continuation-passing

I have a function that I want to write in tail recursive form. The function calculates the number of ways to get the sum of k by rolling an s sided die n times. I have seen the mathematical solution for this function on this answer . It is as follows: My reference recursive implementation in R is: sum_ways <- function(n_times, k_sum, s_side) { if (k_sum < n_times || k_sum > n_times * s_side) { return(0) } else if (n_times == 1) { return(1) } else { sigma_values <- sapply( 1:s_side, function(j) sum_ways(n_times - 1, k_sum - j, s_side) ) return(sum(sigma_values)) } } I have tried to re-write the

I am working with SICP and exercise 2.29-b gave me the opportunity to have fun with the Continuation Passing Style while traversing mobiles and branches. To make the story short, each mobile has left and right branch, which are composed by a length and either a numeric weight or another mobile. The question asks to find the total weight given a mobile. After the first mutually recursive solution, quite simple, I tried and successfully implemented a cps' one: (defn total-weight-cps [mobile] (letfn [(branch-weight-cps [branch kont] (let [structure (branch-structure branch)] (if (mobile? (branch

We were asked to write a procedure that when given a list it will replace the first occurrence of a given element and only the first, but the catch is to write in CPS style. We are unable to turn it to CPS style written procedure that is given a success-cont and fail-cont.. If anyone is willing to give it a try we will really appreciate it :] The procedure we have (graciously provided by answers here ): (define (replace-one list old new) (cond ((pair? list) (let ((next (replace-one (car list) old new))) (cons next (if (equal? next (car list)) ; changed? (replace-one (cdr list) old new) ; no,

Summary of my objective: Figure out how to use continuation-passing style to avoid a stack overflow when using an algorithm I believe cannot be made tail-recursive. Alternatively, find a way to make the function tail-recursive. Details: I am new to F# (and functional programming in general) and I am attempting to implement the minimax algorithm with alpha-beta pruning. This is an algorithm used to determine the best possible move for a two-player game. The pseudocode for the algorithm can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha%E2%80%93beta_pruning This is a resource I've found

I'm wondering if there is a way to implement a generic "memoize" functional (as in a function with a function as input and a function as output, as python's decorators) capable of handling also cps-style functions. for a normal function (as in "the result value comes back by the return, the parameters are only for input!") a memoize function can be as simple as (in javascript) function memoize(fun) { var cache = {}; return function () { var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments); if (args in cache) return cache[args]; var ret = fun.apply(this, arguments); cache[args] = ret; return ret; }

I have been rewriting many OCaml standard library functions to be tail-recursive lately. Given that this has entailed straight-forward CPS transformation, I am left puzzling over why the default versions are not written this way. As an example, in the standard library, map is defined as: let rec map f = function [] -> [] | a::l -> let r = f a in r :: map f l I have rewritten it to be: let map f l = let rec aux l k = match l with [] -> k [] | a::l -> aux l (fun rest -> k (f a :: rest)) in aux l (fun x -> x) In my experience, tail recursive versions of non-trivial functions often trade space

Is there a way to chain functions like withCString ? By that I mean any function that looks something like f :: Foo -> (CFoo -> IO a) -> IO a . For example, lets say there is a function cFunc :: CString -> CFoo -> CBar -> IO () Usualy, I would do something like: haskellFunc string foo bar = withCString string $ \ cString -> withCFoo foo $ \ cFoo -> withCBar bar $ \ cBar -> cFunc cString cFoo cBar But i would like to do something like: haskellFunc = (withCString |.| withCFoo |.| withCBar) cFunc with some appropriate composition operator |.| . I'm writing library with a lot of C bindings, and

In The Scheme Programming Language by Kent Dybvig (4th edition) section 3.4 , he describes very clearly what continuation passing style is. For the why he gives two reasons: pass more than one result to its continuation, because the procedure that implements the continuation can take any number of arguments. CPS also allows a procedure to take separate continuations ..., which may accept different numbers of arguments. Since the first reason can also be done using the values procedure and the second using case-lambda , I'm not clear the advantages of using continuation passing style. Could