rpgoldman (26) [Avatar] Offline
#1
Maybe it will be more productive if I just make a single thread with the typos I find. I'll just keep adding to this thread from now on.

p. 52:
"The difference to the previous form being that we can now have any number of argument/body pairs as long as the arity of the arguments differ. "

You can have a difference with, but not to. Also, I believe that this is a sentence fragment or not well-formed. What you want, I believe, is something like "The difference between this example and the previous one is that ..." But it's not really a difference, since in both cases we can have any number of a/b pairs. It's more like "this example shows that a defn permits..."
rpgoldman (26) [Avatar] Offline
#2
p. 53
"This is very different from programming languages where functions are functions and data are data, and there is a world of capability available to the latter that is incongruous to the former."

"incongruous" is wrong here. "not available to" or "inaccessible to"
rpgoldman (26) [Avatar] Offline
#3
p. 53, awk
"There is another way to define functions in Clojure using the defn macro. While certainly a much nicer way to define and consequently refer to functions by name, using def as above is still a bit cumbersome to use, especially if you want to additionally add inline function documentation strings or pre- abd post-conditions18 to the function itself."

While I know what you mean, it reads like def is a much nicer way than defn, but you mean the opposite. What you need to do is refer back more clearly. "While def is much nicer than trying to work with the nameless functions produced by fn, it is still a bit cumbersome to use."

Note also run-on and misspelling ("abd").