Disagree. I like using commands to make definitions.
In Scheme, expressions can act like reporters:
(if (< x y)
(expt 2 x)
(expt x 2))
or commands:
(if (< x y)
(print "x is less than y")
(print "x is greater than or equal to y"))
You can use
[scratchblocks]
(call ({::control}::grey ring)::control)
[/scratchblocks] reporter.
???
What do you mean?
I can't use images bc Snap! website is down.
Try using
Do you mean that this works?:
Yes 
That's because the
[scratchblocks]
...
report (... :: grey) :: control cap
[/scratchblocks]
is a reporter disguised as a stack of commands
Ok, so do you have a solution?
Hmm... I'll see if I can make one.
Edit: Here:
(If I were making it up, I'd have the error message be last, instead of second.)
This is what a system designer has to do: Make some decisions without any experience using their not-yet-built system based on experience with other systems. In this case, we have conflicting experiences with Scheme and with Scratch, and we should work out either a reason to favor one over the other, or (better yet) a way to synthesize them, with blocks that can both fit in an input slot and click onto the bottom of a script.
Doesn't work, It throws the error.
Is "that" throwing the error?
"this" is throwing the error.
What did you do that caused it?
[scratchblocks]
add [thing] to ⇶::list
[/scratchblocks] without the list
Yes
So, I tried again and now it works. But now the question is why the list is weird.
What do you mean? The list is exactly what you wanted, isn't it?