Note: this wiki is now retired and will no longer be updated!
The static final versions of the pages are left as a convenience for readers. Note that meta-pages such as "discussion," "history," etc., will not work.
SICP exercise 2.19
Consider the change-counting program of section 1.2.2 of the text. It would be nice to be able to easily change the currency used by the program, so that we could compute the number of ways to change a British pound, for example. As the program is written, the knowledge of the currency is distributed partly into the procedure first-denomination and partly into the procedure count-change (which knows that there are five kinds of U.S. coins). It would be nicer to be able to supply a list of coins to be used for making change.
We want to rewrite the procedure cc so that its second argument is a list of the values of the coins to use rather than an integer specifying which coins to use. We could then have lists that defined each kind of currency:
(define us-coins (list 50 25 10 5 1)) (define uk-coins (list 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 0.5))
We could then call cc as follows:
(cc 100 us-coins)
To do this will require changing the program cc somewhat. It will still have the same form, but it will access its second argument differently, as follows:
(define (cc amount coin-values) (cond ((= amount 0) 1) ((or (< amount 0) (no-more? coin-values)) 0) (else (+ (cc amount (except-first-denomination coin-values)) (cc (- amount (first-denomination coin-values)) coin-values)))))
Define the procedures first-denomination, except-first-denomination, and no-more? in terms of primitive operations on list structures. Does the order of the list coin-values affect the answer produced by cc? Why or why not?
Part one of the exercise asks us to define the procedures first-denomination, except-first-denomination and no-more? in terms of primitive operations on list structures. This part is easy:
(define (first-denomination coin-values) (car coin-values)) (define (except-first-denomination coin-values) (cdr coin-values)) (define (no-more? coin-values) (null? coin-values))
(cc 100 us-coins)
(cc 11 uk-coins)
Part two asks if the order of the list coin-values affects the answer produced by cc.
The answer does not depend on the order of the list because cc exhaustively traverses the list when calculating the answer. Recall that the process generated by cc takes the shape of a tree. It terminates the evaluation of a branch only when the list is empty or when the amount of change remaining is less than or equal to zero. Termination of the branch does not depend on the magnitude of the remaining values in the list.
We can verify our answer by reversing the us-coins and uk-coins lists and comparing the answers using the reversed lists to the answers we got using the original lists:
(cc 100 (reverse us-coins))
(cc 11 (reverse uk-coins))
Note that we could require the types-of-coin list to be sorted from lowest to highest denomination, and then change cc to take advantage of this restriction by aborting evaluation branches when the amount of change remaining is less than the first denomination. The modified cc would evaluate fewer nodes.