From c42666baade652387ad72d5109eff241c796edfb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Pryor Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:07:11 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] assignment 10 tweaks Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor --- assignment10.mdwn | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/assignment10.mdwn b/assignment10.mdwn index c8ff72c6..ad6ebb14 100644 --- a/assignment10.mdwn +++ b/assignment10.mdwn @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Now, go back to the GS&V assignment from [[assignment7]]. Does the monad you've now crafted enable you to code your implementation of that semantics more elegantly? You can begin by using a composite store of the same sort we used in the hints: a pair of an assignment function `r` and some `h` that associates pegs with entities. -Is the `h` really essential to your solution? Or could you do everything with a store consisting of a single mapping from variables to entities? (You'd still be working with a State monad, but without the pegs.) Explain why or why not. + Is the `h` really essential to your solution? Or could you do everything with a store consisting of a single mapping from variables to entities? (You'd still be working with a State monad, but without the pegs.) Explain why or why not. 4. The next two exercises were taken from _The Little Schemer_ Chapter 8. -- 2.11.0