Fundamentals of Computer Science I: Media Computing (CS151.02 2007F)

Naming Values with Local Bindings

This reading is also available in PDF.

Summary: Algorithm designers regularly find it useful to name the values their algorithms process. We consider why and how to name new values within an algorithm.

Contents:

Introduction

When writing programs and algorithms, it is useful to name values we compute along the way. For example, in an algorithm that, given a color, computes a grey color with the same brightness as the original color, it is useful to name that brightness. When we associate a name with a value, we say that we bind that name to the value.

So far we've seen three ways in which Scheme permits the algorithm writer to bind a name to a value:

Redundant Work

There are often times when it seems that you repeat work that should only have to be done once. For example, consider again the problem of computing a grey that has the same brightness of the original color. We can certainly write the following:

(define rgb.greyscale 
  (lambda (color)
    (rgb.new (+ (* 0.30 (rgb.red color))
                (* 0.59 (rgb.green color))
                (* 0.11 (rgb.blue color)))
             (+ (* 0.30 (rgb.red color))
                (* 0.59 (rgb.green color))
                (* 0.11 (rgb.blue color)))
             (+ (* 0.30 (rgb.red color))
                (* 0.59 (rgb.green color))
                (* 0.11 (rgb.blue color))))))

However, that code has some difficulties. First, it's a bit hard to read. Why are we using those weird formulae? Are the three the same? If not, why not. Second, it's hard to correct if we change our formula, since the formula is repeated three times. Finally, this repetition of code will lead to inefficiencies. Why should we compute the same product and the same sum three times. If we rely only on the Scheme we know so far, we can solve the first two problems by writing a separate procedure to compute the brightness.

;;; Procedure:
;;;   rgb.brightness
;;; Parameters:
;;;   color, an RGB color
;;; Purpose:
;;;   Computes the brightness of color on a 0 (dark) to 255 (bright) scale.
;;; Produces:
;;;   b, an integer
;;; Preconditions:
;;;   color is a valid RGB color.  That is, each component is between
;;;     0 and 255, inclusive.
;;; Postconditions:
;;;   If color1 is likely to be perceived as brighter than color2,
;;;     then (brightness color1) > (brightness color2).
(define rgb.brightness
  (lambda (color)
    (+ (* .30 (rgb.red color))
       (* .59 (rgb.green color))
       (* .11 (rgb.blue color)))))

Once we've defined rgb.brightness, all we need to do is call it three times to build a single shade of grey.

(define rgb.greyscale 
  (lambda (color)
    (rgb.new (rgb.brightness color)
             (rgb.brightness color)
             (rgb.brightness color))))

This change certainly makes it easier to read rgb.greyscale. In addition, it's easier to update. If we decide to compute brightness differently, such as by averaging the three colors, we only need to change one piece of code.

(define rgb.brightness
  (lambda (color)
    (/ (+ (rgb.red color) (rgb.green color) (rgb.blue color)) 3)))

Although we have solved the first two deficiencies of the original code, we are still repeating work. Can we avoid the repetition of work? Certainly, we can write a procedure that makes a shade of grey from a single component value.

;;; Procedure:
;;;   rgb.grey
;;; Parameters:
;;;   level, an integer
;;; Purpose:
;;;   Produces a shade of grey.
;;; Produces:
;;;   grey, a color.
;;; Preconditions:
;;;   level is an integer between 0 and 255, inclusive.
;;; Postconditions:
;;;   Each component of grey is level .
(define rgb.grey
  (lambda (level)
    (rgb.new level level level)))

Now, we can simply write

(define rgb.greyscale
  (lambda (color)
    (rgb.grey (rgb.brightness color))))

But that's a lot of extra work. It's inconvenient to have to write (and document!) two procedures that we're just going to use just this once.

Scheme's let Expressions

Scheme provides let expressions as an alternative way to create local bindings. A let-expression contains a binding list and a body. The body can be any expression, or sequence of expressions, to be evaluated with the help of the local name bindings. The binding list is a pair of structural parentheses enclosing zero or more binding specifications; a binding specification, in turn, is a pair of structural parentheses enclosing a name and an expression.

That precise definition may have been a bit confusing, so here's the general form of a let expression

(let
  ((name1 exp1)
   (name2 exp2)
   ...
   (namen expn))
  body1
  body2
  ...
  bodym)

When Scheme encounters a let-expression, it begins by evaluating all of the expressions inside its binding specifications. Then the names in the binding specifications are bound to those values. Next, the expressions making up the body of the let-expression are evaluated, in order. The value of the last expression in the body becomes the value of the entire let-expression. Finally, the local bindings of the names are cancelled. (Names that were unbound before the let-expression become unbound again; names that had different bindings before the let-expression resume those earlier bindings.)

Here's how we'd solve the earlier problem with let and without helpers.

(define rgb.greyscale
  (lambda (color)
    (let ((brightness (+ (* 0.30 (rgb.red color)) 
                         (* 0.59 (rgb.green color))
                         (* 0.11 (rgb.blue color)))))
      (rgb.new brightness brightness brightness))))

Here's another example of a binding list, taken from a let-expression in a real Scheme program:

(let ((next (car source))
      (stuff null))
  ...)

This binding list contains two binding specifications -- one in which the value of the expression (car source) is bound to the name next, and the other in which the empty list is bound to the name stuff. Notice that binding lists and binding specifications are not procedure calls; their role in a let-expression simply to give names to certain values while the body of the expression is being evaluated. The outer parentheses in a binding list are structural, like the outer parentheses in a cond-clause -- they are there to group the pieces of the binding list together.

Using a let-expression often simplifies an expression that contains two or more occurrences of the same subexpression. The programmer can compute the value of the subexpression just once, bind a name to it, and then use that name whenever the value is needed again. Sometimes this speeds things up by avoiding such redundancies as the re0computation of values.

In other cases, there is little difference in speed, but the code may be a little clearer. For instance, consider the following list.remove procedure that removes all copies of a value from a list. In the past, we might have written that procedure as follows.

;;; Procedure:
;;;   lst.remove
;;; Parameters:
;;;   lst, a list of values
;;;   item, a value
;;; Purpose:
;;;   Removes all copies of item from lst
;;; Produces:
;;;   newls, a list
;;; Preconditions:
;;;   lst is a list.  It may be empty.
;;; Postconditions:
;;;   No values equal to item appear in newls.
;;;   Every value not equal to item that appeared in lst also
;;;     appears in newls.
;;;   Every value that appears in newls also appears in lst.
;;;   If a preceded b in lst and neither a nor b equals item,
;;;     then a precedes b in newls.
(define list.remove
  (lambda (lst item)
    (cond
      ; If the list is empty, removing the element still gives
      ; us the empty list
      ((null? ls) null)
      ; If the first element of the list matches, skip over it.
      ((equal? item (car ls)) (list.remove (cdr ls) item))
      ; Otherwise, preserve the first element and remove item
      ; from the remainder of ls
      (else (cons (car ls) (list.remove (cdr ls) item))))))

Here is an alternative definition of the remove-all procedure which some people find clearer.

(define list.remvoe
  (lambda (item ls)
    ; If the list is empty, removing the element still gives
    ; us the empty list
    (if (null? ls) null
        (let (
              ; Name the car of the list first-element.
              (first-element (car ls)) 
              ; Recurse on the rest of the list and name it
              ; rest-of result.
              (rest-of-result (list.remove (cdr ls) item)))
          ; If the first element of the list matches, skip over it.
          (if (equal? first-element item) 
              rest-of-result
              ; Otherwise, preserve the first element and attach
              ; it to the rest.
              (cons first-element rest-of-result))))))

The technique can also be useful not just for clarifying what a procedure does, but also for making them more efficient. Consider the following version of the rgb.brightest procedure, which we've studied a few times.

;;; Procedure:
;;;   rgb.brightest
;;; Parameters:
;;;   colors, a list of RGB colors
;;; Purpose:
;;;   Find the brightest color in colors.
;;; Produces:
;;;   brightest, an RGB color.
;;; Preconditions:
;;;   colors is nonempty. [Unverified]
;;;   Each element of colors is an RGB color.  [Unverified]
;;; Postconditions:
;;;   brightest is equal to at least one element of colors.
;;;   brightest is at least as bright as each element of colors.
(define rgb.brightest
  (lambda (colors) 
    (if (null? (cdr colors))
        (car colors)
        (if (rgb.brighter? (car colors) (rgb.brightest (cdr colors)))
            (car colors)
            (rgb.brightest (cdr colors))))))

If we rewrite this with a let, we get the following.

(define rgb.brightest
  (lambda (color)
    (if (null? (cdr colors))
        (car colors)
        (let ((first-color (car colors))
              (brightest-remaining (rgb.brightest (cdr colors))))
          (if (>= (rgb.brightness first-color)
                     (rgb.brightness brightest-remaining))
              first-color
              brightest-remaining)))))

As you'll find in the lab, this is much more efficient.

Sequencing Bindings with let*

Sometimes we may want to name a number of interrelated things. For example, suppose we wanted to square the average of a list of numbers (well, it's something that people do sometimes). Since computing the average involves summing values, we may want to name two different things: the total and the average (mean). We can nest one let-expression inside another to name both things.

(let ((total (+ (rgb.red color) (rgb.green color) (rgb.blue color))
  (let ((mean (/ total 3)))
    (* mean mean)))

One might be tempted to try to combine the binding lists for the nested let-expressions, thus:

;; Combining the binding lists doesn't work!
(let ((total (+ (rgb.red color) (rgb.green color) (rgb.blue color))
      (mean (/ total 3)))
  (* mean mean))

This wouldn't work (try it and see!), and it's important to understand why not. The problem is that, within one binding list, all of the expressions are evaluated before any of the names are bound. Specifically, Scheme will try to evaluate both (+ 8 3 4 2 7) and (/ total 5) before binding either of the names total and mean; since (/ total 5) can't be computed until total has a value, an error occurs. You have to think of the local bindings coming into existence simultaneously rather than one at a time.

Because one often needs sequential rather than simultaneous binding, Scheme provides a variant of the let-expression that rearranges the order of events: If one writes let* rather than let, each binding specification in the binding list is completely processed before the next one is taken up:

;; Using let* instead of let works!
(let* ((total (+ (rgb.red color) (rgb.green color) (rgb.blue color)))
       (mean (/ total 3)))
  (* mean mean))

The star in the keyword let* has nothing to do with multiplication. Just think of it as an oddly shaped letter. It means "do things in sequence, rather than all at once". I have no idea why they've chosen to do that.

Positioning let Relative to lambda

In the examples above, we've tended to do the naming within the body of the procedure. That is, we write

(define proc
  (lambda (params)
    (let (...)
      exp)))

However, Scheme also lets us choose an alternate ordering. We can instead put the let before (outside of) the lambda.

(define proc
  (let (...)
    (lambda (params)
      exp)))

Why would we ever choose to do so? Let us consider an example. Suppose that we regularly need to convert years to seconds. (When you have sons between the ages of 5 and 12, you'll understand.) You might begin with

(define years-to-seconds
  (lambda (years)
    (return (* years 365.24 24 60 60))))

This is, of course, correct. However, it is a bit hard to read. You might want to name some of the values for clarity.

(define years-to-seconds
  (lambda (years)
    (let* ((days-per-year 365.24)
           (hours-per-day 24)
           (minutes-per-hour 60)
           (seconds-per-minute 60)
           (seconds-per-year (* days-per-year hours-per-day 
                                minutes-per-hour seconds-per-minute)))
      (* years seconds-per-year))))
> (years-to-seconds 10)
315567360.0

We have clearly clarified the code, although we have also lengthened it a bit. However, as we noted before, a second goal of naming is to avoid recomputation of values. Unfortunately, even though the number of seconds per year never changes, we compute it every time that someone calls years-to-seconds. How can we avoid this recomputation? One strategy is to move the bindings to define statements.

(define days-per-year 365.24)
...
(define seconds-per-year (* days-per-year ... seconds-per-minute))
(define years-to-seconds
  (lambda (years)
    (* years seconds-per-year)))

However, such a strategy is a bit dangerous. After all, there is nothing to prevent someone else from changing the values here.

(define days-per-year 360) ; Some strange calendar, perhaps in Indiana
...
> (years-to-seconds 10)
311040000

What we'd like to do is to declare the values once, but keep them local to years-to-seconds. The strategy is to move the let outside the lambda.

(define years-to-seconds
  (let* ((days-per-year 365.24)
         (hours-per-day 24)
         (minutes-per-hour 60)
         (seconds-per-minute 60)
         (seconds-per-year (* days-per-year hours-per-day 
                              minutes-per-hour seconds-per-minute)))
    (lambda (years)
      (* years seconds-per-year))))
> (years-to-seconds 10)
315567360.0

As you'll see in the lab, it is possible to empirically verify that the bindings occur only once in this case, and each time the procedure is called in the prior case.

So, one moral of this story is whenever possible, move your bindings outside the lambda. However, it is not always possible to do so. For example, if your let-bindings use parameters (as in the earlier quadratic example), then you need to keep them within the body of the lambda.

Local Procedures

As you may have noted, let behaves somewhat like define in that programmers can use it to name values. But we've used define to name more than values; we've also used it to name procedures. Can we also use let for procedures?

Yes, one can use a let- or let*-expression to create a local name for a procedure. And we name procedures locally for the same reason that we name values, because it speeds and clarifies the code.

(define hypotenuse-of-right-triangle
  (let ((square (lambda (n) (* n n))))
    (lambda (first-leg second-leg)
      (sqrt (+ (square first-leg) (square second-leg))))))

Regardless of whether square is also defined outside this definition, the local binding gives it the appropriate meaning within the lambda-expression that describes what hypotenuse-of-right-triangle does.

Note, once again, that there are two places one might define square locally. We can define it before the lambda (as above) or after the lambda (as below). In the first case, the definition is done only once. In the second case, it is done every time the procedure is executed.

(define hypotenuse-of-right-triangle
  (lambda (first-leg second-leg)
    (let ((square (lambda (n) (* n n))))
      (sqrt (+ (square first-leg) (square second-leg))))))

So, which we should you do it? If the helper procedure you're defining uses any of the parameters of the main procedure, it needs to come after the lambda. Otherwise, it is generally a better idea to do it before the lambda. As you practice more with let, you'll find times that each choice is appropriate.

Unfortunately, you cannot use let to define recursive procedures. In a subsequent reading, you'll learn another variant of let that supports recursive procedures. Once you've learned that technique your helpers can all be local.

 

History

 

Disclaimer: I usually create these pages on the fly, which means that I rarely proofread them and they may contain bad grammar and incorrect details. It also means that I tend to update them regularly (see the history for more details). Feel free to contact me with any suggestions for changes.

This document was generated by Siteweaver on Mon Dec 3 09:53:50 2007.
The source to the document was last modified on Sat Oct 13 15:37:03 2007.
This document may be found at http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~rebelsky/Courses/CS151/2007F/Readings/let-reading.html.

You may wish to validate this document's HTML ; Valid CSS! ; Creative Commons License

Samuel A. Rebelsky, rebelsky@grinnell.edu

Copyright © 2007 Janet Davis, Matthew Kluber, and Samuel A. Rebelsky. (Selected materials copyright by John David Stone and Henry Walker and used by permission.) This material is based upon work partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CCLI-0633090. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.