Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Let* is similar to let, except that the bindings of the let variables are performed sequentially from left to right, and each binding is made in an environment in which all of the preceding bindings are visible. For example \(\left.\left.\left.\begin{array}{l}\left(1 \text { et* }\left(\left(\begin{array}{ll}x & 3\end{array}\right)\right.\right. \\ (y(+x & 2)) \\ (z & (+x & y & 5\end{array}\right)\right)\right) } \\\\{(* x \text { z) })} \end{array}\) returns 39 . Explain how a let* expression can be rewritten as a set of nested let expressions, and write a procedure let*->nested-lets that performs this transformation. If we have already implemented let (exercise 4.6) and we want to extend the evaluator to handle let*, is it sufficient to add a clause to eval whose action is (eval (let*->nested-lets exp) env) or must we explicitly expand let* in terms of non-derived expressions?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Transform `let*` to nested `let` expressions; adding `let*->nested-lets` suffices for evaluation.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding let* and Conversion

The `let*` construct performs variable bindings sequentially, where each binding can depend on the previous ones. To rewrite a `let*` expression using nested `let` expressions, understand that each new variable binding is a separate `let` scope that includes all previous bindings.
02

Example let* Expression Analysis

Given the example `(let* ((x 3) (y (+ x 2)) (z (+ x y 5))) z)`, note that `x` is bound to 3, `y` is evaluated in a context where `x` is 3, and `z` is evaluated in a context where both `x` and `y` have their assigned values. The result of `z` is 39.
03

Transforming Example into Nested lets

To convert the `let*` to nested `let` expressions, each binding becomes its own `let`: 1. Bind `x`: `(let ((x 3)) 2. Bind `y` using `x`: `(let ((y (+ x 2))) 3. Bind `z` using both `x` and `y`: `(let ((z (+ x y 5))) z)))`. The nested result is: `(let ((x 3)) (let ((y (+ x 2))) (let ((z (+ x y 5))) z)))`.
04

Implementing let*->nested-lets

Implement a procedure `let*->nested-lets` that takes a `let*` expression and transforms it into nested `let` expressions. For each step: 1. Extract the first binding. 2. Wrap the rest of the bindings in a `let` scope, recursively calling `let*->nested-lets`.
05

Evaluator Extension Consideration

When implementing the evaluator for `let*`, converting `let*` to nested `let` using `let*->nested-lets` is sufficient because `let` is already handled by the evaluator. Thus, evaluating `(eval (let*->nested-lets exp) env)` efficiently processes `let*` without extra clauses.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Let Expressions
In programming, `let` expressions are a fundamental construct used to define local variables and their values within a specific scope. They allow you to bind variables to expressions and use those bindings within a body of code. A `let` expression enables declaring multiple variables simultaneously, which are then evaluated in parallel. The syntax generally involves specifying these bindings and a sequence of expressions to execute while the bindings are in effect. In a `let` expression, all the variables are visible only within the body of the `let`, hence encapsulating the variables so they do not affect the outer environment.

Conversely, the `let*` construct extends the `let` expression by performing sequential bindings. Unlike `let`, each binding in `let*` is done one at a time, allowing each subsequent variable to potentially use the values of the preceding ones. For instance, if you have variables x, y, and z, `let*` would first bind x, then bind y using x, and then bind z using both x and y. This sequential nature of `let*` makes it a powerful tool when you require intermediate calculations that depend on earlier variable bindings.
  • Simultaneous evaluation: `let`
  • Sequential evaluation: `let*`
  • Scope limited to the expression body
Variable Binding
Variable binding is a critical concept in understanding how programming languages work. It refers to the association of a variable name with a particular value or expression. When you declare a variable within a `let` or `let*` expression, you are performing a binding; you are attaching a specific name to a value or result of an expression.

This is pivotal in managing variables in your code:
  • Names are bound to values or expressions.
  • The scope of these bindings is usually limited to the block wherein they are defined.
  • New bindings can shadow outer bindings, meaning that an inner scope can have a variable with the same name as one in an outer scope without interfering with the outer variable.
A proper understanding of variable binding allows for better control over the data in your programs and helps maintain clean and efficient code by preventing variables from unintentionally overwriting each other.
Environment Model
The environment model is an essential framework in understanding how expressions in programming languages are evaluated. It defines how variable names are mapped to their respective values and how these mappings can change in nested expressions.

In the context of `let` and `let*` expressions, the environment model plays a crucial role in illustrating how each binding is evaluated:
  • Each `let` or `let*` creates a new environment where the bindings occur.
  • An inner environment can access variables defined in outer environments unless they are shadowed.
  • The environment model helps visualize how values are scoped, especially with nested `let` expressions.
Understanding the environment model is vital as it provides insight into how expressions are executed in a program, ensuring that variable values are returned and utilized accurately at each stage of execution. This knowledge is particularly useful when debugging complex nested expressions, as it elucidates the sequence and scope of variable bindings.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Ben Bitdiddle and Alyssa P. Hacker disagree over the importance of lazy evaluation for implementing things such as unless. Ben points out that it's possible to implement unless in applicative order as a special form. Alyssa counters that, if one did that, unless would be merely syntax, not a procedure that could be used in conjunction with higher-order procedures. Fill in the details on both sides of the argument. Show how to implement unless as a derived expression (like cond or let), and give an example of a situation where it might be useful to have unless available as a procedure, rather than as a special form.

By giving the query (lives-near ?person (Hacker Alyssa P)) Alyssa P. Hacker is able to find people who live near her, with whom she can ride to work. On the other hand, when she tries to find all pairs of people who live near each other by querying (lives-near ?person-1 ?person-2) she notices that each pair of people who live near each other is listed twice; for example, (lives-near (Hacker Alyssa P) (Fect Cy D)) (lives-near (Fect Cy D) (Hacker Alyssa P)) Why does this happen? Is there a way to find a list of people who live near each other, in which each pair appears only once? Explain.

In section \(4.4 .3\) we saw that not and lisp-value can cause the query language to give "wrong" answers if these filtering operations are applied to frames in which variables are unbound. Devise a way to fix this shortcoming. One idea is to perform the filtering in a "delayed" manner by appending to the frame a "promise" to filter that is fulfilled only when enough variables have been bound to make the operation possible. We could wait to perform filtering until all other operations have been performed. However, for efficiency's sake, we would like to perform filtering as soon as possible so as to cut down on the number of intermediate frames generated.

In this exercise we implement the method just described for interpreting internal definitions. We assume that the evaluator supports let (see exercise 4.6). a. Change lookup-variable-value (section 4.1.3) to signal an error if the value it finds is the symbol *unassigned*. b. Write a procedure scan-out-defines that takes a procedure body and returns an equivalent one that has no internal definitions, by making the transformation described above. c. Install scan-out-defines in the interpreter, either in make-procedure or in procedure-body (see section 4.1.3). Which place is better? Why?

Solve the following "Liars" puzzle (from Phillips 1934): Five schoolgirls sat for an examination. Their parents-so they thoughtshowed an undue degree of interest in the result. They therefore agreed that, in writing home about the examination, each girl should make one true statement and one untrue one. The following are the relevant passages from their letters: \- Betty: "Kitty was second in the examination. I was only third." \- Ethel: "You'll be glad to hear that I was on top. Joan was second." \- Joan: "I was third, and poor old Ethel was bottom." \- Kitty: "I came out second. Mary was only fourth." \- Mary: "I was fourth. Top place was taken by Betty." What in fact was the order in which the five girls were placed?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Computer Science Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free