On Sat, 24 May 2014, Lo?c Faure-Lacroix l...@vosnax.ru wrote:
I'm not sure if it's how it is supposed to work. I have a list that
looks like this:
'((23 14 19) (28 9 19) (10 10 19) (16 14 18)
(14 8 18) (25 13 18) (13 13 17) (10 7 17)
(27 12 17) (21 12 16) (10 6 16) (5 11 16)
(25 11 15)
Hi Claude,
On Sat, 24 May 2014 13:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Claude Marinier claudem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014, Lo?c Faure-Lacroix l...@vosnax.ru wrote:
I'm not sure if it's how it is supposed to work. I have a list that
looks like this:
'((23 14 19) (28 9 19) (10 10 19) (16 14 18)
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 02:03:04AM +0400, Loïc Faure-Lacroix wrote:
I guess that I understand why I get such result. Since the list is sorted
destructively, the elements within the list are changed. Except the variable
“a” is still pointing to the cons of (23 14 19) . rest. For that reason,
Yes, I do see your point. I already made the change. I was running some tests
and found out the strange behaviour. In theory my list should always be of
fixed length and then found out about the misuse of “sort!”…
--
Loïc Faure-Lacroix
Sent with Airmail
On May 24, 2014 at 2:13:08 AM, Peter
