SICP Exercise 2.19
Question
Consider the change-counting program of 1.2.2. 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)
292
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?
Answer
(define (first-denomination coins) (car coins))
(define (except-first-denomination coins) (cdr coins))
(define (no-more? coins) (null? coins))
(cc 100 us-coins)
Results:
292
Having coin-values
in a different order still produces the exact same
result. This was also the case in our previous implementation of cc
.
This is because cc
is basically a brute-force algorithm, i.e. it
calculates all possible combinations anyways. Because of this, the order
does not matter.