:)
2016-02-09 19:41 GMT+01:00 Lawrence Bottorff <borg...@gmail.com>:
> Good, good.
>
>
>> 3. I'm not quite convinced whether \texttt{equivalence-classes} should
>> be replaced with \textit{equivalence-classes}. If we actually decide
>> to do so, I think it would be better to replace it as
>> \textit{equivalence classes}. However, although the italics are
>> actually used to refer to new notions, and typewriter font to refer to
>> notions/functions defined in Scheme, that use case is closer to
>> mentioning, than defining -- and I thought it would fall into memory
>> easier if the reader could see that "this is actually a Scheme
>> function indeed". (This won't be obvious during the first reading, so
>> I think it would be best to put the decision off for now)
>>
>
> good . . . it's just that it bleeds into the margin (on your original pdf)
> . . . any way to correct that?
>
Now I see. I think we would need some TeXpErT to have a look. Or perhaps it
would look nicer if a space was inserted before the dash, i.e.
\texttt{equivalence -classes}. Or maybe it's not worth the trouble and your
soltion with \textit is satisfactory.
5. I think you got the "reading programs isn't like reading novels"
>> (196) opposite to my intention, which was that the programs have a
>> higher level of generality (which is rather unfamiliar) -- novels are
>> more concrete and less general.
>>
>
> Changed it to ". . . Because of their familiar narrative specificity, we
> typically absorb stories almost effortlessly."
>
This seems fine :)
Thank you
