reorg, make unready pages begin with _

[lambda.git] / topics / week1_advanced_notes.mdwn

diff --git a/topics/week1_advanced_notes.mdwn b/topics/week1_advanced_notes.mdwn
index d843ee7..2742a7f 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/week1_advanced_notes.mdwn
+++ b/topics/week1_advanced_notes.mdwn
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ I agree it's annoying that these conventions are so diverse. There are plenty ot
 
 A function value doesn't have any structure---at least none that's visible to the pattern-matching system. You can only match against simple patterns like `_` or the variable `f`.
 
-When matching a variable against a λ-generated function value in a `let`- or `letrec`-construction, there's an alternative syntax that you may find more convenient. This:
+When matching a λ-generated function value against a variable in a `let`- or `letrec`-construction, there's an alternative syntax that you may find more convenient. This:
 
 `let`  
   `f match` λ`x.` φ`;`  
@@ -99,9 +99,9 @@ If we get to the `y & ys` line in the pattern list, and the pattern-match succee
 
 ### As-patterns ###
 
-Sometimes it's useful to bind variables against overlapping parts of a structure. For instance, suppose I'm writing a pattern that is to be matched against multivalues like `([10, 20], 'true)`. And suppose I want to end up with `ys` bound to `[10, 20]`, `x` bound to `10`, and `xs` bound to `[20]`. Using the techniques introduced so far, I have two options. First, I could bind `ys` against `[10, 20]`, and then initiate a second pattern-match to break that up into `10` and [20]`. Like this:
+Sometimes it's useful to bind variables against overlapping parts of a structure. For instance, suppose I'm writing a pattern that is to be matched against multivalues like `([10, 20], 'true)`. And suppose I want to end up with `ys` bound to `[10, 20]`, `x` bound to `10`, and `xs` bound to `[20]`. Using the techniques introduced so far, I have two options. First, I could bind `ys` against `[10, 20]`, and then initiate a second pattern-match to break that up into `10` and `[20]`. Like this:
 
-    case [10, 20] of
+    case ([10, 20], 'true) of
       [ys, _] then case ys of
                      x & xs then ...;
                      ...
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Sometimes it's useful to bind variables against overlapping parts of a structure
 
 Alternatively, I could directly bind `x` against `10` and `xs` against `[20]`. But then I would have to re-cons them together again to get `ys`. Like this:
 
-    case [10, 20] of
+    case ([10, 20], 'true) of
       [x & xs, _] then let
                          ys match x & xs
                        in ...;
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ Alternatively, I could directly bind `x` against `10` and `xs` against `[20]`. B
 
 Both of these strategies work. But they are a bit inefficient. I said you didn't really need to worry about efficiency in this seminar. But these are also a bit cumbersome to write. There's a special syntax that enables us to bind all three of `ys`, `x`, and `xs` in the desired way, despite the fact that they will be matching against overlapping, rather than discrete, parts of the value `[10, 20]`. The special syntax looks like this:
 
-    case [10, 20] of
+    case ([10, 20], 'true) of
       [(x & xs) as ys, _] then ...
       ...
     end