X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=week1.mdwn;h=9d59991e55c7896eb5c8a31bafc4a793c88eb91c;hp=6773a7714f358bdbc6da564719b018a5000ee271;hb=50e12a5e7f746472fec8159ad0d0bf83a4e514e4;hpb=e47611204f506bac2a53a81dd9a0e6e85600575e

diff --git a/week1.mdwn b/week1.mdwn
index 6773a771..9d59991e 100644
--- a/week1.mdwn
+++ b/week1.mdwn
@@ -603,8 +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:
@@ -675,13 +673,14 @@ 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
 ----------------------------------------------