DOCTOR SCHEME

(define (pow X N)
  (cond
   ((= N 0) 1)
   ((> N 0) (* X (pow X (- N 1))))
   )
  )

(define (countAtoms X)
  (cond
    ((null? X)
     0)
    ((list? X)
     (cond
       ((list? (car X))
        (+ (countAtoms (cdr X)) (countAtoms (car X))))
       (else
        (+ (countAtoms (cdr X)) 1)))
     )
    )
  )

(define (cons2 X Y)
  (cond
    ((null? X)
     (cons Y ()))
    ((not(pair? X))
     (cons X (cons Y ())))
    (else
     (cons (car X) (cons2 (cdr X) Y)))
    )
  )

(define (reverse X)
  (cond
    ((null? X) ())
    ((null? (cdr X))
     (car X))
    ((list? X)
     (cond
       ((list? (car X))
        (cons2 (reverse (cdr X)) (reverse(car X))))
       (else
        (cons2 (reverse (cdr X)) (car X)))))
    )
  )

No, this is not how you learn Scheme.

Sorry I messed up reverse here is the working version


(define (reverse X)
  (cond
    ((null? X) ())
    ((list? X)
     (cond
       ((list? (car X))
        (cons2 (reverse (cdr X)) (reverse(car X))))
       (else
        (cons2 (reverse (cdr X)) (car X)))))
    )
  )

What's the point of a cons2 that uses cons? Also, place your parentheses like everyone else. The way you do it screams out ``I HAVEN'T READ MY SICP TODAY!''

cons2 is like a reverse cons

cons x y gives a list with x as the first atom/list and y as the rest of the list after x

cons2 gives a list where x is the last atom/list and y is the stuff before x

I was taught scheme 2 days ago and don't know a better way to do it...

I don't know how other people put their parentheses.

Also;
[quote]I HAVEN'T READ MY SICP [s]TODAY[/s] EVER[/quote]

Have you read your

Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions
  and Their Computation by Machine, Part I
John McCarthy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
                       April 1960

today?

>>5
I don't know how other people put their parentheses.
How have you written this code without ever seeing anyone else's code?

>>7
I prefer >>5's style, the closing parens should be aligned with the opening parens. Forced indentation of the parentheses, etc.

>>8
That's because you don't write Lisp. Anyone who does quickly comes to realize that putting parens on new lines is just ugly and a waste of screen space.

>>9
No, it's because I don't use a faggy editor with paren matching like yours.

>>10
You would if you programmed in Lisp. Enjoy your notepad.exe.

>>11
Enjoy your crutches designed to cover up mediocre programming skills.

>>12
If you consider paren matching a ``programming skill'', I'd hate working with you.

>>13
If you consider faggot quotes quotation marks, I'd hate working with you.

I will, along with my job.

Don't mind me, just balancing some parentheses.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>15
There are no jobs writing LISP.

>>17
That's because Lisp is not relevant for doing any actual work.

sicp is a meme

DOKTOR SCHEEM

Beware. He is not a real doctor.

>>21
This, oh god this.
Do NOT let him touch your genitals.

Perl is way easier and believe me   I understand Smalltalk   or Lisp which   is a language   The only thing   that works for   you Just be   a new revision   of the language   itself conflates methods   and messages No.