On 2012-10-13 23:18:27 +0300, Răzvan Rotaru wrote:
>@Greg, I know sequences and the functions around it, and they are indeed
>part of what I'm looking for. Essentially, I am speaking about replacing
>the core scheme functions, which work with lists, with generic versions
>that work
To use prop:procedure, just give a function which will handle the application
of the structure to some arguments. The define-values is only there because the
for/fold has two accumulators (sum and x) and will therefore return two values
(the values of those accumulators). This means its context
Instead of trying to peek inside a lambda, you could implement polynomials as
(transparent) structs and use prop:procedure to allow them to be applied to
numbers:
(struct polynomial (coeffs)
#:transparent
#:property prop:procedure
(lambda (poly num)
(define-values (result x*)
(fo
Uh... never mind. I should have looked for the obvious
> (define (f x) (+ x 1))
> (define (g x) (* x x))
> ((compose f g) 1)
2
> ((compose f g) 2)
5
>
On Oct 14, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
> Now, my question is: is there a notation in Racket for representing
> composition tha
I wrote a small recursive function to convert a list (a0 a1 ... an)
coefficients into a polynomial function
;;Given a list (a0 a1 ... an) return a function that computes
;;p(x) = a0 + a1*x + ... + an*x^n
(define (polynomial coeffs)
(lambda (x)
(cond
[(= (length coeffs) 0) 0]
[
5 matches
Mail list logo
