Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

[Jinsong Liang]

Thank you Josh! I learned "unless" from your code to replace my (when (not
...)).

Jinsong

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Josh Barrett  wrote:

> You can also use recursion:
> (let l1 ((i '(1 2 3)))
> (let l2 ((j '(4 5 6)))
> (let l3 ((k '(7 8 9)))
> (print (+ (car i) (car j) (car k)))
> (unless (null? k) (l3 (cdr k
> (unless (null? j) (l2 (cdr j
> (unless (null? i) (l1 (cdr i)))
>
> This is generally considered bad style, and insane. Instead, you can use
> Scheme's native iteration construct, do:
>
> (do ((i 1 (+ i 1)))
>((<= i 3) #f)
>(do ((j 4 (+ j 1)))
>   ((<= j 6) #f)
>   (do ((k 7 (+ k 1)))
>  ((<= k 9) #f)
>  (print (+ i j k)
>
> This is still bad style, but it's not totally insane. Map, which takes the
> same arg format as for-each, is a better alternative, as are all the
> previous replies. The advantage of these awful approaces, and map, is that
> the will work on 90% of the blind, flea-bitten, half-implemented scheme
> implementations you come across/write yourself. And there are quite a few.
> So, even of you never use these functions, it's good to know they exist.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 14:11 Jinsong Liang  wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestions! It is good to know the "big 3".  I will
>> read the SRFI 1 documentation.
>>
>> Jinsong
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kevin Wortman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another perspective, if you're new to Scheme, I'd recommend getting in
>>> the habit of using higher-order procedures before loops. The principle is
>>> that looping is an error-prone (e.g. infinite loops) low level operation,
>>> so it's best to factor that out and use an established and tested library
>>> procedure instead of writing new iteration logic each time.
>>>
>>> The big 3 are filter, fold, and map in SRFI 1 (
>>> http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20srfi-1 ).
>>>
>>> I'd actually implement your pseudocode with
>>>
>>> (for-each (lambda (i)
>>> (for-each (lambda (j)
>>> (for-each (lambda (k)
>>> (print (+ i j k)))
>>>   '(7 8 9)))
>>>   '(4 5 6)))
>>>   '(1 2 3))
>>>
>>> You mentioned "calculation" so I wager you'll actually want to use fold,
>>> not for-each.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kevin Wortman
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Jinsong Liang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Wow, this is amazing! Thanks a lot Christian!

 Jinsong

 On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Christian Kellermann <
 ck...@pestilenz.org> wrote:

> * Jinsong Liang  [160714 04:26]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to do nested loops over three lists like the following pseudo
> code:
> >
> > for i in '(1 2 3)
> > for j in '(4 5 6)
> > for k in '(7 8 9)
> >   //do calculation using i, j, and k. The three lists are not
> > related.
> > end
> > end
> > end
> >
> > What is the best way to do this in Chicken? I can use (for-each ...)
> or (do
> > ...) but it seems neither is straightforward.
>
> Without knowing the purpose of this it's hard to say.  However scheme
> is flexible enough to allow an almost verbatim translation using
> foof-loop:
>
> (use foof-loop)
>
> (loop ((for i (in-list '(1 2 3
>   (loop ((for j (in-list '(4 5 6
>   (loop ((for k (in-list '(7 8 9
> (print "Magic " i "+" j "+" k " =
> " (+ i j k)
>
> HTH,
>
> Christian
>
> --
> May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
> suffering, and may you live with ease.
>

 ___
 Chicken-users mailing list
 Chicken-users@nongnu.org
 https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

>>>
>> ___
>> Chicken-users mailing list
>> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>>
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

[Josh Barrett]

You can also use recursion:
(let l1 ((i '(1 2 3)))
(let l2 ((j '(4 5 6)))
(let l3 ((k '(7 8 9)))
(print (+ (car i) (car j) (car k)))
(unless (null? k) (l3 (cdr k
(unless (null? j) (l2 (cdr j
(unless (null? i) (l1 (cdr i)))

This is generally considered bad style, and insane. Instead, you can use
Scheme's native iteration construct, do:

(do ((i 1 (+ i 1)))
   ((<= i 3) #f)
   (do ((j 4 (+ j 1)))
  ((<= j 6) #f)
  (do ((k 7 (+ k 1)))
 ((<= k 9) #f)
 (print (+ i j k)

This is still bad style, but it's not totally insane. Map, which takes the
same arg format as for-each, is a better alternative, as are all the
previous replies. The advantage of these awful approaces, and map, is that
the will work on 90% of the blind, flea-bitten, half-implemented scheme
implementations you come across/write yourself. And there are quite a few.
So, even of you never use these functions, it's good to know they exist.


On Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 14:11 Jinsong Liang  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thank you for your suggestions! It is good to know the "big 3".  I will
> read the SRFI 1 documentation.
>
> Jinsong
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kevin Wortman  wrote:
>
>>
>> Another perspective, if you're new to Scheme, I'd recommend getting in
>> the habit of using higher-order procedures before loops. The principle is
>> that looping is an error-prone (e.g. infinite loops) low level operation,
>> so it's best to factor that out and use an established and tested library
>> procedure instead of writing new iteration logic each time.
>>
>> The big 3 are filter, fold, and map in SRFI 1 (
>> http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20srfi-1 ).
>>
>> I'd actually implement your pseudocode with
>>
>> (for-each (lambda (i)
>> (for-each (lambda (j)
>> (for-each (lambda (k)
>> (print (+ i j k)))
>>   '(7 8 9)))
>>   '(4 5 6)))
>>   '(1 2 3))
>>
>> You mentioned "calculation" so I wager you'll actually want to use fold,
>> not for-each.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin Wortman
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Jinsong Liang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, this is amazing! Thanks a lot Christian!
>>>
>>> Jinsong
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Christian Kellermann <
>>> ck...@pestilenz.org> wrote:
>>>
 * Jinsong Liang  [160714 04:26]:
 > Hi,
 >
 > I want to do nested loops over three lists like the following pseudo
 code:
 >
 > for i in '(1 2 3)
 > for j in '(4 5 6)
 > for k in '(7 8 9)
 >   //do calculation using i, j, and k. The three lists are not
 > related.
 > end
 > end
 > end
 >
 > What is the best way to do this in Chicken? I can use (for-each ...)
 or (do
 > ...) but it seems neither is straightforward.

 Without knowing the purpose of this it's hard to say.  However scheme
 is flexible enough to allow an almost verbatim translation using
 foof-loop:

 (use foof-loop)

 (loop ((for i (in-list '(1 2 3
   (loop ((for j (in-list '(4 5 6
   (loop ((for k (in-list '(7 8 9
 (print "Magic " i "+" j "+" k " = "
 (+ i j k)

 HTH,

 Christian

 --
 May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
 suffering, and may you live with ease.

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Chicken-users mailing list
>>> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>>>
>>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

[Jinsong Liang]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your suggestions! It is good to know the "big 3".  I will
read the SRFI 1 documentation.

Jinsong

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Kevin Wortman  wrote:

>
> Another perspective, if you're new to Scheme, I'd recommend getting in the
> habit of using higher-order procedures before loops. The principle is that
> looping is an error-prone (e.g. infinite loops) low level operation, so
> it's best to factor that out and use an established and tested library
> procedure instead of writing new iteration logic each time.
>
> The big 3 are filter, fold, and map in SRFI 1 (
> http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20srfi-1 ).
>
> I'd actually implement your pseudocode with
>
> (for-each (lambda (i)
> (for-each (lambda (j)
> (for-each (lambda (k)
> (print (+ i j k)))
>   '(7 8 9)))
>   '(4 5 6)))
>   '(1 2 3))
>
> You mentioned "calculation" so I wager you'll actually want to use fold,
> not for-each.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin Wortman
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Jinsong Liang 
> wrote:
>
>> Wow, this is amazing! Thanks a lot Christian!
>>
>> Jinsong
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Christian Kellermann <
>> ck...@pestilenz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> * Jinsong Liang  [160714 04:26]:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I want to do nested loops over three lists like the following pseudo
>>> code:
>>> >
>>> > for i in '(1 2 3)
>>> > for j in '(4 5 6)
>>> > for k in '(7 8 9)
>>> >   //do calculation using i, j, and k. The three lists are not
>>> > related.
>>> > end
>>> > end
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > What is the best way to do this in Chicken? I can use (for-each ...)
>>> or (do
>>> > ...) but it seems neither is straightforward.
>>>
>>> Without knowing the purpose of this it's hard to say.  However scheme
>>> is flexible enough to allow an almost verbatim translation using
>>> foof-loop:
>>>
>>> (use foof-loop)
>>>
>>> (loop ((for i (in-list '(1 2 3
>>>   (loop ((for j (in-list '(4 5 6
>>>   (loop ((for k (in-list '(7 8 9
>>> (print "Magic " i "+" j "+" k " = "
>>> (+ i j k)
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
>>> suffering, and may you live with ease.
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Chicken-users mailing list
>> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>>
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

[Kevin Wortman]

Another perspective, if you're new to Scheme, I'd recommend getting in the
habit of using higher-order procedures before loops. The principle is that
looping is an error-prone (e.g. infinite loops) low level operation, so
it's best to factor that out and use an established and tested library
procedure instead of writing new iteration logic each time.

The big 3 are filter, fold, and map in SRFI 1 (
http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20srfi-1 ).

I'd actually implement your pseudocode with

(for-each (lambda (i)
(for-each (lambda (j)
(for-each (lambda (k)
(print (+ i j k)))
  '(7 8 9)))
  '(4 5 6)))
  '(1 2 3))

You mentioned "calculation" so I wager you'll actually want to use fold,
not for-each.

Regards,
Kevin Wortman


On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:04 AM Jinsong Liang 
wrote:

> Wow, this is amazing! Thanks a lot Christian!
>
> Jinsong
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Christian Kellermann  > wrote:
>
>> * Jinsong Liang  [160714 04:26]:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I want to do nested loops over three lists like the following pseudo
>> code:
>> >
>> > for i in '(1 2 3)
>> > for j in '(4 5 6)
>> > for k in '(7 8 9)
>> >   //do calculation using i, j, and k. The three lists are not
>> > related.
>> > end
>> > end
>> > end
>> >
>> > What is the best way to do this in Chicken? I can use (for-each ...) or
>> (do
>> > ...) but it seems neither is straightforward.
>>
>> Without knowing the purpose of this it's hard to say.  However scheme
>> is flexible enough to allow an almost verbatim translation using
>> foof-loop:
>>
>> (use foof-loop)
>>
>> (loop ((for i (in-list '(1 2 3
>>   (loop ((for j (in-list '(4 5 6
>>   (loop ((for k (in-list '(7 8 9
>> (print "Magic " i "+" j "+" k " = "
>> (+ i j k)
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
>> suffering, and may you live with ease.
>>
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

[Jinsong Liang]

Wow, this is amazing! Thanks a lot Christian!

Jinsong

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Christian Kellermann 
wrote:

> * Jinsong Liang  [160714 04:26]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to do nested loops over three lists like the following pseudo
> code:
> >
> > for i in '(1 2 3)
> > for j in '(4 5 6)
> > for k in '(7 8 9)
> >   //do calculation using i, j, and k. The three lists are not
> > related.
> > end
> > end
> > end
> >
> > What is the best way to do this in Chicken? I can use (for-each ...) or
> (do
> > ...) but it seems neither is straightforward.
>
> Without knowing the purpose of this it's hard to say.  However scheme
> is flexible enough to allow an almost verbatim translation using
> foof-loop:
>
> (use foof-loop)
>
> (loop ((for i (in-list '(1 2 3
>   (loop ((for j (in-list '(4 5 6
>   (loop ((for k (in-list '(7 8 9
> (print "Magic " i "+" j "+" k " = " (+
> i j k)
>
> HTH,
>
> Christian
>
> --
> May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
> suffering, and may you live with ease.
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] nested loop over lists

[Christian Kellermann]

* Jinsong Liang  [160714 04:26]:
> Hi,
>
> I want to do nested loops over three lists like the following pseudo code:
>
> for i in '(1 2 3)
> for j in '(4 5 6)
> for k in '(7 8 9)
>   //do calculation using i, j, and k. The three lists are not
> related.
> end
> end
> end
>
> What is the best way to do this in Chicken? I can use (for-each ...) or (do
> ...) but it seems neither is straightforward.

Without knowing the purpose of this it's hard to say.  However scheme
is flexible enough to allow an almost verbatim translation using
foof-loop:

(use foof-loop)

(loop ((for i (in-list '(1 2 3
  (loop ((for j (in-list '(4 5 6
  (loop ((for k (in-list '(7 8 9
(print "Magic " i "+" j "+" k " = " (+ i j 
k)

HTH,

Christian

--
May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from
suffering, and may you live with ease.

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users