Browse Source

Improve spelling

Julian Ospald 4 years ago
parent
commit
8852f5d465
No account linked to committer's email address
1 changed files with 8 additions and 8 deletions
  1. 8
    8
      VL1.tex

+ 8
- 8
VL1.tex View File

@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ You need to change only one single line in such a C function. You have to know:
119 119
 \item does it change the state of static or global variables?
120 120
 \item does it implicitly change the state of out-parameters?
121 121
 \item if it changes any of those states, is the function still correct?
122
-\item what happens if the program flow reaches this codepath with variable X in that particular state, while variable Z is NULL, and...
122
+\item what happens if the program flow reaches this code-path with variable X in that particular state, while variable Z is NULL, and...
123 123
 \item did you just nuke a small former Soviet state?
124 124
 \end{itemize}
125 125
 \vspace{\baselineskip}
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Unfortunately, we:
140 140
 \begin{itemize}[<+->]
141 141
 \item now got even more states to keep track of (intellectual complexity?)
142 142
 \item have clouded the program flow... it's now about object-interaction with their explicit and implicit states
143
-\item still have \textbf{side effects} everywhere: one object changes the state of another and vice versa, may arbitrarily write to the hard drive, do kernel calls or launch a missle
143
+\item still have \textbf{side effects} everywhere: one object changes the state of another and vice versa, may arbitrarily write to the hard drive, do kernel calls or launch a missile
144 144
 \end{itemize}
145 145
 \onslide<+->
146 146
 Some parts of the implicit state machine have been made explicit by modelling classes, but it's still there and we have to deal with it, because we are modelling everything around states. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just forget about the global state machine? Maybe there is even a way to remove side effects and have more "predictability"?
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ Think of haskell functions as regular \emph{mathematical} functions.
168 168
 \end{itemize}
169 169
 \onslide<+->
170 170
 \vspace{\baselineskip}
171
-It's all about \emph{input} and \emph{ouput} of functions! And that's it. Nothing else to worry about.
171
+It's all about \emph{input} and \emph{output} of functions! And that's it. Nothing else to worry about.
172 172
 \end{frame}
173 173
 
174 174
 \begin{frame}
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ Let's reiterate. Haskell is:
228 228
 \item functional
229 229
 \item pure
230 230
 \item lazy
231
-\item statically typed (and truly typesafe)
231
+\item statically typed (and truly type-safe)
232 232
 \item even garbage collected
233 233
 \item the world's finest imperative language (what??)
234 234
 \end{itemize}
@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ mod2 x
338 338
   | x - 2 < 0  = x
339 339
   | otherwise  = mod2 (x - 2)
340 340
 \end{lstlisting}
341
-These \verb#|# things above are called \textbf{guards} and are similar to \emph{pattern matching}. They are processed in order. If the condition on the left side of the equation is true, then it returns what stands on the right side of the equation. If it's false, then it processes the next line.\\ \code{otherwise} on the last line is just defined as \code{True}, to make these constructs reasier to read and catch all other cases of input.
341
+These \verb#|# things above are called \textbf{guards} and are similar to \emph{pattern matching}. They are processed in order. If the condition on the left side of the equation is true, then it returns what stands on the right side of the equation. If it's false, then it processes the next line.\\ \code{otherwise} on the last line is just defined as \code{True}, to make these constructs easier to read and catch all other cases of input.
342 342
 \end{frame}
343 343
 
344 344
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ Of course we can also define our own data types in haskell. One very common type
461 461
 data WeekDay = Monday
462 462
              | Tuesday
463 463
              | Thursday
464
-             | Wednsday
464
+             | Wednesday
465 465
              | Friday
466 466
              | Saturday
467 467
              | Sunday
@@ -474,14 +474,14 @@ We could now define a whole week, by creating a list:
474 474
 \setHaskellCodeStyle
475 475
 \begin{lstlisting}
476 476
 week :: [WeekDay]
477
-week = [Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednsday
477
+week = [Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday
478 478
        , Friday, Saturday, Sunday]
479 479
 \end{lstlisting}
480 480
 \end{frame}
481 481
 
482 482
 \begin{frame}[fragile]
483 483
 \frametitle{Algebraic Data Types (ctn.)}
484
-And we can again \emph{pattern match} on our \code{WeekDay} type. Let's find out if a given day is a monday:
484
+And we can again \emph{pattern match} on our \code{WeekDay} type. Let's find out if a given day is a Monday:
485 485
 \pause
486 486
 \setHaskellCodeStyle
487 487
 \begin{lstlisting}