diff -r 499007a7bce2 -r 4a1739f256fd handouts/ho03.tex
--- a/handouts/ho03.tex	Wed Oct 03 13:37:11 2018 +0100
+++ b/handouts/ho03.tex	Fri Oct 05 11:07:57 2018 +0100
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@
 \begin{figure}[p]
 \small
 \lstinputlisting[numbers=left]{../progs/display/dfa.scala}
-\caption{A Scala implementation of DFAs using partial functions.
+\caption{An implementation of DFAs in Scala using partial functions.
   Note some subtleties: \texttt{deltas} implements the delta-hat
   construction by lifting the (partial) transition  function to lists
   of characters. Since \texttt{delta} is given as a partial function,
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@
 definition, but a function from states to booleans (this function is
 supposed to return true whenever a state is final; false
 otherwise). While this boolean function is different from the sets of
-states, Scala allows to use sets for such functions (see Line 40 where
+states, Scala allows us to use sets for such functions (see Line 40 where
 the DFA is initialised). Again it will become clear later on why I use
 functions for final states, rather than sets.
 
@@ -191,9 +191,9 @@
 
 Finally, I let you ponder whether this is a good implementation of
 DFAs or not. In doing so I hope you notice that the $\varSigma$ and
-$Qs$ components (the alphabet and the set of finite states,
+$Qs$ components (the alphabet and the set of \emph{finite} states,
 respectively) are missing from the class definition. This means that
-the implementation allows you to do some fishy things you are not
+the implementation allows you to do some ``fishy'' things you are not
 meant to do with DFAs. Which fishy things could that be?