X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=assignment2.mdwn;h=066f1b1f60b6863e8738e2604bd2d8748b53a7ed;hp=82957888e1c773cb007feb9b7ec7fd9ef55ac735;hb=7bffcdc79c27f459cb7d451f23b4ce8e5b39b125;hpb=ac5b18441c0c498fa20ccd2db601d895d665929b
diff --git a/assignment2.mdwn b/assignment2.mdwn
index 82957888..066f1b1f 100644
--- a/assignment2.mdwn
+++ b/assignment2.mdwn
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ The `junk` in `extract-head` is what you get back if you evaluate:
As we said, the predecessor and the extract-tail functions are harder to define. We'll just give you one implementation of these, so that you'll be able to test and evaluate lambda-expressions using them in Scheme or OCaml.
predecesor ≡ (\shift n. n shift (make-pair zero junk) get-second) (\pair. pair (\fst snd. make-pair (successor fst) fst))
+
extract-tail ≡ (\shift lst. lst shift (make-pair empty junk) get-second) (\hd pair. pair (\fst snd. make-pair (make-list hd fst) fst))
The `junk` is what you get back if you evaluate:
@@ -72,37 +73,37 @@ For these exercises, assume that `LIST` is the result of evaluating:
(make-list a (make-list b (make-list c (make-list d (make-list e empty)))))
-1. What would be the result of evaluating:
-
- LIST make-list empty
+
+- What would be the result of evaluating (see [[Assignment 2 hint 1]] for a hint):
- [[Assignment 2 hint 1]]
+ LIST make-list empty
-2. Based on your answer to question 1, how might you implement the **map** function? Expected behavior:
+
- Based on your answer to question 16, how might you implement the **map** function? Expected behavior:
-
map f LIST <~~> (make-list (f a) (make-list (f b) (make-list (f c) (make-list (f d) (make-list (f e) empty)))))
+ map f LIST <~~> (make-list (f a) (make-list (f b) (make-list (f c) (make-list (f d) (make-list (f e) empty)))))
-3. Based on your answer to question 1, how might you implement the **filter** function? The expected behavior is that:
+ - Based on your answer to question 16, how might you implement the **filter** function? The expected behavior is that:
- filter f LIST
+ filter f LIST
- should evaluate to a list containing just those of `a`, `b`, `c`, `d`, and `e` such that `f` applied to them evaluates to `true`.
+should evaluate to a list containing just those of `a`, `b`, `c`, `d`, and `e` such that `f` applied to them evaluates to `true`.
-4. How would you implement map using the either the version 1 or the version 2 implementation of lists?
+
- What goes wrong when we try to apply these techniques using the version 1 or version 2 implementation of lists?
-5. Our version 3 implementation of the numbers are usually called "Church numerals". If `m` is a Church numeral, then `m s z` applies the function `s` to the result of applying `s` to ... to `z`, for a total of *m* applications of `s`, where *m* is the number that `m` represents or encodes.
+
- Our version 3 implementation of the numbers are usually called "Church numerals". If `m` is a Church numeral, then `m s z` applies the function `s` to the result of applying `s` to ... to `z`, for a total of *m* applications of `s`, where *m* is the number that `m` represents or encodes.
- Given the primitive arithmetic functions above, how would you implement the less-than-or-equal function? Here is the expected behavior, where `one` abbreviates `succ zero`, and `two` abbreviates `succ (succ zero)`.
+Given the primitive arithmetic functions above, how would you implement the less-than-or-equal function? Here is the expected behavior, where `one` abbreviates `succ zero`, and `two` abbreviates `succ (succ zero)`.
- less-than-or-equal zero zero ~~> true
- less-than-or-equal zero one ~~> true
- less-than-or-equal zero two ~~> true
- less-than-or-equal one zero ~~> false
- less-than-or-equal one one ~~> true
- less-than-or-equal one two ~~> true
- less-than-or-equal two zero ~~> false
- less-than-or-equal two one ~~> false
- less-than-or-equal two two ~~> true
+ less-than-or-equal zero zero ~~> true
+ less-than-or-equal zero one ~~> true
+ less-than-or-equal zero two ~~> true
+ less-than-or-equal one zero ~~> false
+ less-than-or-equal one one ~~> true
+ less-than-or-equal one two ~~> true
+ less-than-or-equal two zero ~~> false
+ less-than-or-equal two one ~~> false
+ less-than-or-equal two two ~~> true
- You'll need to make use of the predecessor function, but it's not important to understand how the implementation we gave above works. You can treat it as a black box.
+You'll need to make use of the predecessor function, but it's not essential to understand how the implementation we gave above works. You can treat it as a black box.
+