🤑 racket - Scheme - Blackjack Program (SICP) / Learning to program - Stack Overflow

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🎰

Filter:
Sort:
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

(define (code-to-english-letter letter match-list) (car (rassoc letter match-list))) ​2 Exercises Write a program that determines the value of a BlackJack hand.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

(define (code-to-english-letter letter match-list) (car (rassoc letter match-list))) ​2 Exercises Write a program that determines the value of a BlackJack hand.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

(define (code-to-english-letter letter match-list) (car (rassoc letter match-list))) ​2 Exercises Write a program that determines the value of a BlackJack hand.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

they enter advertising orders for business clients into a software program. It was quite an ingenious scheme, actually, having to do with changing the codes.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

One direction where we can take our programming skills is game development. Here, we'll build a text based Blackjack engine that allows us to play against a.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

they enter advertising orders for business clients into a software program. It was quite an ingenious scheme, actually, having to do with changing the codes.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

I have decided to learn to program reading/doing SICP. I'm using DrRacket and metodplatforma.ru I wrote a blackjack program.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Network Universal Frame Forge, A Scheme-based programming environment designed for Hoyte BlackJack Labs, Analysis of the casino game of BlackJack.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

I have decided to learn to program reading/doing SICP. I'm using DrRacket and metodplatforma.ru I wrote a blackjack program.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

🖐

Software - MORE
B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Network Universal Frame Forge, A Scheme-based programming environment designed for Hoyte BlackJack Labs, Analysis of the casino game of BlackJack.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
blackjack program in scheme

Categories HOME msbuild rebus python Resources javascript android java csharp php python ios jquery html sql.{/INSERTKEYS}{/PARAGRAPH} I will do the same and compare code. Am I right? The call to generate the return should be the original function or a mutually tail recursive function like so define even? I'm also throwing down the gauntlet. I thought it would be easy but I haven't been able to come up with a solution. Def not the most efficient way. The key insight from this function is that fold is a very powerful operation, and should be part of any Schemer's toolkit. Can you make a program that uses "optimal" strategy and determines what the probability of the player winning against the dealer using n sample size? The Racket implementation is straightforward: define adjacent-difference f lst if null? Thank you. Tail recursion is when the recursive call is in the tail position. For a three-item list you should only have two differences, right? It will only step as many times as the shortest list. It's less complex than what an implementation needs to do to support syntax-rules or call-with-current-continuation. Or perhaps i'm missing the point? Is this tail recursive? It gets away with using cons and avoiding append, because it only chips away the first non-pair it can get to and conses that to the flatten of a new tail it has built. Try using rackunit, documented here Let me focus on a single function show-deck. The rest of this post assumes that's the case, and just takes out that incrementing. It works. Yes, with a cherry on top! I'm not familiar with the Little Schemer primitives, so you may need to flavor this to suit. I see what it's doing, but the recursion can be simplified a bit. Not enough comments? I can see that the target result can be made with: define doubleandcons lambda lst if null? Idiomatic usage of local vs lambda? The usual reduce is a right fold, i. The first higher order function he defines is reduce, which i've defined in Scheme as follows: define u-reduce lambda ff init lst if null? I'm not sure if this is the answer you want, but you can write append using primitives: define append l1 l2 cond null? That answer apparently wasn't long enough for Stack Exchange. I think let would be my first choice for the local binding. In the case of add-to-each, you want to add a particular number to each element. First off, I think you might be getting relativeabsolute confused with add-to-each, since add-to-each just adds the same number to each element of the list, rather than incrementing an accumulator. The "left-left lambda" pattern can be more difficult to read, as you note, so I prefer let. I have a version that uses only "first-principles" operations and is efficient does not require more than one pass through any of the lists, unlike append-based solutions. Such an implementation could achieve this by transforming your code to something similar to the code below:! In Scheme you have fold-right that does elements in order. The key, then, is to pass map an f that does what you want to do to each element. The first idea was: map f cdr lst lst Oops, the sizes of the lists are different, we cannot use map in this way. However, Exercise Let's look at a simple definition of map to see how it might be helpful, rather than painful, for this problem: define map f ls cond [ empty? Any ideas how to do it without writing a new function? Add signatures and purpose statements to each of your functions. Yes, it's not tail recursive. {PARAGRAPH}{INSERTKEYS}Home About Us Contact Us. That prevents it from being tail recursive. This should be enough to get you to a solution; I don't want to give away the final answer, though :. Your u-reduce works just like a right fold with it's arguments in the same order. Thus this should work in the R7RS "red edition":! Or do you always want to pull in default elements? It is safe to assume that it is not tail recursive since the standard RNRS, including the latest R7RS doesn't require tail recursion modulo cons optimization. Fixed code: define flatten x cond null? How about making your own map? Per my understanding of tail recursion, the following function is not a tail recursive function. L ' cons f car L map f cdr L cons will have to wait until map f cdr L returns to finish its job. How do I make this program "better"? Sometimes it rewrites the list then just calls flatten again. In the map defined in SRFI-1 List library different sized lists are allowed with the requirement that at least one is finite. See here for an explanation. I am not sure how to translate this into scheme. Write tests! That of course doesn't deny anyone from actually implementing TRMCO in their Scheme implementation so that your definition of map, which is almost tail recursive except for that cons , really would become tail recursive. Avoid redefining built-in functions, like length. We can take map one step further, and use it for both the inner and outer loopings, and use apply append One way to avoid the apply append It relegates the loopness to foldr, though, so that all those iter functions disappear into uses of foldr. Making it easier to read might be slightly less efficient, but we're talking about 52 cards here Here's one version that disentangles them: define show-deck1 first-list second-list define outer-loop first-list second-list cond null? In Exercise Are there situations where the lambda version would be preferred? Personally, if I'm writing in full Racket, I'd just code it with for loops. Can you make this program more Readable and succinct? Not sure if this is outside the rules or not : Here's an attempt. I can cheat like this: map f append cdr lst ' 0 lst ; do not use the last element but it is a dirty solution. Haskell's foldr , but let's define a paramorphism for generality: define para f z lst if null? And, as seen in the code above, it's so simple to build from first principles! Your lambda example uses a common pattern that simulates let using lambda and application: let [x e] body Is equivalent to: lambda x body e If you use this transformation from lambda to let in your example, you get: define add-to-each5 n a-list cond [ empty? Since cdr xs is the shorter than xs the loop ends when there is no more elements in cdr xs. You should define your reduce as explicitly lazy, since the article is all about the importance and utility of laziness. Common Lisp reduce is a general fold. Did I put too many comments? How can I do this?