damn tweaks9

Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor <profjim@jimpryor.net>

diff --git a/damn.mdwn b/damn.mdwn
index 5947632..8bbe724 100644 (file)
--- a/damn.mdwn
+++ b/damn.mdwn
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ A promising way to handle this is with **continuations**, which you will get muc
 
 Chris and others have applied the apparatus of continuations to the analysis of expressives in the paper cited at the top. For a simple in-class demonstration, we tried to do the following.
 
-       (call/cc (lambda k ...))
+       (call/cc (lambda (k) ...))
 
 is Scheme's way of saying:
        
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ So now we define `damn` like this:
 
        (define damn (lambda () (call/cc (lambda (k) (print "bad") (k 'id)))))
 
-In other words, `damn` is a thunk. When that thunk is evaluated (`(damn)`), we capture the pending future of the computation and bind that to `k`. Then we print "bad" and supply the argument `'id` to `k`. This last step means we go on evaluating the pending future contribution as if `(damn)` had simply returned `'id`.
+In other words, `damn` is a thunk. When that thunk is applied---we evaluate `(damn)`---we capture the pending future of that application and bind that to `k`. Then we print "bad" and supply the argument `'id` to `k`. This last step means we go on evaluating the pending future as if `(damn)` had simply returned `'id`.
 
 What happens then when we evaluate:
 
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ What happens then when we evaluate:
 We get something like this:
 
 <blockquote>
-<bold>"bad"</bad> ((the . man) . (read . (the . (id . book))))
+<strong>"bad"</strong> ((the . man) . (read . (the . (id . book))))
 </blockquote>
 
 Yay! The affective meaning has jumped out of the compositional evaluation of the main sentence, and the context `(the . (... . book))` only has to deal with the trivial adjectival meaning `'id`.
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ and then ask for the evaluation of:
 you'll see something like:
 
 <blockquote>
-<bold>"hi"</bad> 5
+<strong>"hi"</strong> 5
 </blockquote>
 
 So the demonstration we tried in class was pedagogically flawed. It didn't properly display how continuations are a minimally effective apparatus for representing affective meaning. In fact, continuations were still doing the work, but it wasn't the explicit continuations we were writing out for you. It was instead continuations implicit in the `print` operation.
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ The straightforward way to fix this is to use, not undelimited continuations, bu
 
 A delimited continuation is captured not by using `call/cc`, but instead by using a variety of other operators. We'll use the operator `shift`. This substitutes for `call/cc`. The syntax in Scheme is slightly different. Whereas we wrote:
 
-       (call/cc (lambda k ...))
+       (call/cc (lambda (k) ...))
 
 we instead write: