Re: Parameters

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi,

Sebastian Tennant <sebyte@smolny.plus.com> writes:

> This simple procedure behaves as expected, i.e., it provides the sum of
> a list of numbers:
>
>  (define add
>    (lambda (l)
>      (if (null? l)
>          0
>        (+ (add (cdr l)) (car l)))))
>
> whereas this procedure results in a stack overflow:
>
>  (define add
>    (lambda l
>      (if (null? l)
>          0
>        (+ (add (cdr l)) (car l)))))
>
> the only difference being the designation of the formal parameter of the
> anonymous procedure; l or (l).

When creating a procedure with `(lambda args body...)', then, no matter
how it is invoked, ARGS will always be bound to the *list* of arguments
that were passed to the procedure.  Consequently, such procedures can be
passed any numbers of arguments.

Conversely, `(lambda (x) body...)' is a one-argument procedure.  When it
is invoked, X is bound to its argument.

Thus, in your case, the first `add' would be used with a single
argument, e.g., `(add '(1 2 3 4))', while the second would be used with
an indefinite number of arguments, e.g., `(add 1 2 3 4)'.

Note that none of your procedures is tail-recursive, so they consume
stack space proportional to the length of L, which can lead to a stack
overflow for large lists.  A tail-recursive definition would be:

  (define add
    (lambda (l)
      (let loop ((l l)
                 (result 0))
        (if (null? l)
            result
            (loop (cdr l) (+ result (car l)))))))

Or you can just use `+'.  :-)

Hope this helps,
Ludovic.