<< Previous exercise (2.68) | Index | Next exercise (2.70) >>

```
(define (successive-merge trees)
(let ((lightest-tree (car trees)) (heavier-trees (cdr trees)))
(if (null? heavier-trees)
lightest-tree
(successive-merge (adjoin-set (make-code-tree lightest-tree (car heavier-trees))
(cdr heavier-trees))))))
```

Chris's answer is correct, succinct, clear, but stylistically poor. Ordered sets may be implemented as lists, but abstraction dictates that we should never use list operators on them directly! By using a few name changes and methods we can respect the abstraction and remind ourselves what the objects actually are. I changed the code from Racket to Scheme for posting it here, sorry if there is some Racket remains in it.

(define (successive-merge tree-ordered-set) (if (= (size-of-set tree-ordered-set) 1) (first-in-ordered-set leaf-set) (let ((first (first-in-ordered-set tree-ordered-set)) (second (second-in-ordered-set tree-ordered-set)) (rest (subset tree-ordered-set 2))) (successive-merge (adjoin-set (make-code-tree first second) rest))))) (define size-of-set length) (define first-in-ordered-set car) (define second-in-ordered-set cadr) (define (subset set n) (if (= n 0) set (subset (cdr set) (- n 1))))

vlad's answer is not correct!

Try this case:

(define test-tree (generate-huffman-tree '((A 3) (B 5) (C 6) (D 6)))) (encode '(A B C D) test-tree)

vlad's solution gets (1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0) while the shortest is just eight bits.

This is my solution. It's similar to frandibar's solution but I think there're some flaws in that solution.

```
(define (successive-merge leaf-set)
(if (= (length leaf-set) 1)
(car leaf-set)
(let ((first (car leaf-set))
(second (cadr leaf-set))
(rest (cddr leaf-set)))
(successive-merge (adjoin-set (make-code-tree first second)
rest)))))
```

With the same test case, it gets (0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0).

I guess this works...

```
(define (successive-merge leaf-set)
(if (<= (length leaf-set) 1)
leaf-set
(let ([left (car leaf-set)]
[right (cadr leaf-set)])
(successive-merge (adjoin-set (make-code-tree left right) (cddr leaf-set))))))
```

Seems like the best solution is iterative ? Anyhow here is mine :

(define (generate-huffman-tree pairs) (successive-merge (make-leaf-set pairs))) (define (successive-merge leaf-list) (define (successive-it ll tree) (if (null? ll) tree (successive-it (cdr ll) (make-code-tree (car ll) tree)))) (successive-it (cdr leaf-list) (car leaf-list)))

Both frandibar's and vlad's solutions are incorrect. The problem with frandibar's solution is that when the length of leaf-set is 1, it returns leaf-set. The correct solution returns (car leaf-set).

The correct solution can be more simply written as:

```
(define (successive-merge leaves)
(if (null? (cdr leaves))
(car leaves)
(successive-merge
(adjoin-set (make-code-tree (car leaves) (cadr leaves))
(cddr leaves)))))
```

I build on the knowledge form some of the provided solutions here and came up with the following one. Not much different from others, only using a let* to assign names to some in between results.

```
(define (successive-merge ordered-nodes-set)
(cond
;; For an empty set of nodes, we return the empty set.
[(null? ordered-nodes-set) nil]
;; If there are less than 2 (1) elements in the set of nodes to merge, we are done.
[(< (length ordered-nodes-set) 2) (car ordered-nodes-set)]
;; Otherwise merge the first two elements into a subtree, since they are the ones with lowest weight.
[else
(let*
([new-node (combine-subtrees (car ordered-nodes-set)
(cadr ordered-nodes-set))]
[updated-ordered-nodes-set (adjoin-set new-node
(cddr ordered-nodes-set))])
(successive-merge updated-ordered-nodes-set))]))
```

My solution

```
(define (successive-merge leafset)
(if (null? (cddr leafset))
leafset
(successive-merge (cons (make-code-tree (car leafset) (cadr leafset)) (cddr leafset)))))
```

Am i missing something here?

My solution is this ...

```
(define (generate-huffman-tree pairs)
(define (succ-merge leafs)
(cond ((null? leafs) (error "No leafs?"))
(else (foldl make-hufftree (car leafs) (cdr leafs)))))
(succ-merge (make-leaf-set pairs)))
```

(generate-huffman-tree '((a 7) (b 8) (g 2) (t 6))) ((leaf b 8) ((leaf a 7) ((leaf t 6) (leaf g 2) (t g) 8) (a t g) 15) (b a t g) 23) > (generate-huffman-tree '((a 7))) (leaf a 7) > (generate-huffman-tree '()) <error symbols in racket> No leafs?

The most likely scenario is that i've missed something ??? but i dont know what ???

This solution is inspired by the example on page 222 of the book. It has been tested with the following three examples as well as with excercise 2.70:

((C 1) (D 1)) ((A 4) (B 2) (C 1) (D 1)) ((A 8) (B 3) (C 1) (D 1) (E 1) (F 1) (G 1) (H 1)) (define (successive-merge leaf-set) ; inserts tree into tree-set such that the result remains ; ordered with respect to the weights (define (insert tree tree-set) (cond ((null? tree-set) (list tree)) ((< (weight tree) (weight (car tree-set))) (cons tree tree-set)) (else (cons (car tree-set) (insert tree (cdr tree-set)))))) (cond ((null? (cdr leaf-set)) (car leaf-set)) (else (successive-merge (insert (make-code-tree (car leaf-set) (cadr leaf-set)) (cddr leaf-set))))))

@tyler's answer has too much abstraction sorry: `first-in-ordered-set`, `second-in-ordered-set`, `subset`.

since set operations are just inner workings of our program, it's perfectly fine (and i believe intended) to use direct list access operations here. abstraction is not a law, but rather guideline.