From 59e88b40722aaae442e11fceca31f8df62583e0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: herbelin
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:04:57 +0000
Subject: Orthographe

git-svn-id: svn+ssh://scm.gforge.inria.fr/svn/coq/trunk@8241 85f007b7-540e-0410-9357-904b9bb8a0f7
---
 doc/RefMan-ltac.tex | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/RefMan-ltac.tex b/doc/RefMan-ltac.tex
index 9ad394e5f6..3ceb30e692 100644
--- a/doc/RefMan-ltac.tex
+++ b/doc/RefMan-ltac.tex
@@ -330,6 +330,10 @@ We have the failing tactic:\\
 It always fails and leaves the goal unchanged. It does not appear in the proof
 script and can be catched by {\sf Try}.
 
+{\sf Error message:}\\
+
+{\tt Fail tactic always fails (level $n$)}.
+
 \subsubsection{Pattern matching on proof contexts}
 
 We can make pattern matching on proof contexts using the following
@@ -559,11 +563,11 @@ table~\ref{permutlem}.
 \label{permutlem}
 \end{table}
 
-\subsection{Deciding intuitionnistic propositional logic}
+\subsection{Deciding intuitionistic propositional logic}
 
 The pattern matching on proof contexts allows a complete and so a powerful
 backtracking when returning tactic values. An interesting application is the
-problem of deciding intuitionnistic propositional logic. Considering the
+problem of deciding intuitionistic propositional logic. Considering the
 contraction-free sequent calculi {\sf LJT*} of Roy~Dyckhoff (\cite{Dyc92}), it
 is quite natural to code such a tactic using the tactic language as shown in
 table~\ref{tautoltac}. The tactic {\sf Axioms} tries to conclude using usual
@@ -618,7 +622,7 @@ for the left implication to get rid of the contraction and the right or).
 \>\>\>\>\>{\sf |[|-?$\bs{}$/?] ->}\\
 \>\>\>\>\>\>\>{\sf (Left;TautoProp) Orelse (Right;TautoProp).}
 \end{tabbing}}}
-\caption{Deciding intuitionnistic propositions}
+\caption{Deciding intuitionistic propositions}
 \label{tautoltac}
 \end{table}
 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3