From 918513a870273ab70e6ea60ab25344b77a44fec3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aleksander Sadikov <aleksander.sadikov@fri.uni-lj.si>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:07:01 +0200
Subject: English translation for memb/2 added.

---
 prolog/problems/lists/conc_3/en.py | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'prolog/problems/lists/conc_3/en.py')

diff --git a/prolog/problems/lists/conc_3/en.py b/prolog/problems/lists/conc_3/en.py
index 2e74e5e..c384222 100644
--- a/prolog/problems/lists/conc_3/en.py
+++ b/prolog/problems/lists/conc_3/en.py
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ hint = {
     'eq_instead_of_equ': '''\
 <p>The operator <code>==</code> is "stricter" than operator <code>=</code> in the sense that
 for the latter it is enough to be able to make the two operands equal (unification). Perhaps by using <code>=</code>
-you can make the predicate <code>rev/2</code> more general (e.g. able to work with output arguments becoming inputs).</p>
+you can make the predicate <code>conc/3</code> more general (e.g. able to work with output arguments becoming inputs).</p>
 <p>Of course, you can also solve the exercise without explicit use of either of these two operators, just
 remember that unification is implicitly performed with the predicate's arguments (head of clause).</p>
 ''',
-- 
cgit v1.2.1