[Strong types?
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com>**20070920051258] {
hunk ./en/ch03-funcs-types.xml 14
-      lot for us to pore over.  Because Haskell is quite different
+      lot to pore over.  Because Haskell is quite different
hunk ./en/ch03-funcs-types.xml 36
-      <para id="x_r2">Conversations about type systems can lead to many a
-	misunderstanding among programmers.  Some people say that C
-	has a strong type system; others claim that Python does.
-	Haskell programmers think strong typing is still something
-	else.</para>
+      <title>So what's a strong type?</title>
hunk ./en/ch03-funcs-types.xml 38
-      <para id="x_s2">Since there's no universally agreed upon meaning for the
-	phrase <quote>strong type</quote>,  it's best not to assume
-	that someone else shares the same notion of it as you do.  (We
-	also suggest that putting forth one definition as better than
-	another doesn't often lead to enlightened discussion.)</para>
+      <para id="x_r2">Conversations about type systems can lead to
+	many a heated misunderstanding among programmers.  Some people
+	say that C has a strong type system; others claim that Python
+	does. Haskell programmers tend to think strong typing is still
+	something else.  The term <quote>strong type</quote> has many
+	definitions, quite a number of which are mutually
+	contradictory.  As a consequence, we're not going to bother
+	putting forward a definition of our own here, beyond the
+	minimal one above.</para>
+
+      <para id="x_s2">Since there's nothing even remotely like an
+	agreed upon meaning for the phrase <quote>strong type</quote>,
+	and there's more than enough misunderstanding in circulation,
+	it's best not to assume that someone else shares the same
+	notion of it as you do.  (We also suggest that putting forth
+	one definition as better than another doesn't often lead to
+	enlightened discussion.)</para>
}