* If you call `church_to_int` with a lambda expression that doesn't have the form of a Church numeral, it will complain. If you call it with something that's not even a lambda expression, it will complain in a different way.
- * The `$`s inside the `<<` and `>>` are essentially corner quotes. If we do this: `let a = << x >>;; let b = << a >>;; let c = << $a$ >>;;` then the OCaml variable `b` will have as its value an (atomic) lambda expression, consisting just of the variable `a` in the untyped lambda calculus. On the other hand, the OCaml variable `c` will have as its value a lambda expression consisting just of the variable `x`. That is, here the OCaml variable `a` is spliced into the lambda expression `<< $a$ >>`.
+ * The `$`s inside the `<<` and `>>` are essentially corner quotes. If we do this: `let a = << x >>;; let b = << a >>;; let c = << $a$ >>;;` then the OCaml variable `b` will have as its value an (atomic) lambda expression, consisting just of the variable `a` in the untyped lambda calculus. On the other hand, the OCaml variable `c` will have as its value a lambda expression consisting just of the variable `x`. That is, here the value of the OCaml variable `a` is spliced into the lambda expression `<< $a$ >>`.
* The expression that's spliced in is done so as a single syntactic unit. In other words, the lambda expression `<< w x y z >>` is parsed via usual conventions as `<< (((w x) y) z) >>`. Here `<< x y >>` is not any single syntactic constituent. But if you do instead `let a = << x y >>;; let b = << w $a$ z >>`, then what you get *will* have `<< x y >>` as a constituent, and will be parsed as `<< ((w (x y)) z) >>`.