STYLE: Some minor wording fixes.

  * Some actual typos.

  * Punt on the issue of `a ~flet~' versus `an ~flet~' and how I'm
    pronouncing `flet' today.

diff --git a/STYLE b/STYLE
index c1386151101ec77a58cf8e7ecfda1b0d4f1759bc..c1eb705597029ea137ba8716760cdca923e82cb8 100644 (file)
--- a/STYLE
+++ b/STYLE
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ beyond ANSI Common Lisp and what's included in just about every serious
 implementation: specifically, MOP introspection, and Gray streams.
 There's intentionally no MOP intercession.
 
 implementation: specifically, MOP introspection, and Gray streams.
 There's intentionally no MOP intercession.
 

-The frontend additionally ~cl-launch~, but the dependency is actually
-quite weak, and it could be replaced with a different, maybe
+The frontend additionally makes use of ~cl-launch~, but the dependency
+is actually quite weak, and it could be replaced with a different, maybe

 implementation-specific, mechanism fairly easily.  I'm keen to take
 patches which improve frontend portability.
 
 implementation-specific, mechanism fairly easily.  I'm keen to take
 patches which improve frontend portability.
 


@@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ this.
   + Break a long nested calculation into pieces, giving names to the
     intermediate results, in a ~let*~ form.
 
   + Break a long nested calculation into pieces, giving names to the
     intermediate results, in a ~let*~ form.
 

-  + Hoist deeply nested complex computations out into an ~flet~ or
-    ~labels~, and then invoke it from inside whatever complicated
+  + Hoist deeply nested complex computations out into ~flet~ or
+    ~labels~, and then invoke them from inside whatever complicated

     conditional mess was needed to decide what to do.
 
   + Shrug my shoulders and let code dribble down the right hand side for
     conditional mess was needed to decide what to do.
 
   + Shrug my shoulders and let code dribble down the right hand side for


@@ -133,11 +133,10 @@ package definition file.
 
 Then there's ~cl:in-package~.  Like ~defpackage~, I use a gensym to name
 the package.  I can't think offhand of a good reason to have a file with
 
 Then there's ~cl:in-package~.  Like ~defpackage~, I use a gensym to name
 the package.  I can't think offhand of a good reason to have a file with

-sections `in' more than one package.  So, in the ~in-package~ form goes
-at the top of the file, before the first section header.  If sections
-are going to end up in separate packages, I think I'd put a
-~cl:in-package~ at the top of each section in case I wanted to reorder
-them.
+sections `in' more than one package.  So, the ~in-package~ form goes at
+the top of the file, before the first section header.  If sections are
+going to end up in separate packages, I think I'd put a ~cl:in-package~
+at the top of each section in case I wanted to reorder them.

 
 The rest of the file consists of Lisp code.  I don't use page boundaries
 ~^L~ to split files up.  Instead, I use big banner comments for this:
 
 The rest of the file consists of Lisp code.  I don't use page boundaries
 ~^L~ to split files up.  Instead, I use big banner comments for this:


@@ -207,7 +206,7 @@ questions influence my decision.
     implementations aggressively optimize ~defstruct~ accessor
     functions.
 
     implementations aggressively optimize ~defstruct~ accessor
     functions.
 

-  + Have I subclasses my class?  While I can move over a
+  + Have I subclassed my class?  While I can move over a

     single-inheritance tree using ~:include~, it seems wrong to do this
     most of the time.  Also, I'd be precluding subclasses from multiple
     inheritance, and I'd either have to prohibit subclassing by
     single-inheritance tree using ~:include~, it seems wrong to do this
     most of the time.  Also, I'd be precluding subclasses from multiple
     inheritance, and I'd either have to prohibit subclassing by