Highlight [] as list brackets, like ⟨⟩

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/docs/doc/based.html b/docs/doc/based.html
index 7974f1d5..f03adf29 100644
--- a/docs/doc/based.html
+++ b/docs/doc/based.html
@@ -43,10 +43,10 @@
 <p>Arrays in BQN, like nearly all data structures in modern programming languages, are an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_type">inductive type</a>. That means that an array can be constructed from existing values, but can't contain itself (including recursively: an array always has finite depth). To construct the type of all BQN values inductively, we would say that atoms form the base case, and arrays are an inductive case: an array is a shaped collection of existing BQN values. For an array programmer, this is of course the easy part.</p>
 <h2 id="versus-the-nested-array-model"><a class="header" href="#versus-the-nested-array-model">Versus the nested array model</a></h2>
 <p>The <a href="https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Array_model#Nested_array_theory">nested array model</a> of NARS, APL2, Dyalog, and GNU APL can be constructed from the based model by adding a rule: a unit (or &quot;scalar&quot; in APL) array containing an atom is equivalent to that atom. The equivalents of atoms in nested array theory are thus called &quot;simple scalars&quot;, and they are considered arrays but share the characteristics of BQN atoms. Nested arrays don't form an inductive type, because simple scalars contain themselves.</p>
-<p>Nested array theory can seem simpler to use, because the programmer never has to worry about simple scalars being enclosed the wrong number of times: all these encloses have been identified with each other. For example, <code><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>abcd</span><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>[</span><span class='Number'>2</span><span class='Value'>]</span></code> returns a character while BQN's <code><span class='Number'>2</span><span class='Function'>⊏</span><span class='String'>&quot;abcd&quot;</span></code> returns an array containing a character. However, these issues usually still appear with more complex arrays: <code><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>ab</span><span class='String'>'</span> <span class='Number'>1</span> <span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>ef</span><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>[</span><span class='Number'>2</span><span class='Value'>]</span></code> (here spaces are used for stranding) is not a string but an enclosed string!</p>
+<p>Nested array theory can seem simpler to use, because the programmer never has to worry about simple scalars being enclosed the wrong number of times: all these encloses have been identified with each other. For example, <code><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>abcd</span><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Bracket'>[</span><span class='Number'>2</span><span class='Bracket'>]</span></code> returns a character while BQN's <code><span class='Number'>2</span><span class='Function'>⊏</span><span class='String'>&quot;abcd&quot;</span></code> returns an array containing a character. However, these issues usually still appear with more complex arrays: <code><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>ab</span><span class='String'>'</span> <span class='Number'>1</span> <span class='String'>'</span><span class='Value'>ef</span><span class='String'>'</span><span class='Bracket'>[</span><span class='Number'>2</span><span class='Bracket'>]</span></code> (here spaces are used for stranding) is not a string but an enclosed string!</p>
 <p>A property that might warn about dangerous issues like this is that nested array theory tends to create <em>inversions</em> where the depth of a particular array depends on its rank (reversing the normal hierarchy of depth→rank→shape). A 1-character string has depth 1, but when its rank is reduced to 0, its depth is reduced as well.</p>
 <p>In some cases nested array theory can remove a depth issue entirely, and not just partially. Most notable is the <a href="../commentary/problems.html#search-function-depth">search function result depth</a> issue, in which it's impossible for a search function in BQN to return an atomic number because it always returns an array. Nested array theory doesn't have this issue since a scalar number is &quot;just a number&quot;, and more complicated arrays can't cause problems because a search function's result is always a numeric array. The other half of the problem, about the non-principal argument depth, is only partly hidden, and causes problems for example when searching for a single string out of a list of strings.</p>
 <h2 id="versus-the-boxed-array-model"><a class="header" href="#versus-the-boxed-array-model">Versus the boxed array model</a></h2>
 <p>The <a href="https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Array_model#Boxes">boxed array model</a> of SHARP APL, A+, and J is an inductive system like BQN's. But this model uses arrays as the base case: numeric and character arrays are the simplest kind of data allowed, and &quot;a number&quot; means a rank-0 numeric array. The inductive step is the array of boxes; as with numbers &quot;a box&quot; is simply a rank-0 array of boxes.</p>
-<p>Numeric and character arrays in this system have depth 0. In general these correspond to arrays of depth 1 in BQN, but because there's no lower depth they are also used where BQN atoms would appear. For example, both Shape (<code><span class='Value'>$</span></code>) and Length (<code><span class='Comment'>#</span></code>) return depth-0 results in J. For an array <code><span class='Value'>a</span></code> with rank at least 1, the length <code><span class='Comment'>#a</span></code> is exactly <code><span class='Value'>[</span><span class='Function'>/</span> <span class='Value'>$</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code>, while the identical BQN code <code><span class='Function'>⊣</span><span class='Modifier'>˝</span> <span class='Function'>≢</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code> returns not <code><span class='Function'>≠</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code> but <code><span class='Function'>&lt;</span> <span class='Function'>≠</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code>. Like the nested model, the boxed model can hide depth issues that occur at lower depths but generally reveals them at higher depths.</p>
+<p>Numeric and character arrays in this system have depth 0. In general these correspond to arrays of depth 1 in BQN, but because there's no lower depth they are also used where BQN atoms would appear. For example, both Shape (<code><span class='Value'>$</span></code>) and Length (<code><span class='Comment'>#</span></code>) return depth-0 results in J. For an array <code><span class='Value'>a</span></code> with rank at least 1, the length <code><span class='Comment'>#a</span></code> is exactly <code><span class='Bracket'>[</span><span class='Function'>/</span> <span class='Value'>$</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code>, while the identical BQN code <code><span class='Function'>⊣</span><span class='Modifier'>˝</span> <span class='Function'>≢</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code> returns not <code><span class='Function'>≠</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code> but <code><span class='Function'>&lt;</span> <span class='Function'>≠</span> <span class='Value'>a</span></code>. Like the nested model, the boxed model can hide depth issues that occur at lower depths but generally reveals them at higher depths.</p>
 <p>The boundary at depth 0 will tend to cause inconsistencies and confusion in any array language, and boxed array languages push this boundary up a level. This leads to the programmer spending more effort managing boxes: for example, to reverse each list in a list of lists, the programmer can use reverse under open, <code><span class='Function'>|</span><span class='Value'>.</span> <span class='Value'>&amp;.</span> <span class='Function'>&gt;</span></code>. But to find the lengths of each of these lists, <code><span class='Comment'># &amp;. &gt;</span></code> would yield a boxed list, which is usually not wanted, so <code><span class='Comment'># @ &gt;</span></code> is needed instead. BQN shows that a system that doesn't require these distinctions is possible, as a BQN programmer would use <code><span class='Function'>⌽</span><span class='Modifier'>¨</span></code> and <code><span class='Function'>≠</span><span class='Modifier'>¨</span></code>.</p>