From 3d89c06687f5fde9730a16b04c0ae0a241dcf5cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Pryor <profjim@jimpryor.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:23:50 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] add link from trees->sets

Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor <profjim@jimpryor.net>
---
 hints/assignment_4_hint_2.mdwn | 1 +
 implementing_trees.mdwn        | 6 +++---
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hints/assignment_4_hint_2.mdwn b/hints/assignment_4_hint_2.mdwn
index 6bcd7701..78cb1bd4 100644
--- a/hints/assignment_4_hint_2.mdwn
+++ b/hints/assignment_4_hint_2.mdwn
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+Hints for list\_equal.
 
 <!--
 let list_equal =
diff --git a/implementing_trees.mdwn b/implementing_trees.mdwn
index 31dc3fd0..f83823a9 100644
--- a/implementing_trees.mdwn
+++ b/implementing_trees.mdwn
@@ -128,9 +128,9 @@ where the previous tree should be placed.
 
 However, when using trees as a computational tool, one usually does have
 latitude about how to structure a larger tree---in the same way that we had the
-freedom to implement our sets with lists whose members were just appended in
-the order we built the set up, or instead with lists whose members were ordered
-numerically.
+freedom to implement our [sets](/week4/#index9h1) with lists whose members were
+just appended in the order we built the set up, or instead with lists whose
+members were ordered numerically.
 
 When building a new tree, one strategy for where to put the new element and
 where to put the existing tree would be to always lean towards a certain side.
-- 
2.11.0