cons man page: formatting fixes

- two run on Description headings.
- botched formatting under equalize
- cons man page: four typecodes, not three.
- cons man page: missing closing quote in example string.

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 7 deletions

diff --git a/cppawk-cons.1 b/cppawk-cons.1
index 47bb0da..5f4c2f4 100644
--- a/cppawk-cons.1
+++ b/cppawk-cons.1
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ In the boxed representation, every object is a string whose first character
 is a type code. The rest of the string has a meaning which depends on the
 type code.
 
-There are currently three type codes:
+There are currently four type codes:
 .IP T
 The type code letter
 .B T
@@ -638,7 +638,7 @@ is numeric, then
 .B box
 returns
 .IR av .
-Note that a value like \fB"1abc\fP is numeric in Awk and
+Note that a value like \fB"1abc"\fP is numeric in Awk and
 behaves like 1 under arithmetic.
 If
 .I av
@@ -726,9 +726,9 @@ symbol, and not as \f"B"Snil"\fP.
 
 The
 .B cons
-function constructs and returns a binary pair object called
+function constructs and returns a binary pair object called a
 .I "cons cell"
-or just
+or just a
 .IR "cons" .
 The cons holds the two argument values in two fields called
 .I car
@@ -787,6 +787,7 @@ symbol as an argument instead of a cons, in which case they return
 .ft R
 
 .B Description
+
 The
 .B sexp
 function produces a printed representation of a Lisp object: an
@@ -865,7 +866,7 @@ made, the list of three numbers 1, 2, 3 appears like this:
 .BR "(1 . (2  .  (3  .  nil)))" .
 Rule 2 reduces it slightly to
 .BR "(1 . (2  .  (3)))" .
-A single application application of rule 3 produces
+A single application of rule 3 produces
 .BR "(1 . (2 3))" ,
 and one more application of the rule results in
 .BR "(1 2 3)" .
@@ -899,6 +900,7 @@ function favors the last of these.
 .ft R
 
 .B Description
+
 The
 .B equal
 function compares two objects
@@ -1060,12 +1062,12 @@ Secondly, when equalized objects are used as keys for an Awk associative
 array, then, effectively, that array becomes based on
 .BR equal
 equality.  That is to say, for instance, if the the objects
-.B "cons("1.0", "2.0")"
+.B "cons(\(dq1.0\(dq, \(dq2.0\(dq)"
 and
 .B "cons(1, 2)"
 are used directly as associative array keys, they are different keys because
 their string representation is different. Yet, those two objects are
-.BN equal .
+.BR equal .
 Suppose that in some application there exists the requirement that
 .B equal
 objects must be be considered to be the same array key. This requirement