On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Peter Breitsprecher <pkbre...@lakeheadu.ca>wrote:
> > I knew that it was the result of the internal function call, but that it > would have been the value of that variable that is passed to it. and the > other list so far would have been the stacked value of list so far before > the internal function call. However I still thought it should have worked > logically. > >> I just wanted to return the value of list-so-far at that point, and I > assumed that was the way to do it. Putting the reverse in still give me the > same errors > Since you might have changed the code again it's probably easier to see what's going on now if you show the latest code. Cheers, yc
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
