From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sebastian Tennant Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Parameters Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:51:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87lk603k3u.fsf@moley.moleskin.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1202133329 8935 80.91.229.12 (4 Feb 2008 13:55:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:55:29 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 04 14:55:51 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JM1nS-0002lI-R0 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:55:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JM1n0-0006j6-Th for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:55:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JM1mw-0006ir-C4 for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:55:10 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JM1mu-0006if-Ut for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:55:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JM1mu-0006ic-OQ for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:55:08 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JM1mu-00064x-Gm for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:55:08 -0500 Original-Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JM1mo-0002X2-7E for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: from 85.105.17.65 ([85.105.17.65]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: from sebyte by 85.105.17.65 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:55:02 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.105.17.65 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:roGNcZz+jOWPYCLRDNYLBVWLuaU= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6400 Archived-At: Hi list, No doubt something of a newbie question this... This simple procedure behaves as expected, i.e., it provides the sum of a list of numbers: (define add (lambda (l) (if (null? l) 0 (+ (add (cdr l)) (car l))))) whereas this procedure results in a stack overflow: (define add (lambda l (if (null? l) 0 (+ (add (cdr l)) (car l))))) the only difference being the designation of the formal parameter of the anonymous procedure; l or (l). Why is this? Regards, Sebastian