week1: fix markup processing?

[lambda.git] / week1.mdwn

diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn
index f09f393..67dce38 100644 (file)
--- a/week1.mdwn
+++ b/week1.mdwn
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ We'll tend to write <code>(&lambda;a M)</code> as just `(\a M)`, so we don't hav
 <strong>Application</strong>: <code>(M N)</code>
 </blockquote>
 
-Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We won't participate in that convention; we'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
+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:
 
@@ -603,7 +603,6 @@ 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.)
 
-
 9.     Some shorthand
 
        OCaml permits you to abbreviate:
@@ -674,12 +673,15 @@ Here's how it looks to say the same thing in various of these languages.
 
        and there's no more mutation going on there than there is in:
 
+<!--
+
        <pre>
        <code>&forall;x. (F x or &forall;x (not (F x)))</code>
        </pre>
 
        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
 ----------------------------------------------