1 files changed, 78 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/sem7/pp/lec1/exercises.scm b/sem7/pp/lec1/exercises.scm
index 9be35e2..6220982 100644
--- a/sem7/pp/lec1/exercises.scm
+++ b/sem7/pp/lec1/exercises.scm
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
       '()
       (cons from (make-list-ft (1+ from) to))))
 
-;; Exercise 1.3 (proper lists)
+;;# Exercise 1.3 (proper lists)
 ;;? Program own version of list?, thus proper-list?
 ;; This is done by running to the end of list, always checking if pair.
 ;; If last element is '() its a proper list, otherwize its not.
@@ -14,17 +14,17 @@
 
 ;;? Can you write your predicate without using if or cond?
 ;; Hmm i cant see how this would be done, as we are using recursion which requires a stop condition.
-
-;;? Is your function efficient? What is the time complexity?
-;; This runs over all the elements in the list, so O(n).
 ;; Hmm reading through the solution, i see that we can use other conditional functions like `or` and `and`.
 ;; Lets try that
 (define (proper-list? list)
   (or (null? list) (and (pair? list) (proper-list? (cdr list)))))
 
+;;? Is your function efficient? What is the time complexity?
+;; This runs over all the elements in the list, so O(n).
+
 ;; Okay thats just his solution
 
-;; Exercise 1.5 (every second element)
+;;# Exercise 1.5 (every second element)
 ;; Hmm the text mentions that we could write it with (every-nth-element)
 (define (every-nth-element n list)
   (let recur ((list list) (index 0))
@@ -32,5 +32,78 @@
 	  ((zero? (modulo index n)) (cons (car list) (recur (cdr list) (1+ index))))
 	  (else (recur (cdr list) (1+ index))))))
 
+;; With letrec
+(define (every-nth-element n list)
+  (letrec ([recur (lambda (list index)
+		    (cond [(null? list) '()]
+			  [(zero?
+			    (modulo index n)) (cons (car list) (recur (cdr list) (1+ index)))]
+			  [else (recur (cdr list) (1+ index))]))])
+    (recur list 0)))
+
 (define (every-2th-element list)
   (every-nth-element 2 list))
+
+
+;;# Exercise 1.6 (Creation of association list)
+;;? Program a function pair-up that constructs an association list from a list of keys and a list of values
+;;? Think of a reasonable solution in case the length of the key list is different from the length of the value list.
+(define (pair-up keys values)
+  (cond [(null? keys) '()]
+	[(null? values) '()]
+	[else (cons (cons (car keys) (car values))
+		    (pair-up (cdr keys) (cdr values)))]))
+  
+;;# Exercise 1.7 (Association list and property lists)
+;;? Program a function that converts an association list to a property list.
+(define (assoc->prop lst)
+  (if (null? lst)
+      '()
+      (let ([elem (car lst)])
+	(cons (car elem) (cons (cdr elem) (assoc->prop (cdr lst)))))))
+
+;;? Next, program the function that converts a property list to an association list.
+(define (prop->assoc lst)
+  (if (null? lst)
+      '()
+      (cons (cons (car lst) (cadr lst)) (prop->assoc (cddr lst)))))
+
+;;# Exercise 1.8
+;;? The function should return the value of key in property-list. Like assoc, get-prop should return #f if key is not found in property-list.
+;;? How will you handle the case where the property list is malformed - a property list with an odd number of elements?
+(define (get-prop lst index)
+  (cond [(null? lst) #f]
+	[(null? (cdr lst)) #f]
+	[(eqv? (car lst) index) (cadr lst)]
+	[else (get-prop (cddr lst) index)]
+	))
+
+;;? Discuss pros and cons of property lists and get-prop, compared to association lists and assoc.
+;; I don't see many pros of property lists, feels kind of like a hack.
+;; If you get a snippet of a property list, it's impossible to know where keys and values are.
+;; One pro is that they are easier to write out by hand.
+
+;;? Does the #f value, returned in cases where we do not find the key, bother you?
+;; YEEEES WTF
+;; What if you want to store booleans, with the possability of having false values.
+;; Then you have to wrap booleans in something else, like a one element list.
+
+;;# Exercise (list tail counterpart)
+;;? Program your own version of list-tail. Call it my-list-tail.
+(define (my-list-tail lst index)
+  (cond [(null? lst) '()]
+	[(zero? index) lst]
+	[else (my-list-tail (cdr lst) (1- index))]
+	))
+
+;;? Next, program a function list-prefix which is a prefix counterpart to list-tail. (list-prefix lst n) returns a prefix of the list of length n.
+(define (list-prefix lst index)
+  (cond [(null? lst) '()]
+	[(zero? index) (cons (car lst) '())]
+	[else (cons (car lst) (list-prefix (cdr lst) (1- index)))]
+	))
+
+;;? Reflect on the difference between these two functions. Which one is most expensive in terms of memory allocation?
+;; list-prefix builds up a copy of the existing array with consts.
+;; Therefore a new const is created at each recursive step of the evaluation, which requires more space.
+;; my-list-tail can just return the existing tail, without allocating a new array.