![]() |
![]() |
|
Due
Submit:
X6.rkt and X6-test.rkt (or, X6-java/*.java) on D2L
.
Include prolog-code in a block comment near the start of your file,
and (perhaps only)
the changed code from X4 (tagged “;>>>X5” and “;>>>X6”).
Write the following Prolog predicates. Do not use append. For full credit, give idiomatic Prolog (no singleton variables, and no = on the right-hand-side).
Note that the Prolog standard library contains several list functions which you are not to use for this assignment (e.g. append and reverse). Also, for full credit, don’t merely reverse the input list and operate on that result.
We continue to build on the X language implementation from previous homeworks (X4 sol'n). You may implement this homework in either Java or Racket (or another language, if you've cleared it with me). Copy your X0-X4 file/project to a new X51. Label each section of lines you change with a comment “;>>>X5” or “;>>>X6”. You don't need to turn in any hardcopy of unchanged-code (but do submit a fully-working copy in the drop-box, including all necessary files).
There are two problems2
with the substitution approach used in X2–X4:
(i) we fundamentally can't create recursive functions,
and (ii) it’s hopeless should we want to add assigment to our language.
Less importantly, you might also have thought it's a bit inefficient (by a factor of two),
to do a substitution on an entire sub-tree, and then immediately re-walk through that same subtree
then eval it.
Can't we do those substitutions while we eval, “just in time”?
We solve these problems with deferred substitution:
Rather than substituting,
we’ll just remember what substitutions we want made,
and if we ever encounter an identifier then we look it
up in our set-of-deferred-substitutions — our environment.
So now we can
evaluate ~y add 3! with an environment where y is bound to 7,
and also
evaluate ~y add 3! with an environment where y is bound to 99.
X5 :
This problem and the next are really the crux of the project.)
Deferred evaluation:
X5 doesn't add any new syntax,
but it is a different evaluation model which
will give us more expressive semantics.
Then, go back and define eval as a function which still takes just one input (an Expr), and simply calls eval-with-env, passing it an empty-environment. That is, eval-with-env is the helper-function which does all the heavy lifting, and eval is a light wrapper around eval-with-env.
This way, all your existing tests to eval can be unchanged, but you can add some unit-tests for eval-with-env to help figure out what that function needs to do with its environment.
Your test cases should include a recursive X5 function, as well as the addM example below. Here are just a few cases you might want to test:
A step sideways: This X5 algorithm has improved on X4: we can now hope to handle recursive functions. But it’s also worse, because it now fails on some expressions that X4 got correct! For example,gives an error
let make-adder <- func{m} returns [func{n} returns ~n add m!] in call [call make-adder passing 4] passing 3 ; racket equivalent to the above X5: (let {[make-adder (lambda (m) (lambda (n) (+ m n)))]} ((make-adder 4) 3))unbound identifier: mif no substitution has been done. The problem is that, in X5, calling call make-adder passing 4 returns a function whose body still includes m and n, but lacks the fact that we’d like it’s m to be bound to 3. One approach might be to have eval return both a value and an environment to use that value with. We’ll solve the problem in X6 with a slightly different approach, storing the environment-to-use inside the function-representation.
Note that X5’s eval now gives us dynamic scoping:
let m <- 100 in let returnM <- func{x} returns m in let m <- 5 in call returnM passing 3 ; the racket equivalent(?) of the above X5: (let {[m 100]} (let {[returnM (lambda(x) m)]} (let {[m 5]} (returnM 3)))) |
Here's another example (w/ a slightly-less-trivial function):
let m <- 100 in let addM <- func{x} returns ~x add m! in ~ let m <- 5 in call addM passing 3 add let m <- 4 in call addM passing 3 ! ; The racket equivalent(?) of the above X5: (let {[m 100]} (let {[addM (lambda (x) (+ x m))]} (+ (let {[m 5]} (addM 3)) (let {[m 4]} (addM 3))))) |
In dynamic scope, the use of a free variable (here, m) will refer to its most recent run-time definition! If m is free within a function addM, you can't tell where its binding occurence is (let m <- 5? Or is it let m <- 100?). In general, a function far far way might introduce its own, local m and call addM; the function addM will use that far-distant, “local” m!5.
Upshot: We’ll make X6, to reclaim static scope, and get what we expect!
This might (or might not) entail updating some of your test-cases, if they called make-func.
To think about: Hmm, when we first parse our expression, we’ll create function-expressions, but (since we're not eval'ing) we don't have any bindings right then. So, initially create it with an dummy environment (a sentinel value like #f).
Only later, when we eval-with-env a function, will we actually know about any bindings (since that call to eval-with-env was given a list of bindings)….
subtlety: This means that a function won't quite evaluate to itself anymore — it’ll evaluate to a struct that has the same parameter and body as the original (parsed) structure, but a fleshed-out, non-dummy closure.
Note that toString needs no updating, nor does subst since we got rid of that in X5.
At this point, your code should run again (but fail the two new tests).
Challenge/extra-credit Getting recursive functions to work is a bit tricky: their environment (closure) needs to include its own name! That is, we’ll have eventually end up with a function-struct whose closure-field is a list containing the function-struct. That’s not a problem in racket, no more than it is in Java -- racket struct values are actually references-to-structs, just like in Java6. However, it is a place where you might want to use mutation (read on).
The tricky bit is that when you're evaling a func-expr you don't yet have its associated name, hmmm. So after the let-statement has finished evaling its “right-hand-side” value (which turns out to be a function, including its closure), then you’ll want to further reach in and modify that closure to include one additional ID/value pair. You can, if you like, use the struct-setter (something like “set-func-closure!”); see mutation in racket below.
The “need” for mutation comes from the cyclical data-dependency: a function-struct contains an environment which refers to that function-struct. Using shared function, to create cyclical data, removes the need for you to do mutation, although internally it presumably uses mutation. But you can also easily avoid the cyclical dependency: Just keep your function-structure as it was in X5 (does not contain its field), but then make a `function-with-env` structure which has two fields -- the pure function-struct plus the environment to use when calling it; eval will return/use this function-with-env type.
If you want to use mutation in your racket-implementation for the extra-credit, use Advanced Student language. This language level includes both: set! (to assign to variables), and set-struct-field! (to assign to struct fields). Note that these two actions are very different, which is why racket gives them separate names; in Java assigning-to-field and assigning-to-local-variable can look identical (syntactically), despite giving rise to very different behavior.
Since the mutators return (void), and we still want(need) to return a (useful) value from every expression, we will use mutation inside a begin expression:
(define times-called 0) (define (triplify-and-print n) (begin (printf "We use `begin` to call a function for a side-effect *and* return a value too.\n") (set! times-called (add1 times-called)) (printf "This function has been called ~a time~a.\n" times-called (if (= times-called 1) "" "s")) (* 3 n))) (triplify-and-print 5) (triplify-and-print 2) |
Btw, it’s worth noting that in full-racket (as opposed to advanced-student), begin is implicit in almost all forms (e.g. function-bodies and cond-branches).
This page licensed CC-BY 4.0 Ian Barland Page last generated | Please mail any suggestions (incl. typos, broken links) to ibarland ![]() |