From 7f49fee55264b4dd9afaa4838bfb89743a720cd0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Butterick Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:21:36 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] spelling --- scribblings/pollen-rkt.scrbl | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scribblings/pollen-rkt.scrbl b/scribblings/pollen-rkt.scrbl index fe41932..d1ff2e4 100644 --- a/scribblings/pollen-rkt.scrbl +++ b/scribblings/pollen-rkt.scrbl @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ Our list of elements could contain sequences like @racket['("\n" "\n" "\n")], wh (define li-tag (default-tag-function 'li)) (map (λ(lip) (apply li-tag lip)) list-of-li-paragraphs))] -@margin-note{Explicit type checking — e.g., @racket[(string? elem)] — is common in Racket. You can do ``duck typing'' (see @racket[with-handlers]) but it's not idiomatic. IMO this is wise — better to have an explicit, readable test (likse @racket[string?]) rather than an implicit, indirect one (``If the input isn't a @racket[string?], then a certain error will arise.'')} +@margin-note{Explicit type checking — e.g., @racket[(string? elem)] — is common in Racket. You can do ``duck typing'' (see @racket[with-handlers]) but it's not idiomatic. IMO this is wise — better to have an explicit, readable test (like @racket[string?]) rather than an implicit, indirect one (``If the input isn't a @racket[string?], then a certain error will arise.'')} Because of the expression-based structure of Racket, it's often possible to write functions in an absurdly nested style. For instance, the last function could be written like so: