X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=topics%2Fweek13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn;h=c8caa0d3f8868f84a03a2784dd476b43705d0b9d;hp=f1d5925415a0a94a48349471d0ecd19eacf05a27;hb=7d6f1a776e5772d366a09be43c5314a44a7c36f9;hpb=c3f3fd2b25ebc301b11982fda4354b0ead0b2470

diff --git a/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn b/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn
index f1d59254..c8caa0d3 100644
--- a/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn
+++ b/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn
@@ -378,11 +378,11 @@ In fact you've already seen this several times this semester---recall how in our
 
 This inversion of control should also remind you of Montague's treatment of determiner phrases in ["The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English"](http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631215417%5CPortner.pdf) (PTQ).
 
-A naive semantics for atomic sentences will say the subject term is of type `e`, and the predicate of type `e -> t`, and that the subject provides an argument to the function expressed by the predicate.
+> A naive semantics for atomic sentences will say the subject term is of type `e`, and the predicate of type `e -> t`, and that the subject provides an argument to the function expressed by the predicate.
 
-Monatague proposed we instead take the subject term to be of type `(e -> t) -> t`, and that now it'd be the predicate (still of type `e -> t`) that provides an argument to the function expressed by the subject.
+> Monatague proposed we instead take the subject term to be of type `(e -> t) -> t`, and that now it'd be the predicate (still of type `e -> t`) that provides an argument to the function expressed by the subject.
 
-If all the subject did then was supply an `e` to the `e -> t` it receives as an argument, we wouldn't have gained anything we weren't already able to do. But of course, there are other things the subject can do with the `e -> t` it receives as an argument. For instance, it can check whether anything in the domain satisfies that `e -> t`; or whether most things do; and so on.
+> If all the subject did then was supply an `e` to the `e -> t` it receives as an argument, we wouldn't have gained anything we weren't already able to do. But of course, there are other things the subject can do with the `e -> t` it receives as an argument. For instance, it can check whether anything in the domain satisfies that `e -> t`; or whether most things do; and so on.
 
 This inversion of who is the argument and who is the function receiving the argument is paradigmatic of working with continuations.