X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=week1.mdwn;h=67dce382b4e6536cc1cdf318bd606e7c68ceb18c;hp=36ebdfcc6a48bf72288e2023a0186b9c6665de2d;hb=180b5fcb23d05c1f7ea98d02517dc3d697ce111d;hpb=e8385d4bbe1cc7549cb8f7724f489370b5dcd426

diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn
index 36ebdfcc..67dce382 100644
--- a/week1.mdwn
+++ b/week1.mdwn
@@ -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
 ----------------------------------------------