Re: PiL3: typos

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> "Another alternative is to *memorize* metatables in order to reuse the
> same metatable for tables with the same default. However, that needs
> weak tables too, so that again we will have to wait until Chapter 17."
> 
> Since "memorize" is printed in italics and there is a reference to Ch.17
> where *memoization* is explained, I guess "memorize" could have been
> meant to be "memoize".
> 
> Moreover at page 177, section 17.2 title is correctly using the
> "memoize" technical term [1]. However in the following text there are
> many "memoriz???" words in italics [2], which seem to have been meant as
> "memoiz???". Was this a deliberate choice or the proofreader
> (human/automatic) has been too zelant and didn't recognize a technical
> term? A search for "memoiz" only finds the term "memoize" three times
> (in the TOC, in the mentioned section title and in the header of p.177).

I never undestood this term "memoize". This word did not exist in any
dictionary; but, as far as I can undertand it, its meaning is exaclty
the same of the word "memorize", which is a common word. So, why to
create a new word when an old one was perfectly fit for the job? (The
same seems to happen with "denotational" semantics versus
"denotative" semantics.)

So, I used the term "memorize", which is old and good and means exactly
what I wanted to say. In the title, however, I used the neologism, so
that people looking for that technique could find it. I should probably
have used "memorize" there, too.

-- Roberto