Replace statement with expression everywhere.

[matthijs/master-project/report.git] / Chapters / Normalization.tex

diff --git a/Chapters/Normalization.tex b/Chapters/Normalization.tex
index bf0d3884bd2047d69e87d29d52fa826fefcf31ed..2979b69034b38de0d3ac87dfce3ef01a39b1345b 100644 (file)
--- a/Chapters/Normalization.tex
+++ b/Chapters/Normalization.tex
@@ -551,7 +551,7 @@
     \stoplambda
 
     Again, the transformation does not apply to this lambda abstraction, so we
-    look at its body. For brevity, we'll put the case statement on one line from
+    look at its body. For brevity, we'll put the case expression on one line from
     now on.
 
     \startlambda
@@ -1428,7 +1428,7 @@
         \stoptrans
         \todo{Check the subscripts of this transformation}
 
-        Note that this transformation applies to case statements with any
+        Note that this transformation applies to case expressions with any
         scrutinee. If the scrutinee is a complex expression, this might result
         in duplicate hardware. An extra condition to only apply this
         transformation when the scrutinee is already simple (effectively
@@ -1481,10 +1481,10 @@
         \in{section}[sec:transformation:caseremoval].
 
       \subsubsection[sec:transformation:caseremoval]{Case removal}
-        This transform removes any case statements with a single alternative and
+        This transform removes any case expression with a single alternative and
         only wild binders.
 
-        These "useless" case statements are usually leftovers from case simplification
+        These "useless" case expressions are usually leftovers from case simplification
         on extractor case (see the previous example).
 
         \starttrans
@@ -2079,8 +2079,6 @@
         matching, causing a state input to be unpacked multiple times or
         be unpacked and repacked only in some of the code paths.
 
-        \todo{example?}
-
         Without going into detail about the exact problems (of which
         there are probably more than have shown up so far), it seems
         unlikely that these problems can be solved entirely by just
@@ -2090,6 +2088,9 @@
         of course mean that the intended normal form definition must be
         extended as well to be more specific about how state handling
         should look like in normal form.
+        \in{Section}[sec:prototype:statelimits] already contains a
+        tight description of the limitations on the use of state
+        variables, which could be adapted into the intended normal form.
 
   \section[sec:normalization:properties]{Provable properties}
     When looking at the system of transformations outlined above, there are a