在我正在使用Racket的应用程序中，我需要获取一个数字列表并将列表分成连续数字的子列表：
（在实际应用中，我实际上是分区对由数字和一些数据组成的对，但原理是相同的。）
即如果我的程序被调用 chunkify 然后：
(chunkify '(1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11)) -> '((1 2 3) (5 6 7) (9 10 11))
(chunkify '(1 2 3)) -> '((1 2 3))
(chunkify '(1 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13)) -> '((1) (3 4 5) (7) (9 10 11) (13))
(chunkify '(1)) -> '((1))
(chunkify '()) -> '(())
等等
我在Racket中提出以下内容：
#lang racket
(define (chunkify lst)
(call-with-values
(lambda ()
(for/fold ([chunk '()] [tail '()]) ([cell (reverse lst)])
(cond
[(empty? chunk) (values (cons cell chunk) tail)]
[(equal? (add1 cell) (first chunk)) (values (cons cell chunk) tail)]
[else (values (list cell) (cons chunk tail))])))
cons))
这工作得很好，但我想知道如果没有一个更直接的简单方法做到这一点，有一些摆脱“带值调用”和需要反转列表的Racket的表现力在程序等，也许某种方式完全不同。
我的第一次尝试是基于一个带有收藏家的模式 “小计划者” 这比上面更简单：
(define (chunkify-list lst)
(define (lambda-to-chunkify-list chunk) (list chunk))
(let chunkify1 ([list-of-chunks '()]
[lst lst]
[collector lambda-to-chunkify-list])
(cond
[(empty? (rest lst)) (append list-of-chunks (collector (list (first lst))))]
[(equal? (add1 (first lst)) (second lst))
(chunkify1 list-of-chunks (rest lst)
(lambda (chunk) (collector (cons (first lst) chunk))))]
[else
(chunkify1 (append list-of-chunks
(collector (list (first lst)))) (rest lst) list)])))
我正在寻找的是简单，简洁和直接的东西。
我是这样做的：
;; chunkify : (listof number) -> (listof (non-empty-listof number))
;; Split list into maximal contiguous segments.
(define (chunkify lst)
(cond [(null? lst) null]
[else (chunkify/chunk (cdr lst) (list (car lst)))]))
;; chunkify/chunk : (listof number) (non-empty-listof number)
;; -> (listof (non-empty-listof number)
;; Continues chunkifying a list, given a partial chunk.
;; rchunk is the prefix of the current chunk seen so far, reversed
(define (chunkify/chunk lst rchunk)
(cond [(and (pair? lst)
(= (car lst) (add1 (car rchunk))))
(chunkify/chunk (cdr lst)
(cons (car lst) rchunk))]
[else (cons (reverse rchunk) (chunkify lst))]))
不过，它不同意你的最终测试用例：
(chunkify '()) -> '() ;; not '(()), as you have
我认为我的答案更自然;如果你真的想要答案的话 '(())，然后我重命名 chunkify 并编写一个专门处理空案例的包装器。
如果您希望避免相互递归，可以使辅助函数将剩余列表作为第二个值返回而不是调用 chunkify 在它上面，像这样：
;; chunkify : (listof number) -> (listof (non-empty-listof number))
;; Split list into maximal contiguous segments.
(define (chunkify lst)
(cond [(null? lst) null]
[else
(let-values ([(chunk tail) (get-chunk (cdr lst) (list (car lst)))])
(cons chunk (chunkify tail)))]))
;; get-chunk : (listof number) (non-empty-listof number)
;; -> (values (non-empty-listof number) (listof number))
;; Consumes a single chunk, returns chunk and unused tail.
;; rchunk is the prefix of the current chunk seen so far, reversed
(define (get-chunk lst rchunk)
(cond [(and (pair? lst)
(= (car lst) (add1 (car rchunk))))
(get-chunk (cdr lst)
(cons (car lst) rchunk))]
[else (values (reverse rchunk) lst)]))
我可以想到一个简单，直接的解决方案，使用一个只有原始列表操作和尾递归的过程（没有 values， let-values， call-with-values） - 而且效率很高。它适用于所有测试用例，但需要添加几个测试用例 if 初始化期间用于处理空列表案例的表达式。由您来决定这是否简洁：
(define (chunkify lst)
(let ((lst (reverse lst))) ; it's easier if we reverse the input list first
(let loop ((lst (if (null? lst) '() (cdr lst))) ; list to chunkify
(cur (if (null? lst) '() (list (car lst)))) ; current sub-list
(acc '())) ; accumulated answer
(cond ((null? lst) ; is the input list empty?
(cons cur acc))
((= (add1 (car lst)) (car cur)) ; is this a consecutive number?
(loop (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) cur) acc))
(else ; time to create a new sub-list
(loop (cdr lst) (list (car lst)) (cons cur acc)))))))
还有另一种方法。
#lang racket
(define (split-between pred xs)
(let loop ([xs xs]
[ys '()]
[xss '()])
(match xs
[(list) (reverse (cons (reverse ys) xss))]
[(list x) (reverse (cons (reverse (cons x ys)) xss))]
[(list x1 x2 more ...) (if (pred x1 x2)
(loop more (list x2) (cons (reverse (cons x1 ys)) xss))
(loop (cons x2 more) (cons x1 ys) xss))])))
(define (consecutive? x y)
(= (+ x 1) y))
(define (group-consecutives xs)
(split-between (λ (x y) (not (consecutive? x y)))
xs))
(group-consecutives '(1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11))
(group-consecutives '(1 2 3))
(group-consecutives '(1 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13))
(group-consecutives '(1))
(group-consecutives '())
我要玩。
在核心，这并不是什么与什么有很大不同
已经提供但它确实把它放在for / fold循环中。我有
我觉得他们做的很多，就像for循环一样
更“可查看”（不一定是可读的）代码。但是，（IMO -
在舒适的早期阶段
racket / scheme我认为最好坚持使用递归表达式。
(define (chunkify lst)
(define-syntax-rule (consecutive? n chunk)
(= (add1 (car chunk)) n))
(if (null? lst)
'special-case:no-chunks
(reverse
(map reverse
(for/fold ([store `((,(car lst)))])
([n (cdr lst)])
(let*([chunk (car store)])
(cond
[(consecutive? n chunk)
(cons (cons n chunk) (cdr store))]
[else
(cons (list n) (cons chunk (cdr store)))])))))))
(for-each
(ƛ (lst)
(printf "input : ~s~n" lst)
(printf "output : ~s~n~n" (chunkify lst)))
'((1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11)
(1 2 3)
(1 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13)
(1)
()))
这是我的版本：
(define (chunkify lst)
(let loop ([lst lst] [last #f] [resint '()] [resall '()])
(if (empty? lst)
(append resall (list (reverse resint)))
(begin
(let ([ca (car lst)] [cd (cdr lst)])
(if (or (not last) (= last (sub1 ca)))
(loop cd ca (cons ca resint) resall)
(loop cd ca (list ca) (append resall (list (reverse resint))))))))))
它也适用于最后一个测试用例。