2016-02-09 19:41 GMT+01:00 Lawrence Bottorff <borgauf@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