[More checkpointing of c07 comment processing
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>**20080311063645] {
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 224
-      this one color type.  We could define equality tests for any anything
+      this one color type.  We could define equality tests for anything
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 227
-      works the same as making Haskell's <literal>==</literal> operator
+      is exactly how you can make Haskell's <literal>==</literal> operator
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 244
-    <title>Well-known typeclasses</title>
+    <title>Important Built-In Typeclasses</title>
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 255
-      complete definition.
+      complete definition.  <remark>FIXME: add link to lib ref</remark>
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 271
-        <literal>show</literal>.  It takes one argument: the type to convert.
-        It returns a &String; representing that type.
+        <literal>show</literal>.  It takes one argument: the data to convert.
+        It returns a &String; representing that data.
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 288
-        <literal>printStrLn</literal>:
+        <literal>putStrLn</literal>:
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 321
+      <note>
+        <para>&Show; is usually used to define a &String;
+        representation for data that is useful for a machine to parse
+        back with &Read;.  Haskell programmers generally write custom
+        functions to format data in pretty ways for displaying to end
+        users, if this representation would be different than expected
+        via &Show;.
+        </para>
+      </note>
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 367
+      <tip>
+        <para>In most cases, if the explicit &Double; type annotation
+        were omitted, the compiler would refuse to guess a
+        common type and simply give an error.  The fact that it could
+        default to &Integer; here is a special case arising from the
+        fact that the literal <literal>2</literal> is treated as an
+        &Integer; unless a different type of expected for it.
+        </para>
+      </tip>
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 380
-        as well.  You'll need to explicitly cast your &read; results in
+        as well.  You'll need to explicitly give types for
+        your &read; results in
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 397
-        when the return value was expected to be &Integer; then it did when a
+        when the return value was expected to be &Integer; than it did when a
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 402
-        The &Read; class provides for some fairly complicated parsers.  Most
-        people, however, choose to use Parsec for complicated parsers these
-        days.  <remark>FIXME: insert xref to parsec</remark>  You can 
-        define a simple parser by providing an implementation for the
+        The &Read; class provides for some fairly complicated parsers.
+        You can define a simple parser by providing an implementation for the
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 422
-        accept leading spaces, that attempt would work.
+        accept leading spaces, that attempt would work.  You could
+        rectify this by modifying your &Read; instance to discard any
+        leading spaces, which is common practice in Haskell programs.
hunk ./en/ch07-typeclasses.xml 426
+      <tip>
+        <para>
+          While it is possible to build sophisticated parsers using
+          the &Read; typeclass, many people find it easier to do so using
+          Parsec, and rely on &Read; only for simpler tasks.  Parsec
+          is covered in detail in <xref linkend="parsec"/>.
+        </para>
+      </tip>
hunk ./examples/ch07/eqclasses.hs 61
-    show Red = "Red"
+    show Red   = "Red"
hunk ./examples/ch07/eqclasses.hs 63
-    show Blue = "Blue"
+    show Blue  = "Blue"
hunk ./examples/ch07/read.hs 5
-        let inpInt = (read inpStr)::Double
-        putStrLn ("Twice " ++ show inpInt ++ " is " ++ show (inpInt * 2))
+        let inpDouble = (read inpStr)::Double
+        putStrLn ("Twice " ++ show inpDouble ++ " is " ++ show (inpDouble * 2))
}