We began the rational-number implementation in
section 2.1.1 by implementing the
rational-number operations
add-rat,add_rat,sub-rat,sub_rat,
and so on in terms of three unspecified
procedures:functions:make-rat,make_rat,numer, and
denom. At that point, we could think of the
operations as being defined in terms of data objects—numerators,
denominators, and rational numbers—whose behavior was specified
by the latter three
procedures.functions.
But exactly what is meant by data? It is not enough to say
whatever is implemented by the given selectors and
constructors. Clearly, not every arbitrary set of three
proceduresfunctions
can serve as an appropriate basis for the rational-number
implementation. We need to guarantee that,
if we construct a rational number x from a
pair of integers n and
d, then extracting the
numer and the
denom of x and
dividing them should yield the same result as dividing
n by d. In
other words,
make-rat,make_rat,numer, and
denom must satisfy the condition that, for
any integer n and any nonzero
integer d, if x is
(make-rat n d),make_rat(n, d),
then
In fact, this is the only condition
make-rat,make_rat,numer, and
denom must fulfill in order to form a
suitable basis for a rational-number representation. In general, we can
think of data as defined by some collection of selectors and
constructors, together with specified conditions that these
proceduresfunctions
must fulfill in order to be a valid
representation.[1]
This point of view can serve to define not only
high-level data objects, such as rational numbers, but
lower-level objects as well.
Consider the notion of a
pair, which we used in order to define our
rational numbers. We never actually said what a pair was, only that
the language supplied
proceduresfunctionscons,pair,car,head,
and
cdrtail
for operating on pairs. But the only thing we need to know about these
three operations
is that if we glue two objects together using
conspair
we can retrieve the objects using
carhead
and
cdr.tail.
That is, the operations satisfy the condition that, for any objects
x and y, if
z is
(cons x y)pair(x, y)
then
(car z)head(z)
is x and
(cdr z)tail(z)
is y. Indeed, we mentioned that these three
proceduresfunctions
are included as primitives in our language. However, any triple of
proceduresfunctions
that satisfies the above condition can be used as the basis for
implementing pairs. This point is illustrated strikingly by the fact
that we could implement
cons,pair,car,head,
and
cdrtail
without using any data structures at all but only using
procedures.functions.
Here are the definitions:[2]
Original
JavaScript
(define (cons x y)
(define (dispatch m)
(cond ((= m 0) x)
((= m 1) y)
(else (error "Argument not 0 or 1 -- CONS" m))))
dispatch)
(define (car z) (z 0))
(define (cdr z) (z 1))
function pair(x, y) {
function dispatch(m) {
return m === 0
? x
: m === 1
? y
: error(m, "argument not 0 or 1 -- pair");
}
return dispatch;
}
function head(z) { return z(0); }
function tail(z) { return z(1); }
This use of
proceduresfunctions
corresponds to nothing like our intuitive notion of what data should be.
Nevertheless, all we need to do to show that this is a valid way to
represent pairs is to verify that these
proceduresfunctions
satisfy the condition given above.
The subtle point to notice is that the value returned by
(cons x y)pair(x, y)
is a
procedure—namelyfunction—namely
the internally defined
procedurefunctiondispatch, which takes one argument and returns
either x or y
depending on whether the argument is 0 or 1. Correspondingly,
(car z)head(z)
is defined to apply z to 0. Hence, if
z is the
procedurefunction
formed by
(cons x y),pair(x, y),
then z applied to 0 will yield
x. Thus, we have shown that
(car (cons x y))head(pair(x, y))
yields x, as desired. Similarly,
(cdr (cons x y))tail(pair(x, y))
applies the
procedurefunction
returned by
(cons x y)pair(x, y)
to 1, which returns y.
Therefore, this
procedural
functional
implementation of pairs is a valid
implementation, and if we access pairs using only
cons,pair,car,head,
and
cdrtail
we cannot distinguish this implementation from one that uses
real data structures.
The point of exhibiting the
procedural
functional
representation of pairs is not that our language works this way
(Scheme, and Lisp systems in general,
implement pairs directly, for efficiency reasons)
(an efficient implementation of pairs
might use JavaScript's native
vector data structure)
but that it could work this way. The
procedural
functional
representation, although obscure, is a perfectly adequate way to represent
pairs, since it fulfills the only conditions that pairs need to fulfill.
This example also demonstrates that the ability to manipulate
proceduresfunctions
as objects automatically provides the ability to represent compound data.
This may seem a curiosity now, but
procedural
functional
representations of data will play a central role in our programming
repertoire. This style of programming is often called
message passing, and we will be using it as a basic tool in
chapter 3 when we address the issues of modeling and simulation.
Exercise 2.4
Here is an alternative
procedural
functional
representation of pairs. For this
representation, verify that
(car (cons x y))head(pair(x, y))
yields x for any objects
x and y.
Original
JavaScript
(define (cons x y)
(lambda (m) (m x y)))
(define (car z)
(z (lambda (p q) p)))
function pair(x, y) {
return m => m(x, y);
}
function head(z) {
return z((p, q) => p);
}
What is the corresponding definition of
cdr?tail?
(Hint: To verify that this works, make use of the substitution model of
section 1.1.5.)
Original
JavaScript
function tail(z) {
return z((p, q) => q);
}
Exercise 2.5
Show that we can represent pairs of nonnegative integers using only
numbers and arithmetic operations if we represent the pair
$a$ and $b$ as the
integer that is the product $2^a 3^b$. Give the
corresponding definitions of the
proceduresfunctionscons,pair,car,head,
and
cdr.tail.
Original
JavaScript
function pair(a, b) {
return fast_expt(2, a) * fast_expt(3, b);
}
function head(p) {
return p % 2 === 0
? head(p / 2) + 1
: 0;
}
function tail(p) {
return p % 3 === 0
? tail(p / 3) + 1
: 0;
}
Exercise 2.6
In case representing pairs as
proceduresfunctions
(exercise 2.4)
wasn't mind-boggling enough, consider that, in a language that can
manipulate
procedures,functions,
we can get by without numbers (at least insofar as nonnegative integers
are concerned) by implementing 0 and the operation of adding 1 as
const zero = f => x => x;
function add_1(n) {
return f => x => f(n(f)(x));
}
This representation is known as
Church numerals, after its inventor,
Alonzo Church, the logician who invented the
$\lambda$ calculus.
Define one and two
directly (not in terms of zero and
add-1).add_1).
(Hint: Use substitution to evaluate
(add-1 zero)).add_1(zero)).
Give a direct definition of the addition
procedure +function plus
(not in terms of repeated application of
add-1).add_1).
Original
JavaScript
const one = f => x => f(x);
const two = f => x => f(f(x));
function plus(n, m) {
return f => x => n(f)(m(f)(x));
}
// testing
const three = plus(one, two);
function church_to_number(c) {
return c(n => n + 1)(0);
}
church_to_number(three);
[1]
Surprisingly, this idea is very difficult to
formulate rigorously. There are two approaches to giving such a
formulation. One, pioneered by
C. A. R. Hoare (1972), is known as the method of
abstract models. It formalizes the
procedures plus conditionsfunctions plus conditions
specification as outlined in the rational-number example above. Note
that the condition on the rational-number representation was stated in
terms of facts about integers (equality and division). In general,
abstract models define new kinds of data objects in terms of previously
defined types of data objects. Assertions about data objects can
therefore be checked by reducing them to assertions about previously
defined data objects. Another approach, introduced by
Zilles at MIT, by
Goguen,
Thatcher,
Wagner, and
Wright at IBM (see Thatcher, Wagner, and Wright
1978), and by
Guttag at Toronto (see Guttag 1977),
is called
algebraic specification. It regards the
proceduresfunctions
as elements of an abstract algebraic system whose behavior is
specified by axioms that correspond to our conditions,
and uses the techniques of abstract algebra to check assertions about
data objects. Both methods are surveyed in the paper by
Liskov and Zilles
(1975).
[2]
The function
error introduced in
section 1.3.3
takes as optional second argument
a string that gets displayed before the first argument—for example, if
m is 42:
Error in line 7: argument not 0 or 1 -- pair: 42