Our environment model of evaluation and our metacircular evaluator execute definitions in sequence, extending the environment frame one definition at a time. This is particularly convenient for interactive program development, in which the programmer needs to freely mix the application of procedures with the definition of new procedures. However, if we think carefully about the internal definitions used to implement block structure (introduced in section ), we will find that name-by-name extension of the environment may not be the best way to define local variables.
Consider a procedure with internal definitions, such as
(define (f x) (define (even? n) (if (= n 0) true (odd? (- n 1)))) (define (odd? n) (if (= n 0) false (even? (- n 1)))) rest of body of f)Our intention here is that the name odd? in the body of the procedure even? should refer to the procedure odd? that is defined after even?. The scope of the name odd? is the entire body of f, not just the portion of the body of f starting at the point where the define for odd? occurs. Indeed, when we consider that odd? is itself defined in terms of even?--so that even? and odd? are mutually recursive procedures--we see that the only satisfactory interpretation of the two defines is to regard them as if the names even? and odd? were being added to the environment simultaneously. More generally, in block structure, the scope of a local name is the entire procedure body in which the define is evaluated.
As it happens, our interpreter will evaluate calls to f correctly, but for an ``accidental'' reason: Since the definitions of the internal procedures come first, no calls to these procedures will be evaluated until all of them have been defined. Hence, odd? will have been defined by the time even? is executed. In fact, our sequential evaluation mechanism will give the same result as a mechanism that directly implements simultaneous definition for any procedure in which the internal definitions come first in a body and evaluation of the value expressions for the defined variables doesn't actually use any of the defined variables. (For an example of a procedure that doesn't obey these restrictions, so that sequential definition isn't equivalent to simultaneous definition, see exercise .)
There is, however, a simple way to treat definitions so that internally defined names have truly simultaneous scope--just create all local variables that will be in the current environment before evaluating any of the value expressions. One way to do this is by a syntax transformation on lambda expressions. Before evaluating the body of a lambda expression, we ``scan out'' and eliminate all the internal definitions in the body. The internally defined variables will be created with a let and then set to their values by assignment. For example, the procedure
(lambda vars (define u e1) (define v e2) e3)would be transformed into
(lambda vars (let ((u '*unassigned*) (v '*unassigned*)) (set! u e1) (set! v e2) e3))where *unassigned* is a special symbol that causes looking up a variable to signal an error if an attempt is made to use the value of the not-yet-assigned variable.
An alternative strategy for scanning out internal definitions is shown in exercise . Unlike the transformation shown above, this enforces the restriction that the defined variables' values can be evaluated without using any of the variables' values.
Exercise. In this exercise we implement the method just described for interpreting internal definitions. We assume that the evaluator supports let (see exercise ).
aChange lookup-variable-value (section ) to signal an error if the value it finds is the symbol *unassigned*.
bWrite 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.
cInstall scan-out-defines in the interpreter, either in make-procedure or in procedure-body (see section ). Which place is better? Why?
Exercise. Draw diagrams of the environment in effect when evaluating the expression e3 in the procedure in the text, comparing how this will be structured when definitions are interpreted sequentially with how it will be structured if definitions are scanned out as described. Why is there an extra frame in the transformed program? Explain why this difference in environment structure can never make a difference in the behavior of a correct program. Design a way to make the interpreter implement the ``simultaneous'' scope rule for internal definitions without constructing the extra frame.
Exercise. Consider an alternative strategy for scanning out definitions that translates the example in the text to
(lambda vars (let ((u '*unassigned*) (v '*unassigned*)) (let ((a e1) (b e2)) (set! u a) (set! v b)) e3))Here a and b are meant to represent new variable names, created by the interpreter, that do not appear in the user's program. Consider the solve procedure from section :
(define (solve f y0 dt) (define y (integral (delay dy) y0 dt)) (define dy (stream-map f y)) y)Will this procedure work if internal definitions are scanned out as shown in this exercise? What if they are scanned out as shown in the text? Explain.
Exercise. Ben Bitdiddle, Alyssa P. Hacker, and Eva Lu Ator are arguing about the desired result of evaluating the expression
(let ((a 1)) (define (f x) (define b (+ a x)) (define a 5) (+ a b)) (f 10))Ben asserts that the result should be obtained using the sequential rule for define: b is defined to be 11, then a is defined to be 5, so the result is 16. Alyssa objects that mutual recursion requires the simultaneous scope rule for internal procedure definitions, and that it is unreasonable to treat procedure names differently from other names. Thus, she argues for the mechanism implemented in exercise . This would lead to a being unassigned at the time that the value for b is to be computed. Hence, in Alyssa's view the procedure should produce an error. Eva has a third opinion. She says that if the definitions of a and b are truly meant to be simultaneous, then the value 5 for a should be used in evaluating b. Hence, in Eva's view a should be 5, b should be 15, and the result should be 20. Which (if any) of these viewpoints do you support? Can you devise a way to implement internal definitions so that they behave as Eva prefers?
Exercise. Because internal definitions look sequential but are actually simultaneous, some people prefer to avoid them entirely, and use the special form letrec instead. Letrec looks like let, so it is not surprising that the variables it binds are bound simultaneously and have the same scope as each other. The sample procedure f above can be written without internal definitions, but with exactly the same meaning, as
(define (f x) (letrec ((even? (lambda (n) (if (= n 0) true (odd? (- n 1))))) (odd? (lambda (n) (if (= n 0) false (even? (- n 1)))))) rest of body of f))Letrec expressions, which have the form
(letrec ((var1 exp1) ... (varn expn)) body)are a variation on let in which the expressions expk that provide the initial values for the variables vark are evaluated in an environment that includes all the letrec bindings. This permits recursion in the bindings, such as the mutual recursion of even? and odd? in the example above, or the evaluation of 10 factorial with
(letrec ((fact (lambda (n) (if (= n 1) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1))))))) (fact 10))
a. Implement letrec as a derived expression, by transforming a letrec expression into a let expression as shown in the text above or in exercise . That is, the letrec variables should be created with a let and then be assigned their values with set!.
b. Louis Reasoner is confused by all this fuss about internal definitions. The way he sees it, if you don't like to use define inside a procedure, you can just use let. Illustrate what is loose about his reasoning by drawing an environment diagram that shows the environment in which the rest of body of f is evaluated during evaluation of the expression (f 5), with f defined as in this exercise. Draw an environment diagram for the same evaluation, but with let in place of letrec in the definition of f.
Exercise. Amazingly, Louis's intuition in exercise is correct. It is indeed possible to specify recursive procedures without using letrec (or even define), although the method for accomplishing this is much more subtle than Louis imagined. The following expression computes 10 factorial by applying a recursive factorial procedure:
((lambda (n) ((lambda (fact) (fact fact n)) (lambda (ft k) (if (= k 1) 1 (* k (ft ft (- k 1))))))) 10)
a. Check (by evaluating the expression) that this really does compute factorials. Devise an analogous expression for computing Fibonacci numbers.
b. Consider the following procedure, which includes mutually recursive internal definitions:
(define (f x) (define (even? n) (if (= n 0) true (odd? (- n 1)))) (define (odd? n) (if (= n 0) false (even? (- n 1)))) (even? x))Fill in the missing expressions to complete an alternative definition of f, which uses neither internal definitions nor letrec:
(define (f x) ((lambda (even? odd?) (even? even? odd? x)) (lambda (ev? od? n) (if (= n 0) true (od? <??> <??> <??>))) (lambda (ev? od? n) (if (= n 0) false (ev? <??> <??> <??>)))))