week1: fix markup processing?

[lambda.git] / week1.mdwn

diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn
index 5ae3e65..6773a77 100644 (file)
--- a/week1.mdwn
+++ b/week1.mdwn
@@ -39,6 +39,24 @@ Basics of Lambda Calculus
 
 The lambda calculus we'll be focusing on for the first part of the course has no types. (Some prefer to say it instead has a single type---but if you say that, you have to say that functions from this type to this type also belong to this type. Which is weird.)
 
 
 The lambda calculus we'll be focusing on for the first part of the course has no types. (Some prefer to say it instead has a single type---but if you say that, you have to say that functions from this type to this type also belong to this type. Which is weird.)
 

+Here is its syntax:
+
+<blockquote>
+<strong>Variables</strong>: <code>x</code>, <code>y</code>, <code>z</code>...
+</blockquote>
+
+Each variable is an expression. For any expressions M and N and variable a, the following are also expressions:
+
+<blockquote>
+<strong>Abstract</strong>: <code>(&lambda;a M)</code>
+</blockquote>
+
+We'll tend to write <code>(&lambda;a M)</code> as just `(\a M)`, so we don't have to write out the markup code for the <code>&lambda;</code>. You can yourself write <code>(&lambda;a M)</code> or `(\a M)` or `(lambda a M)`.
+
+<blockquote>
+<strong>Application</strong>: <code>(M N)</code>
+</blockquote>
+

 Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
 
 Examples of expressions:
 Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
 
 Examples of expressions:


@@ -585,6 +603,7 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 
        It's easy to be lulled into thinking this is a kind of imperative construction. *But it's not!* It's really just a shorthand for the compound "let"-expressions we've already been looking at, taking the maximum syntactically permissible scope. (Compare the "dot" convention in the lambda calculus, discussed above.)
 
 
        It's easy to be lulled into thinking this is a kind of imperative construction. *But it's not!* It's really just a shorthand for the compound "let"-expressions we've already been looking at, taking the maximum syntactically permissible scope. (Compare the "dot" convention in the lambda calculus, discussed above.)
 

+<!-- 

 
 9.     Some shorthand
 
 
 9.     Some shorthand
 


@@ -662,6 +681,7 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 
        When a previously-bound variable is rebound in the way we see here, that's called **shadowing**: the outer binding is shadowed during the scope of the inner binding.
 
 
        When a previously-bound variable is rebound in the way we see here, that's called **shadowing**: the outer binding is shadowed during the scope of the inner binding.
 

+-->

 
 Some more comparisons between Scheme and OCaml
 ----------------------------------------------
 
 Some more comparisons between Scheme and OCaml
 ----------------------------------------------