Add a small conclusion to the "What is MontiumC?" section.

diff --git a/Report/Main/Problems/Challenges.tex b/Report/Main/Problems/Challenges.tex
index b5d5f8e7aac725f05c35b4c31a779577d336c3cc..e152393873c4ae8fc08b59bf874c693ce7723166 100644 (file)
--- a/Report/Main/Problems/Challenges.tex
+++ b/Report/Main/Problems/Challenges.tex
@@ -83,7 +83,8 @@ anything is mappable, but with a simple compiler this will not result in the
 most efficient code. In the Montium case, a lot of things simply cannot be
 mapped on the hardware at all.
 
-Considering that our ideal is not reachable (by far), every feature
+Considering that our ideal is not reachable (Though the new hardware might take
+us a lot closer), every feature
 considered for MontiumC was evaluated thoroughly for feasibility, both in hardware
 and in the compiler. In practice, this meant that new language features would be
 informally expressed and discussed, and only added to the specification after
@@ -109,6 +110,20 @@ cannot all be mapped onto normal C operators. By using a specific
 function call for each, we can still distinguish between all the
 different operations and add extra arguments where needed.
 
+\subsubsection{What do we have now?}
+The result of this work is a usuable, but conservative, specification. It
+defines the subset of features that should certainly be supported. In practice,
+some other features will also work, but not reliably. Therefore, these are left
+out of the specification.
+
+It is not unlikely that the specification is still incorrect in a few places (or
+rather, that the code does not implement the specification properly). Since
+so far there has been not any automated checking of programs against the
+specification, these errors have not been uncovered. Once the new hardware is
+more clearly defined and the MontiumC specification is updated for it, this
+checking should be added so the specification and compiler can be better
+matched.
+
 \begin{figure}
        \caption{Low level MontiumC example}
 \label{ExampleLow}