Luciana Lima Brito writes: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:17:45 +0100 > Christopher Baines wrote: > > Hi, > > I hope the patch is correct this time. > I considered all you said, so I separated the > functions to get outputs, inputs and sources. I also implemented > everything inside the case of the json/application. Yep, that's looking good, much neater. >> While a flatter list is what you want when building an HTML table, I >> think you were looking to get a JSON object separating the common, >> base and target elements, right? If so, then map, rather than >> append-map should be more useful to you here. Since above you're >> passing in two lists of three things, if the procedure passed to map >> returns a pair with a string in the first position, you'll end up >> producing the scheme version of a JSON object (an alist). > > You were right about that, I'm using map now. > > Please, let me know if I missed something. > Thanks in advance, I'm learning a great deal! :) I think you're getting there, but it looks like you're close to what you want with matched-outputs say, and then later you pick bits out of that alist, generate vectors from the lists, and then rebuild the alist. I think you can remove all that complexity by just tweaking what you're doing up when you generate matched-outputs. I think this is true for matched-outputs, matched-inputs and matched-sources.