Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:41, suvayu ali <fatkasuv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yup, your analysis was spot on. :) Changing the let to let* and > > reevaluating the defun fixed the issue. > > > > I hadn't grasped this subtlety about let*, dependencies on preceding > > bindings hidden behind function calls! > > I am attaching the changes as a patch. Let me know if it is okay. >
Perfect. Thanks! Nick
