducing a new control flow
concept. Sometimes it is worth taking a step back and refactoring part of the
logic out into a separate procedure, which then starts at a lower level of
indentation again, avoiding the problem. I don't know your scenario though, so
this is only a general idea.
I would probably write the `cond` version a bit different, to avoid `begin` and
break a few lines at other places to avoid the indentation taking a lot of
horizontal space. I am not sure it makes sense in your context, but here it is:
~~~~
(define (ssigma-proto L t)
(set! cpt {cpt + 1})
(define ls (length L))
(define dyn (array-ref dyna ls t))
;; dyna[ls][t] means 0: unknown solution, 1: solution found, 2: no solution
(cond
[(not (zero? dyn)) (one? dyn)]
[(null? L) (array-set! dyna 2 ls t) #f] ;; return #f
[else
(let [(c (first L))]
(cond
[{c = t} ;; c is the solution
(array-set! dyna 1 ls t)
#t] ;; return #t
[else
(let [(R (rest L))]
(cond
[{c > t} ;; continue searching a solution in the rest
(let [(s (ssigma-proto R t))]
(array-set! dyna (one-two s) ls t)
s)] ;; return s
[else
;; c < t at this point
;; c is part of the solution or his approximation
;; or c is not part of solution
(let [(s {(ssigma-proto R {t - c}) or (ssigma-proto R t)})]
(array-set! dyna (one-two s) ls t)
s)]))]))]))
~~~~
(Removed some empty lines for brevity in this e-mail. Sometimes I like good
empty lines too! Could the `set!` be replaced using a `define`?)
I guess the expressions in braces are using infix operations like the `or` or
`=` in the condition of `{c = t}`.
Best regards,
Zelphir
On 9/12/21 7:05 PM, Damien Mattei wrote:
> Hello Zelphir,
>
> condx evaluate all code(s) in the 'exec' block until a conditional is true, it
> then evaluate the consequent code of course.
> So ,yes your true it saves a lot of nesting parenthesis as in this example:
>
> here a code with condx and without it:
>
>
> (define (ssigma-proto-condx L t)
>
> (set! cpt {cpt + 1})
>
> (define ls (length L))
> (define dyn (array-ref dyna ls t))
>
> ;; dyna[ls][t] means 0: unknown solution, 1: solution found, 2: no solution
>
> (condx [(not (zero? dyn)) (one? dyn)]
> [(null? L) (array-set! dyna 2 ls t) #f] ;; return #f
>
> [exec (define c (first L))]
>
> ;; c is the solution
> [{c = t} (array-set! dyna 1 ls t) #t] ;; return #t
>
> [exec (define R (rest L))]
>
> ;; continue searching a solution in the rest
> [{c > t} (define s (ssigma-proto R t))
> (array-set! dyna
> (one-two s)
> ls t)
> s] ;; return s
>
> ;; else :
> ;; c < t at this point
> ;; c is part of the solution or his approximation
> ;; or c is not part of solution
> [else (define s {(ssigma-proto R {t - c}) or (ssigma-proto R t)})
> (array-set! dyna (one-two s)
> ls t)
> s]))
>
>
> without condx:
>
>
>
> (define (ssigma-proto L t)
>
> (set! cpt {cpt + 1})
>
> (define ls (length L))
> (define dyn (array-ref dyna ls t))
>
> ;; dyna[ls][t] means 0: unknown solution, 1: solution found, 2: no solution
>
> (cond [(not (zero? dyn)) (one? dyn)]
> [(null? L) (array-set! dyna 2 ls t) #f] ;; return #f
>
> [else (let [(c (first L))]
>
> (if {c = t} ;; c is the solution
>
> (begin
> (array-set! dyna 1 ls t)
> #t) ;; return #t
>
> ;; else
> (let [(R (rest L))]
>
> (if {c > t} ;; continue searching a solution in the rest
>
> (let [(s (ssigma-proto R t))]
> (array-set! dyna
> (one-two s)
> ls t)
>
> s) ;; return s
>
> ;; else
> ;; c < t at this point
> ;; c is part of the solution or his approximation
> ;; or c is not part of solution
> (let [(s {(ssigma-proto R {t - c}) or (ssigma-proto R
> t)})]
> (array-set! dyna (one-two s)
> ls t)
> s)))))
> ] ))
>
>
> there a lot more of indentation and nesting.
>
> Note also that the use of let () in condx definition allow to use define in
> consequent and 'exec' block.
>
> Damien
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:41 AM Zelphir Kaltstahl <zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de
> <mailto:zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Damien!
>
> I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind condx: I think cond is
> already a
> macro, which only evaluates a consequent, if the predicate of its case is
> #t.
> Additionally multiple expressions are possible in each branch.
>
> To clarify, I ask: What is the case, where condx does or does not evaluate
> some
> code, when cond would not or would? Or is it rather about the different
> nesting
> / sequence of expressions, which condx seems to enable? I think the flow
> you
> demonstrate might save a bit of nesting.
>
> Best regards,
> Zelphir
>
> On 9/11/21 11:14 AM, Damien Mattei wrote:
> > hello,
> >
> > i wrote a little macro (file condx.scm) that allow : cond(itionals)
> with
> > optional execution of statements before:
> >
> > (define-syntax condx
> > (syntax-rules (exec)
> > ((_)
> > (error 'condx "No else clause"))
> > ((_ (else e ...))
> > (let () e ...))
> > ((_ (exec s ...) d1 ...)
> > (let () s ... (condx d1 ...)))
> > ((_ (t e ...) tail ...)
> > (if t
> > (let () e ...)
> > (condx tail ...)))))
> >
> > use it like that:
> >
> > mattei@macbook-pro-touch-bar library-FunctProg % guile
> > GNU Guile 3.0.7
> > Copyright (C) 1995-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > Guile comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `,show w'.
> > This program is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
> > under certain conditions; type `,show c' for details.
> >
> > Enter `,help' for help.
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (load "condx.scm")
> > ;;; note: auto-compilation is enabled, set GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0
> > ;;; or pass the --no-auto-compile argument to disable.
> > ;;; compiling /Users/mattei/Dropbox/git/library-FunctProg/condx.scm
> > ;;; compiled
> >
>
> /Users/mattei/.cache/guile/ccache/3.0-LE-8-4.5/Users/mattei/Dropbox/git/library-FunctProg/condx.scm.go
> > scheme@(guile-user)> (define x 1)
> >
> > (condx ((= x 7) 'never)
> > (exec
> > (define y 3)
> > (set! x 7))
> > ((= y 1) 'definitely_not)
> > (exec
> > (set! y 10)
> > (define z 2))
> > ((= x 7) (+ x y z))
> > (else 'you_should_not_be_here))
> > $1 = 19
> >
> > i share it to have idea about critics or idea to improve it as it will
> be
> > part of a Scheme extension to scheme language that will include other
> > features....
> >
> > have a good day
> >
> > Damien
>
> --
> repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl
> <https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl>
>
--
repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl