Use \in instead of \at to refer to section numbers.

\at refers to page numbers instead.

diff --git a/Chapters/Future.tex b/Chapters/Future.tex
index 38904bea13edb937ff83be17dac29f56b928ae77..6be0ba8be0d465adc19063ffa2030c9779d016cd 100644 (file)
--- a/Chapters/Future.tex
+++ b/Chapters/Future.tex
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Using custom combinators would work
 
 \section{Recursion}
 The main problems of recursion have been described in
 
 \section{Recursion}
 The main problems of recursion have been described in

-\at{section}[sec:recursion]. In the current implementation, recursion is
+\in{section}[sec:recursion]. In the current implementation, recursion is

 therefore not possible, instead we rely on a number of implicit list-recursive
 builtin functions.
 
 therefore not possible, instead we rely on a number of implicit list-recursive
 builtin functions.
 


@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ take multiple cycles. Some examples include:
   \item A large combinatoric expressions that would introduce a very long
   combinatoric path and thus limit clock frequency. Such an expression could
   be broken up into multiple stages, which effectively results in a pipelined
   \item A large combinatoric expressions that would introduce a very long
   combinatoric path and thus limit clock frequency. Such an expression could
   be broken up into multiple stages, which effectively results in a pipelined

-  system (see also \at{section}[sec:future:pipelining]) with a known delay.
+  system (see also \in{section}[sec:future:pipelining]) with a known delay.

   There should probably be some way for the developer to specify the cycle
   division of the expression, since automatically deciding on such a division
   is too complex and contains too many tradeoffs, at least initially.
   There should probably be some way for the developer to specify the cycle
   division of the expression, since automatically deciding on such a division
   is too complex and contains too many tradeoffs, at least initially.