github/sicp
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/correl/sicp.git synced 2024-11-27 11:09:58 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
sicp/4-1.org

1086 lines
36 KiB
Org Mode
Raw Permalink Normal View History

4.1
2014-12-01 05:53:22 +00:00
#+TITLE: 4.1 - The Metacircular Evaluator
#+STARTUP: indent
#+OPTIONS: num:nil
We will be writing a Lisp evaluator implemented in Lisp (hence,
/metacircular/: an evaluator written in the same language it evaluates).
[[file:4.1-lisp.jpg]]
[[file:4.1-eval-apply.svg]]
The evaluator will be specified using procedures defining the syntax
of the expressions to be evaluated. Data abstraction will be used to
make the evaluator independent of the representation of the language.
* <<4.1.1>> The Core of the Evaluator
** Eval
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (eval exp env)
(cond ((self-evaluating? exp)
exp)
((variable? exp)
(lookup-variable-value exp env))
((quoted? exp)
(text-of-quotation exp))
((assignment? exp)
(eval-assignment exp env))
((definition? exp)
(eval-definition exp env))
((if? exp)
(eval-if exp env))
((lambda? exp)
(make-procedure
(lambda-parameters exp)
(lambda-body exp)
env))
((begin? exp)
(eval-sequence
(begin-actions exp)
env))
((cond? exp)
(eval (cond->if exp) env))
((application? exp)
(apply (eval (operator exp) env)
(list-of-values
(operands exp)
env)))
(else
(error "Unknown expression
type: EVAL" exp))))
#+END_SRC
** Apply
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (apply procedure arguments)
(cond ((primitive-procedure? procedure)
(apply-primitive-procedure
procedure
arguments))
((compound-procedure? procedure)
(eval-sequence
(procedure-body procedure)
(extend-environment
(procedure-parameters
procedure)
arguments
(procedure-environment
procedure))))
(else
(error "Unknown procedure
type: APPLY"
procedure))))
#+END_SRC
** Procedure Arguments
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (list-of-values exps env)
(if (no-operands? exps)
'()
(cons (eval (first-operand exps) env)
(list-of-values
(rest-operands exps)
env))))
#+END_SRC
** Conditionals
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (eval-if exp env)
(if (true? (eval (if-predicate exp) env))
(eval (if-consequent exp) env)
(eval (if-alternative exp) env)))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
In this case, the language being implemented and the implementation
language are the same. Contemplation of the meaning of ~true?~ here
yields expansion of consciousness without the abuse of substance.
#+END_QUOTE
** Sequences
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (eval-sequence exps env)
(cond ((last-exp? exps)
(eval (first-exp exps) env))
(else
(eval (first-exp exps) env)
(eval-sequence (rest-exps exps)
env))))
#+END_SRC
** Assignments and definitions
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define (eval-assignment exp env)
(set-variable-value!
(assignment-variable exp)
(eval (assignment-value exp) env)
env)
'ok)
(define (eval-definition exp env)
(define-variable!
(definition-variable exp)
(eval (definition-value exp) env)
env)
'ok)
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.1
Notice that we cannot tell whether the metacircular evaluator
evaluates operands from left to right or from right to left. Its
evaluation order is inherited from the underlying Lisp: If the
arguments to cons in ~list-of-values~ are evaluated from left to
right, then ~list-of-values~ will evaluate operands from left to
right; and if the arguments to cons are evaluated from right to left,
then ~list-of-values~ will evaluate operands from right to left.
Write a version of ~list-of-values~ that evaluates operands from left
to right regardless of the order of evaluation in the underlying
Lisp. Also write a version of ~list-of-values~ that evaluates operands
from right to left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (list-of-values-ltr exps env)
(if (no-operands? exps)
'()
(begin
(define first (eval (first-operand exps) env))
(define rest (list-of-values-ltr
(rest-operands exps)
env))
(cons first rest))))
(define (list-of-values-rtl exps env)
(if (no-operands? exps)
'()
(begin
(define rest (list-of-values-rtl
(rest-operands exps)
env))
(define first (eval (first-operand exps) env))
(cons first rest))))
#+END_SRC
* <<4.1.2>> Representing Expressions
- The only self-evaluating items are numbers and strings:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (self-evaluating? exp)
(cond ((number? exp) true)
((string? exp) true)
(else false)))
#+END_SRC
- Variables are represented by symbols:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (variable? exp) (symbol? exp))
#+END_SRC
- Quotations have the form ~(quote 〈text-of-quotation〉)~:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (quoted? exp)
(tagged-list? exp 'quote))
(define (text-of-quotation exp)
(cadr exp))
#+END_SRC
~Quoted?~ is defined in terms of the procedure ~tagged-list?~, which
identifies lists beginning with a designated symbol:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (tagged-list? exp tag)
(if (pair? exp)
(eq? (car exp) tag)
false))
#+END_SRC
- Assignments have the form ~(set! 〈var〉 〈value〉)~:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (assignment? exp)
(tagged-list? exp 'set!))
(define (assignment-variable exp)
(cadr exp))
(define (assignment-value exp) (caddr exp))
#+END_SRC
- Definitions have the form
#+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
(define ⟨var⟩ ⟨value⟩)
#+END_EXAMPLE
or the form
#+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
(define (⟨var⟩ ⟨param₁⟩ … ⟨paramₙ⟩)
⟨body⟩)
#+END_EXAMPLE
The latter form (standard procedure definition) is syntactic sugar for
#+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
(define ⟨var⟩
(lambda (⟨param₁⟩ … ⟨paramₙ⟩)
⟨body⟩))
#+END_EXAMPLE
The corresponding syntax procedures are the following:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (definition? exp)
(tagged-list? exp 'define))
(define (definition-variable exp)
(if (symbol? (cadr exp))
(cadr exp)
(caadr exp)))
(define (definition-value exp)
(if (symbol? (cadr exp))
(caddr exp)
(make-lambda
(cdadr exp) ; formal parameters
(cddr exp)))) ; body
#+END_SRC
- Lambda expressions are lists that begin with the symbol ~lambda~:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (lambda? exp)
(tagged-list? exp 'lambda))
(define (lambda-parameters exp) (cadr exp))
(define (lambda-body exp) (cddr exp))
#+END_SRC
We also provide a constructor for lambda expressions, which is used
by ~definition-value~, above:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (make-lambda parameters body)
(cons 'lambda (cons parameters body)))
#+END_SRC
- Conditionals begin with ~if~ and have a predicate, a consequent, and
an (optional) alternative. If the expression has no alternative
part, we provide ~false~ as the alternative.
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (if? exp) (tagged-list? exp 'if))
(define (if-predicate exp) (cadr exp))
(define (if-consequent exp) (caddr exp))
(define (if-alternative exp)
(if (not (null? (cdddr exp)))
(cadddr exp)
'false))
#+END_SRC
We also provide a constructor for ~if~ expressions, to be used by
~cond->if~ to transform ~cond~ expressions into ~if~ expressions:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (make-if predicate
consequent
alternative)
(list 'if
predicate
consequent
alternative))
#+END_SRC
- ~Begin~ packages a sequence of expressions into a single
expression. We include syntax operations on ~begin~ expressions to
extract the actual sequence from the ~begin~ expression, as well as
selectors that return the first expression and the rest of the
expressions in the sequence.
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (begin? exp)
(tagged-list? exp 'begin))
(define (begin-actions exp) (cdr exp))
(define (last-exp? seq) (null? (cdr seq)))
(define (first-exp seq) (car seq))
(define (rest-exps seq) (cdr seq))
#+END_SRC
We also include a constructor ~sequence->exp~ (for use by
~cond->if~) that transforms a sequence into a single expression,
using ~begin~ if necessary:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (sequence->exp seq)
(cond ((null? seq) seq)
((last-exp? seq) (first-exp seq))
(else (make-begin seq))))
(define (make-begin seq) (cons 'begin seq))
#+END_SRC
- A procedure application is any compound expression that is not one
of the above expression types. The ~car~ of the expression is the
operator, and the ~cdr~ is the list of operands:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (application? exp) (pair? exp))
(define (operator exp) (car exp))
(define (operands exp) (cdr exp))
(define (no-operands? ops) (null? ops))
(define (first-operand ops) (car ops))
(define (rest-operands ops) (cdr ops))
#+END_SRC
** Derived expressions
~Cond~ can be represented as a nest of if expressions.
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (cond? exp)
(tagged-list? exp 'cond))
(define (cond-clauses exp) (cdr exp))
(define (cond-else-clause? clause)
(eq? (cond-predicate clause) 'else))
(define (cond-predicate clause)
(car clause))
(define (cond-actions clause)
(cdr clause))
(define (cond->if exp)
(expand-clauses (cond-clauses exp)))
(define (expand-clauses clauses)
(if (null? clauses)
'false ; no else clause
(let ((first (car clauses))
(rest (cdr clauses)))
(if (cond-else-clause? first)
(if (null? rest)
(sequence->exp
(cond-actions first))
(error "ELSE clause isn't
last: COND->IF"
clauses))
(make-if (cond-predicate first)
(sequence->exp
(cond-actions first))
(expand-clauses
rest))))))
#+END_SRC
Expressions (such as ~cond~) that we choose to implement as syntactic
transformations are called derived expressions. ~Let~ expressions are
also derived expressions (see Exercise 4.6).
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
Practical Lisp systems provide a mechanism that allows a user to add
new derived expressions and specify their implementation as syntactic
transformations without modifying the evaluator. Such a user-defined
transformation is called a macro. Although it is easy to add an
elementary mechanism for defining macros, the resulting language has
subtle name-conflict problems. There has been much research on
mechanisms for macro definition that do not cause these
difficulties. See, for example, Kohlbecker 1986, Clinger and Rees
1991, and Hanson 1991.
#+END_QUOTE
** Exercise 4.2
Louis Reasoner plans to reorder the ~cond~ clauses in ~eval~ so that
the clause for procedure applications appears before the clause for
assignments. He argues that this will make the interpreter more
efficient: Since programs usually contain more applications than
assignments, definitions, and so on, his modified ~eval~ will usually
check fewer clauses than the original ~eval~ before identifying the
type of an expression.
1. What is wrong with Louis’s plan? (Hint: What will Louis’s evaluator
do with the expression ~(define x 3)~?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedure application check requires only that the expression
be a pair, which any list will satisfy. For example, the expression
~(define x 3)~ would trigger application instead of assignment, and
end up failing.
2. Louis is upset that his plan didn’t work. He is willing to go to
any lengths to make his evaluator recognize procedure applications
before it checks for most other kinds of expressions. Help him by
changing the syntax of the evaluated language so that procedure
applications start with call. For example, instead of (factorial 3)
we will now have to write (call factorial 3) and instead of (+ 1 2)
we will have to write (call + 1 2).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define (application? exp)
(tagged-list exp 'call))
(define (operator exp) (cadr exp))
(define (operands exp) (cddr exp))
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.3
Rewrite eval so that the dispatch is done in data-directed
style. Compare this with the data-directed differentiation procedure
of Exercise 2.73. (You may use the =car= of a compound expression as
the type of the expression, as is appropriate for the syntax
implemented in this section.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Borrowed from [[http://wqzhang.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/sicp-exercise-4-3/][Weiqun Zhang's blog]], for working implementations of
~get~ and ~put~.
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Exercise 4.3
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
(define eval-table (make-eq-hash-table))
(define (get key)
(hash-table/get eval-table key #f))
(define (put key proc)
(hash-table/put! eval-table key proc))
(define (eval exp env)
(cond ((self-evaluating? exp) exp)
((variable? exp) (lookup-variable-value exp env))
((get (car exp))
((get (car exp)) exp env))
((application? exp)
(apply (eval (operator exp) env)
(list-of-values (operands exp) env)))
(else
(error "Unknown expression type -- EVAL" exp))))
(put 'quote
(lambda (exp env)
(text-of-quotation exp)))
(put 'set!
(lambda (exp env)
(eval-assignment exp env)))
(put 'define eval-definition)
(put 'if eval-if)
(put 'lambda
(lambda (exp env)
(make-procedure (lambda-parameters exp)
(lambda-body exp)
env)))
(put 'begin
(lambda (exp env)
(eval-sequence (begin-actions exp) env)))
(put 'cond
(lambda (exp env)
(eval (cond->if exp) env)))
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.4
Recall the definitions of the special forms and and or from Chapter 1:
- ~and~: The expressions are evaluated from left to right. If any
expression evaluates to ~false~, ~false~ is returned; any remaining
expressions are not evaluated. If all the expressions evaluate to
true values, the value of the last expression is returned. If there
are no expressions then ~true~ is returned.
- ~or~: The expressions are evaluated from left to right. If any
expression evaluates to a true value, that value is returned; any
remaining expressions are not evaluated. If all expressions evaluate
to ~false~, or if there are no expressions, then ~false~ is returned.
Install ~and~ and ~or~ as new special forms for the evaluator by
defining appropriate syntax procedures and evaluation procedures
~eval-and~ and ~eval-or~. Alternatively, show how to implement ~and~
and ~or~ as derived expressions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Exercise 4.4
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Special forms
(define (eval-and exp env)
(define (eval-and-operands exps)
(if (no-operands? exps)
true
(let ((first (eval (first-operand exps) env))
(rest (rest-operands exps)))
(if (false? first)
false
(if (no-operands? rest)
first
(eval-and-operands rest))))))
(eval-and-operands (operands exp)))
(define (eval-or exp env)
(define (eval-or-operands exps)
(if (no-operands? exps)
false
(let ((first (eval (first-operand exps) env))
(rest (rest-operands exps)))
(if (true? first)
first
(eval-or-operands rest)))))
(eval-or-operands (operands exp)))
(put 'and eval-and)
(put 'or eval-or)
;; Derived expressions
(define (and->if exp)
(define (expand exps)
(if (null? exps)
'true
(make-if (list 'false? (car exps))
'false
(if (null? (cdr exps))
(car exps)
(expand (cdr exps))))))
(expand (cdr exp)))
(define (or->if exp)
(define (expand exps)
(if (null? exps)
'false
(make-if (list 'true? (car exps))
(car exps)
(expand (cdr exps)))))
(expand (cdr exp)))
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.5
Scheme allows an additional syntax for ~cond~ clauses, ~(⟨test⟩ =>
⟨recipient⟩)~. If ~⟨test⟩~ evaluates to a true value, then
~⟨recipient⟩~ is evaluated. Its value must be a procedure of one
argument; this procedure is then invoked on the value of the ~⟨test⟩~,
and the result is returned as the value of the ~cond~ expression. For
example
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(cond ((assoc 'b '((a 1) (b 2))) => cadr)
(else false))
#+END_SRC
returns ~2~. Modify the handling of ~cond~ so that it supports this
extended syntax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Exercise 4.5
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
(define (cond-actions clause)
(if (tagged-list? (cdr clause) '=>)
(list (list (caddr clause) (cond-predicate clause)))
(cdr clause)))
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.6
Let expressions are derived expressions, because
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(let ((⟨var₁⟩ ⟨exp₁⟩) … (⟨varₙ⟩ ⟨expₙ⟩))
⟨body⟩)
#+END_SRC
is equivalent to
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
((lambda (⟨var₁⟩ … ⟨varₙ⟩)
⟨body⟩)
⟨exp₁⟩
…
⟨expₙ⟩)
#+END_SRC
Implement a syntactic transformation ~let->combination~ that reduces
evaluating ~let~ expressions to evaluating combinations of the type
shown above, and add the appropriate clause to ~eval~ to handle ~let~
expressions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Exercise 4.6
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
(define (let->combination exp)
(let ((var-alist (cadr exp))
(body (cddr exp)))
(append (list (append (list 'lambda
(map car var-alist))
body))
(map cadr var-alist))))
(put 'let
(lambda (exp env)
(eval (let->combination exp) env)))
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.7
~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
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(let* ((x 3)
(y (+ x 2))
(z (+ x y 5)))
(* x z))
#+END_SRC
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
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(eval (let*->nested-lets exp) env)
#+END_SRC
or must we explicitly expand ~let*~ in terms of non-derived
expressions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
~Let*~ can be written as a set of nested ~let~ expressions like so:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(let ((x 3))
(let ((y (+ x 2)))
(let ((z (+ x y 5)))
(* x z))))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Exercise 5.7
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
(define (let*->nested-lets exp)
(define (nested-let var-alist body)
(if (null? var-alist)
body
(let ((var-pair (car var-alist))
(var-rest (cdr var-alist)))
(append (list 'let (list var-pair)
(nested-let var-rest body))))))
(nested-let (cadr exp)
(cddr exp)))
(put 'let*
(lambda (exp env)
(eval (let*->nested-lets exp) env)))
#+END_SRC
Adding the new clause to ~eval~ is sufficient; it will recursively
evaluate the resulting expressions, translating ~let*~ to ~let~ to
combinations along the way.
** Exercise 4.8
“Named ~let~” is a variant of ~let~ that has the form
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(let ⟨var⟩ ⟨bindings⟩ ⟨body⟩)
#+END_SRC
The ~⟨bindings⟩~ and ~⟨body⟩~ are just as in ordinary ~let~, except
that ~⟨var⟩~ is bound within ~⟨body⟩~ to a procedure whose body is
~⟨body⟩~ and whose parameters are the variables in the
~⟨bindings⟩~. Thus, one can repeatedly execute the ~⟨body⟩~ by
invoking the procedure named ~⟨var⟩~. For example, the iterative
Fibonacci procedure (1.2.2) can be rewritten using named ~let~ as
follows:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define (fib n)
(let fib-iter ((a 1) (b 0) (count n))
(if (= count 0)
b
(fib-iter (+ a b)
a
(- count 1)))))
#+END_SRC
Modify ~let->combination~ of [[Exercise 4.6]] to also support named ~let~.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
;; Exercise 4.7
;; -------------------------------------------------------------------
(define (let->combination exp)
(define (let-combination var-alist body)
(append (list (append (list 'lambda
(map car var-alist))
body))
(map cadr var-alist)))
(define (named-let-combination name var-alist body)
(let-combination var-alist
(append (list (append (list 'define
(cons name (map car var-alist)))
body))
(list (cons name (map car var-alist))))))
(cond ((alist? (cadr exp))
(let-combination (cadr exp) (cddr exp)))
((symbol? (cadr exp))
(named-let-combination (cadr exp)
(caddr exp)
(cdddr exp)))
(else (error "Invalid expression -- LET"))))
(put 'let
(lambda (exp env)
(eval (let->combination exp) env)))
#+END_SRC
** Exercise 4.9
Many languages support a variety of iteration constructs, such as
~do~, ~for~, ~while~, and ~until~. In Scheme, iterative processes can
be expressed in terms of ordinary procedure calls, so special
iteration constructs provide no essential gain in computational
power. On the other hand, such constructs are often convenient. Design
some iteration constructs, give examples of their use, and show how to
implement them as derived expressions.
** Exercise 4.10
By using data abstraction, we were able to write an ~eval~ procedure
that is independent of the particular syntax of the language to be
evaluated. To illustrate this, design and implement a new syntax for
Scheme by modifying the procedures in this section, without changing
~eval~ or ~apply~.
* <<4.1.3>> Evaluator Data Structures
** Testing of predicates
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (true? x)
(not (eq? x false)))
(define (false? x)
(eq? x false))
#+END_SRC
** Representing procedures
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (make-procedure parameters body env)
(list 'procedure parameters body env))
(define (compound-procedure? p)
(tagged-list? p 'procedure))
(define (procedure-parameters p) (cadr p))
(define (procedure-body p) (caddr p))
(define (procedure-environment p) (cadddr p))
#+END_SRC
** Operations on Environments
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (enclosing-environment env) (cdr env))
(define (first-frame env) (car env))
(define the-empty-environment '())
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (make-frame variables values)
(cons variables values))
(define (frame-variables frame) (car frame))
(define (frame-values frame) (cdr frame))
(define (add-binding-to-frame! var val frame)
(set-car! frame (cons var (car frame)))
(set-cdr! frame (cons val (cdr frame))))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (extend-environment vars vals base-env)
(if (= (length vars) (length vals))
(cons (make-frame vars vals) base-env)
(if (< (length vars) (length vals))
(error "Too many arguments supplied"
vars
vals)
(error "Too few arguments supplied"
vars
vals))))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (lookup-variable-value var env)
(define (env-loop env)
(define (scan vars vals)
(cond ((null? vars)
(env-loop
(enclosing-environment env)))
((eq? var (car vars))
(car vals))
(else (scan (cdr vars)
(cdr vals)))))
(if (eq? env the-empty-environment)
(error "Unbound variable" var)
(let ((frame (first-frame env)))
(scan (frame-variables frame)
(frame-values frame)))))
(env-loop env))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (set-variable-value! var val env)
(define (env-loop env)
(define (scan vars vals)
(cond ((null? vars)
(env-loop
(enclosing-environment env)))
((eq? var (car vars))
(set-car! vals val))
(else (scan (cdr vars)
(cdr vals)))))
(if (eq? env the-empty-environment)
(error "Unbound variable: SET!" var)
(let ((frame (first-frame env)))
(scan (frame-variables frame)
(frame-values frame)))))
(env-loop env))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (define-variable! var val env)
(let ((frame (first-frame env)))
(define (scan vars vals)
(cond ((null? vars)
(add-binding-to-frame!
var val frame))
((eq? var (car vars))
(set-car! vals val))
(else (scan (cdr vars)
(cdr vals)))))
(scan (frame-variables frame)
(frame-values frame))))
#+END_SRC
* <<4.1.4>> Running the Evaluator as a Program
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (setup-environment)
(let ((initial-env
(extend-environment
(primitive-procedure-names)
(primitive-procedure-objects)
the-empty-environment)))
(define-variable! 'true true initial-env)
(define-variable! 'false false initial-env)
initial-env))
(define the-global-environment
(setup-environment))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (primitive-procedure? proc)
(tagged-list? proc 'primitive))
(define (primitive-implementation proc)
(cadr proc))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define primitive-procedures
(list (list 'car car)
(list 'cdr cdr)
(list 'cons cons)
(list 'null? null?)
⟨more primitives⟩ ))
(define (primitive-procedure-names)
(map car primitive-procedures))
(define (primitive-procedure-objects)
(map (lambda (proc)
(list 'primitive (cadr proc)))
primitive-procedures))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (apply-primitive-procedure proc args)
(apply-in-underlying-scheme
(primitive-implementation proc) args))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define input-prompt ";;; M-Eval input:")
(define output-prompt ";;; M-Eval value:")
(define (driver-loop)
(prompt-for-input input-prompt)
(let ((input (read)))
(let ((output
(eval input
the-global-environment)))
(announce-output output-prompt)
(user-print output)))
(driver-loop))
(define (prompt-for-input string)
(newline) (newline)
(display string) (newline))
(define (announce-output string)
(newline) (display string) (newline))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme :tangle yes
(define (user-print object)
(if (compound-procedure? object)
(display
(list 'compound-procedure
(procedure-parameters object)
(procedure-body object)
'<procedure-env>))
(display object)))
#+END_SRC
Now all we need to do to run the evaluator is to initialize the global
environment and start the driver loop. Here is a sample interaction:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define the-global-environment
(setup-environment))
(driver-loop)
;;; M-Eval input:
(define (append x y)
(if (null? x)
y
(cons (car x) (append (cdr x) y))))
;;; M-Eval value:
ok
;;; M-Eval input:
(append '(a b c) '(d e f))
;;; M-Eval value:
(a b c d e f)
#+END_SRC
* <<4.1.5>> Data as Programs
our evaluator is seen to be a universal machine. It mimics other
machines when these are described as Lisp programs. This is
striking.
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
The fact that the machines are described in Lisp is inessential. If we
give our evaluator a Lisp program that behaves as an evaluator for
some other language, say C, the Lisp evaluator will emulate the C
evaluator, which in turn can emulate any machine described as a C
program. Similarly, writing a Lisp evaluator in C produces a C program
that can execute any Lisp program. The deep idea here is that any
evaluator can emulate any other. Thus, the notion of “what can in
principle be computed” (ignoring practicalities of time and memory
required) is independent of the language or the computer, and instead
reflects an underlying notion of computability. This was first
demonstrated in a clear way by Alan M. Turing (1912-1954), whose 1936
paper laid the foundations for theoretical computer science. In the
paper, Turing presented a simple computational model—now known as a
Turing machine—and argued that any “effective process” can be
formulated as a program for such a machine. (This argument is known as
the Church-Turing thesis.) Turing then implemented a universal
machine, i.e., a Turing machine that behaves as an evaluator for
Turing-machine programs. He used this framework to demonstrate that
there are well-posed problems that cannot be computed by Turing
machines (see [[Exercise 4.15]]), and so by implication cannot be
formulated as “effective processes.” Turing went on to make
fundamental contributions to practical computer science as well. For
example, he invented the idea of structuring programs using
general-purpose subroutines. See Hodges 1983 for a biography of
Turing.
#+END_QUOTE
* <<4.1.6>> Internal Definitions
* <<4.1.7>> Separating Syntatic Analysis from Execution
By separating syntax analysis from execution in ~eval~, we can ensure
we don't need to repeat the expensive analysis step for each
subsequent execution.
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define (eval exp env) ((analyze exp) env))
#+END_SRC
The result of calling ~analyze~ is the execution procedure to be
applied to the environment. The ~analyze~ procedure is the same case
analysis as performed by the original ~eval~ of [[4.1.1]], except that the
procedures to which we dispatch perform only analysis, not full
evaluation:
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define (analyze exp)
(cond ((self-evaluating? exp)
(analyze-self-evaluating exp))
((quoted? exp)
(analyze-quoted exp))
((variable? exp)
(analyze-variable exp))
((assignment? exp)
(analyze-assignment exp))
((definition? exp)
(analyze-definition exp))
((if? exp)
(analyze-if exp))
((lambda? exp)
(analyze-lambda exp))
((begin? exp)
(analyze-sequence
(begin-actions exp)))
((cond? exp)
(analyze (cond->if exp)))
((application? exp)
(analyze-application exp))
(else
(error "Unknown expression
type: ANALYZE"
exp))))
#+END_SRC
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(define (analyze-self-evaluating exp)
(lambda (env) exp))
(define (analyze-quoted exp)
(let ((qval (text-of-quotation exp)))
(lambda (env) qval)))
(define (analyze-variable exp)
(lambda (env)
(lookup-variable-value exp env)))
(define (analyze-assignment exp)
(let ((var (assignment-variable exp))
(vproc (analyze
(assignment-value exp))))
(lambda (env)
(set-variable-value!
var (vproc env) env)
'ok)))
(define (analyze-definition exp)
(let ((var (definition-variable exp))
(vproc (analyze
(definition-value exp))))
(lambda (env)
(define-variable! var (vproc env) env)
'ok)))
(define (analyze-if exp)
(let ((pproc (analyze (if-predicate exp)))
(cproc (analyze (if-consequent exp)))
(aproc (analyze (if-alternative exp))))
(lambda (env)
(if (true? (pproc env))
(cproc env)
(aproc env)))))
(define (analyze-lambda exp)
(let ((vars (lambda-parameters exp))
(bproc (analyze-sequence
(lambda-body exp))))
(lambda (env)
(make-procedure vars bproc env))))
(define (analyze-sequence exps)
(define (sequentially proc1 proc2)
(lambda (env) (proc1 env) (proc2 env)))
(define (loop first-proc rest-procs)
(if (null? rest-procs)
first-proc
(loop (sequentially first-proc
(car rest-procs))
(cdr rest-procs))))
(let ((procs (map analyze exps)))
(if (null? procs)
(error "Empty sequence: ANALYZE"))
(loop (car procs) (cdr procs))))
(define (analyze-application exp)
(let ((fproc (analyze (operator exp)))
(aprocs (map analyze (operands exp))))
(lambda (env)
(execute-application
(fproc env)
(map (lambda (aproc) (aproc env))
aprocs)))))
(define (execute-application proc args)
(cond ((primitive-procedure? proc)
(apply-primitive-procedure proc args))
((compound-procedure? proc)
((procedure-body proc)
(extend-environment
(procedure-parameters proc)
args
(procedure-environment proc))))
(else (error "Unknown procedure type:
EXECUTE-APPLICATION"
proc))))
#+END_SRC
Our new evaluator uses the same data structures, syntax procedures,
and run-time support procedures as in [[4.1.2]], [[4.1.3]], and [[4.1.4]].
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink