Comments on: SICP section 2.5.3

By: Manoj Govindan

Manoj Govindan — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:21:44 +0000

Ref: Exercise 2.89

Does your definition of the procedure adjoin-term assume that the order of the new term being adjoined should be exactly one more than the order of the highest term in the term-list?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

By: eliben

eliben — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:53:31 +0000

This isn’t horrid, but isn’t too Lisp-y either. This is how you’d write such code in Java, perhaps. And assignment with set! isn’t taught in SICP until chapter 3.

By: lukasjob

lukasjob — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:30:46 +0000

Hi what do you think of this about exercise 2.87

(put ‘=zero? ‘(polynomial)
(lambda (p)
(let ((result #t))
(map (lambda (t) (if (not (=zero? (coeff t))) (set! result #f) #t)) (term-list p))
result)))

I’m not a lisp or scheme coder is it really horrid?

Luca