X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=rosetta1.mdwn;h=70866b1252e7b1e1865356f1c6d6025fcde7496f;hp=e353451112c179032336e5b460cd7b6be40cecc6;hb=c98d4e2d9d0c85b16ac707323031114f2a3db1aa;hpb=07ebc9292a8db8b98707232d2d01717293f473e9

diff --git a/rosetta1.mdwn b/rosetta1.mdwn
index e3534511..70866b12 100644
--- a/rosetta1.mdwn
+++ b/rosetta1.mdwn
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ These relations are written in Haskell and OCaml as `&&`, `||`, and `not`. (Hask
 The values that are written `'true` and `'false` in Kapulet are written in Haskell as `True` and `False`, and in OCaml as just `true` and `false`. (It'd be more consistent with OCaml's other naming policies for them to have said True and False<!-- other value constructors must be capitalized -->, but they didn't.) These are written `#t` and `#f` in Scheme, but in Scheme in many contexts any value that isn't `#f` will behave as though it were `#t`, even values you might think are more "false-like", like `0` and the empty list.
 <a id=truth-like></a> Thus `(if 0 'zero 'nope)` will evaluate to `'zero`.
 
-Some Scheme implementations, such as Racket, permit `#true` and `#false` as synonyms for `#t` and `#f`.
+Some Scheme implementations, such as Racket, permit `#true` and `#false` as synonyms for `#t` and `#f`. (These aliases are also mandated in "version 7", r7rs, of the Scheme standard.)
 
 Scheme also recognizes the values `'true` and `'false`, but it treats `'false` as distinct from `#f`, and thus as a "truth-like" value, like all of its other values that aren't `#f`. Kapulet essentially took Scheme's `boolean` values and collapsed them into being a subtype of its `symbol` values.
 <!-- This is also what it does with Scheme's `char`s ?? see [[below|rosetta1#chars]] -->
@@ -110,7 +110,13 @@ Scheme has no infix operators. It ruthlessly demands that all functions to be ap
 
     (+ 3 2)
 
-and the like. Moreover, in Scheme parentheses are never optional and never redundant. In contexts like this, the parentheses are necessary to express that the function is being applied; `+ 3 2` on its own is not a complete Scheme expression. And if the `+` were surrounded by its own parentheses, as in:
+and the like. Here is an example where the function to be applied is the result of evaluating a more complex expression:
+
+    ((if #t + *) 3 2)
+
+which will evaluate to `5`, not `6`.
+
+In Scheme the parentheses are never optional and never redundant. In expressions like `(+ 3 2)`, the parentheses are necessary to express that the function is being applied; `+ 3 2` on its own is not a complete Scheme expression. And if the `+` were surrounded by its own parentheses, as in:
 
     ((+) 3 2)
 
@@ -209,7 +215,7 @@ Fourth, in Kapulet, `( - 10)` expresses &lambda; `x. x - 10` (consistently with
     ( - 2)         # ( - 2) 10 == 8
     (0 - )
     ( - ) (5, 3)
-    
+
 
 and here are their translations into natural Haskell:
 
@@ -773,7 +779,7 @@ Notice that this form ends with `end`, not with `in result`. The above is roughl
       pat1  match expr1;
       ...
     in ... # rest of program or library
-    
+
 That is, the bindings initiated by the clauses of the `let` construction remain in effect until the end of the program or library. They can of course be "hidden" by subsequent bindings to new variables spelled the same way. The program:
 
     # Kapulet