[commit: ghc] master: Fixup comment: typos + I had the generalization rule backwards. (12f3a53)

[Iavor Diatchki]

Repository : ssh://darcs.haskell.org//srv/darcs/ghc

On branch  : master

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/changeset/12f3a53edf3db4eabcbe412cab0ef44b469b537e

>---------------------------------------------------------------

commit 12f3a53edf3db4eabcbe412cab0ef44b469b537e
Author: Iavor S. Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
Date:   Sun Jan 13 18:34:38 2013 -0800

    Fixup comment: typos + I had the generalization rule backwards.

>---------------------------------------------------------------

 compiler/types/FunDeps.lhs |    7 ++++---
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/compiler/types/FunDeps.lhs b/compiler/types/FunDeps.lhs
index 6bca407..fe8781b 100644
--- a/compiler/types/FunDeps.lhs
+++ b/compiler/types/FunDeps.lhs
@@ -154,9 +154,10 @@ oclose preds fixed_tvs
 -- For 1: the above argument about `t` being monomorphic seems incorrect.
 --    The correct behavior is to quantify over `t`, even though we know that
 --    it may be instantiated to at most one type.  The point is that we might
---    only find out what that type is later, at the class site to the function.
---    In genral, we should be quantifying all variables that are not mentioned
---    in the environment + the variables that are determined by them.
+--    only find out what that type is later, at the call site to the function.
+--    In general, we should be quantifying all variables that are (i) not in
+--    mentioned in the environment, and (ii) not FD-determined by something in
+--    the environment.
 -- For 2: This is just a nicity, but it makes things a bit more general:
 --    if we have an assumption `t1 ~ t2`, then we use the fact that if we know
 --    `t1` we also know `t2` and the other way.