Commit a0261121 authored by Gabor Greif's avatar Gabor Greif 💬

Typos in comments, etc.

parent bbfff229
......@@ -2696,7 +2696,7 @@ fbind :: { LHsRecField RdrName (LHsExpr RdrName) }
: qvar '=' texp {% ams (sLL $1 $> $ HsRecField (sL1 $1 $ mkFieldOcc $1) $3 False)
[mj AnnEqual $2] }
-- RHS is a 'texp', allowing view patterns (Trac #6038)
-- and, incidentaly, sections. Eg
-- and, incidentally, sections. Eg
-- f (R { x = show -> s }) = ...
| qvar { sLL $1 $> $ HsRecField (sL1 $1 $ mkFieldOcc $1) placeHolderPunRhs True }
......
......@@ -1175,7 +1175,7 @@ See also Note [Grouping of type and class declarations] in TcTyClsDecls.
rnTyClDecls :: [TyClGroup RdrName]
-> RnM ([TyClGroup Name], FreeVars)
-- Rename the declarations and do depedency analysis on them
-- Rename the declarations and do dependency analysis on them
rnTyClDecls tycl_ds
= do { ds_w_fvs <- mapM (wrapLocFstM rnTyClDecl) (tyClGroupConcat tycl_ds)
; let decl_names = mkNameSet (map (tcdName . unLoc . fst) ds_w_fvs)
......
......@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ a more convenient function, defined in terms of `natSing`:
The reason we don't use this directly in the class is that it is simpler
and more efficient to pass around an integer rather than an entier function,
especialy when the `KnowNat` evidence is packaged up in an existential.
especially when the `KnowNat` evidence is packaged up in an existential.
The story for kind `Symbol` is analogous:
* class KnownSymbol
......
......@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ would not change
\begin{haskell}
({\$}) = \lambda{f}.\lambda{x}.f x
\end{haskell}
but would additionaly generate
but would additionally generate
\begin{haskell}
({\$}_v) = Clo \ldots
\end{haskell}
......
......@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ class a ~~ b => (a :: k) ~ (b :: k)
-- no fixity.
-- It's tempting to put functional dependencies on (~), but it's not
-- necessary because the functional-depedency coverage check looks
-- necessary because the functional-dependency coverage check looks
-- through superclasses, and (~#) is handled in that check.
instance {-# INCOHERENT #-} a ~~ b => a ~ b
......
......@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@
/*......................................................................*/
// If SHAKE is defined then validation will sometime spuriously fail. They helps test
// unusualy code paths if genuine contention is rare
// If SHAKE is defined then validation will sometimes spuriously fail. They help test
// unusual code paths if genuine contention is rare
#define TRACE(_x...) debugTrace(DEBUG_stm, "STM: " _x)
......
-- A variant of T5654 where instead of evaluating directly to a
-- funciton, f evaluates to a new PAP. This exposes a slightly
-- function, f evaluates to a new PAP. This exposes a slightly
-- different but related bug, where when we create a new PAP by
-- applying arguments to an existing PAP, we should take into account
-- the stack on the original PAP.
......
-- A variant of T5654 where instead of evaluating directly to a
-- funciton, f evaluates to a new PAP. This exposes a slightly
-- function, f evaluates to a new PAP. This exposes a slightly
-- different but related bug, where when we create a new PAP by
-- applying arguments to an existing PAP, we should take into account
-- the stack on the original PAP.
......
......@@ -762,7 +762,7 @@ and black has a clear lead.
\end{tabular}}|
\end{center}
|35\ldots~h2; 36.~B*h2, R*h2; 37.~Kf4, Rh4+; 38.~Ke5, R*a4; 39.~d6, Rc4|
totaly won for black.
totally won for black.
\begin{center}|
{\bf\begin{tabular}{rp{50pt}p{50pt}}
36 & f*g6+ & K*g6\\
......
......@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ and black has a clear lead.}) 26. Ke3 Qxf2+ 27. Kxf2 Rxf5 28. exf5 Rc8
29. d4 a6 30. a4 Kf7 31. Ke3 (31. Kg3 Kf6 32. Kf4 g5+ 33. fxg6 hxg6 34.
a5 g5+ 35. Kg4) 31... h5 (31... Kf6 32. Kf4 Rd8 33. a5 Rd5 34. Ke4 Rxf5)
32. Kf4 h4 33. Kg4 Rh8 34. d5 h3 35. Bd6 g6 (35... h2 36. Bxh2 Rxh2 37.
Kf4 Rh4+ 38. Ke5 Rxa4 39. d6 Rc4 {totaly won for black.}) 36. fxg6+ Kxg6
Kf4 Rh4+ 38. Ke5 Rxa4 39. d6 Rc4 {totally won for black.}) 36. fxg6+ Kxg6
37. Bh2 Kf6 {} 38. f4 (38. a5 Ke7 39. Kf5 Rh5+ 40. Ke4 Rh4+ 41. f4 Kd6
42. Kd4 {holding the position.}) 38... Ke7 39. f5 a5 (39... Kf6 {is
needed.}) 40. d6+ Kd7 (40... Kf6 {is still needed.}) 41. Kg5 Rb8 (41... Ke8)
......
......@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ class (Eq f, Show f) => FORMULA f where
argList = error ""
same _ _ = False
-- By now extensibility is accomplished by existentialy
-- By now extensibility is accomplished by existentially
-- quantified type variables.
data Formula = forall f . ( FORMULA f
......
-- Should AllowAmbiguousTypes relaly be needed here?
-- Should AllowAmbiguousTypes really be needed here?
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving, MultiParamTypeClasses, FlexibleInstances, AllowAmbiguousTypes #-}
module T11347 where
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment