Merge pull request #6 from bwignall/typecheck

Replace "typecheck" with "type-check"

Author: bwignall

10-parsing-a-binary-data-format.org

@@ -805,7 +805,7 @@ push a s = Item a s
 #+END_SRC
 
 Try removing that ~Ord~ constraint above, and the definition of
-~push~ will fail to typecheck.
+~push~ will fail to type-check.
 
 This is why our attempt to write a ~Functor~ instance for ~Bar~
 failed earlier: it would have required an ~Eq~ constraint to

12-barcode-recognition.org

@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ arrays.
    should return the leftmost element of the tuple. With an
    argument of one, it should return the next element. And so on.
    What restrictions do you have to put on the types of the
-   arguments in order to write a function that typechecks
+   arguments in order to write a function that type-checks
    correctly?
 2. Write a similar function that takes a six-tuple as its first
    argument.

26-building-a-bloom-filter.org

@@ -1054,7 +1054,7 @@ The value of ~-fvia-C~ with the FFI
 Compiling with ~-fvia-C~ has a useful safety benefit when we write
 FFI bindings. If we mention a header file in an FFI declaration
 (e.g. ~foreign import "string.h memcpy")~, the C compiler will
-typecheck the generated Haskell code and ensure that its
+type-check the generated Haskell code and ensure that its
 invocation of the C function is consistent with the C function's
 prototype in the header file.
 

4-functional-programming.org

@@ -1910,7 +1910,7 @@ ghci> unsafeHead []
 *** Exception: Lambda.hs:7:13-23: Non-exhaustive patterns in lambda
 #+END_SRC
 
-The definition typechecks, so it will compile, so the error will
+The definition type-checks, so it will compile, so the error will
 occur at runtime. The moral of this story is to be careful in how
 you use patterns when defining an anonymous function: make sure
 your patterns can't fail!

5-writing-a-library.org

@@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ works becomes more accurate.
 #+BEGIN_TIP
 Explicit types, undefined values, and error
 
-The special value ~undefined~ will happily typecheck no matter
+The special value ~undefined~ will happily type-check no matter
 where we use it, as will an expression like ~error "argh!"~. It is
 especially important that we write type signatures when we use
 these. Suppose we use ~undefined~ or ~error "write me"~ to act as
@@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ double num = undefined
 #+END_SRC
 
 The special value ~undefined~ has the type ~a~, so it always
-typechecks, no matter where we use it. If we attempt to evaluate
+type-checks, no matter where we use it. If we attempt to evaluate
 it, it will cause our program to crash.
 
 #+BEGIN_SRC screen

9-a-library-for-searching-the-file-system.org

@@ -640,7 +640,7 @@ betterFind (sizeP `equalP` 1024) :: FilePath -> IO [FilePath]
 #+END_SRC
 
 Notice that we're not actually calling ~betterFind~, we're merely
-making sure that our expression typechecks. We now have a more
+making sure that our expression type-checks. We now have a more
 expressive way to list all files that are exactly some size. Our
 success gives us enough confidence to continue.
 

Makefile

@@ -21,3 +21,7 @@ typeclass:
 	sed -i 's/Typeclass/Type class/g' *.org
 	sed -i 's/typeclass/type class/g' *.org
 	sed -i 's/6-using-type classes.org/6-using-typeclasses.org/g' *.org
+
+typecheck:
+	# No instances of "Typecheck"
+	sed -i 's/typecheck/type-check/g' *.org