Index: doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex	(revision 0111dc78014e8cb9bf465cd3dda3af109d744b69)
+++ doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex	(revision 1a16e9d0021c479e83d5cd7858c4f18cbf247d7d)
@@ -932,5 +932,5 @@
 \section{Evaluation}
 
-Though \CFA provides significant added functionality over C, these added features do not impose a significant runtime penalty. In fact, \CFA's features for generic programming can enable runtime execution that is faster than idiomatic @void*@-based C code. We have produced a set of generic-code-based micro-benchmarks to demonstrate these claims, source code for which may be found in \TODO{Appendix A}. These benchmarks test a generic stack based on a singly-linked-list, a generic pair data structure, and a variadic @print@ routine similar to that shown in Section~\ref{sec:variadic-tuples}. Each benchmark has been implemented in C with @void*@-based polymorphism, \CFA with the features discussed in this paper, \CC with templates, and \CC using only class inheritance for polymorphism (``\CCV''). The intention of these benchmarks is to represent the costs of idiomatic use of each language's features, rather than the strict maximal performance obtainable by code written in each language -- as all the languages considered have a shared subset comprising most of standard C, a set of maximal-performance benchmarks would presumably show very little runtime variance, and would differ primarily in length and clarity of source code. Particularly, in the \CCV variant of the benchmark all objects inherit from a base @object@ class, explicitly implement interfaces defined as abstract base classes, and must do runtime checks in generic code to safely down-cast objects; this is not an idiomatic programming pattern for \CC, but is meant to represent the design of a simple object-oriented programming language. The most notable difference between the implementations is  memory layout; the \CFA and \CC variants inline the stack and pair elements into their corresponding list and pair nodes, while the C and \CCV versions are forced by their lack of a generic type capability to store generic objects via pointers to separately-allocated objects. For more idiomatic language use, the C and \CFA variants used \texttt{cstdio.h} for printing, while the \CC and \CCV variants used \texttt{iostream}, though preliminary experiments showed this distinction to make little runtime difference. For consistency in testing, all implementations used the C @rand()@ function for random number generation. 
+Though \CFA provides significant added functionality over C, these added features do not impose a significant runtime penalty. In fact, \CFA's features for generic programming can enable runtime execution that is faster than idiomatic @void*@-based C code. We have produced a set of generic-code-based micro-benchmarks to demonstrate these claims, source code for which may be found in \TODO{Appendix A}. These benchmarks test a generic stack based on a singly-linked-list, a generic pair data structure, and a variadic @print@ routine similar to that shown in Section~\ref{sec:variadic-tuples}. Each benchmark has been implemented in C with @void*@-based polymorphism, \CFA with the features discussed in this paper, \CC with templates, and \CC using only class inheritance for polymorphism (``\CCV''). The intention of these benchmarks is to represent the costs of idiomatic use of each language's features, rather than the strict maximal performance obtainable by code written in each language -- as all the languages considered have a shared subset comprising most of standard C, a set of maximal-performance benchmarks would presumably show very little runtime variance, and would differ primarily in length and clarity of source code. Particularly, in the \CCV variant of the benchmark all objects inherit from a base @object@ class, explicitly implement interfaces defined as abstract base classes, and must do runtime checks in generic code to safely down-cast objects; this is not an idiomatic programming pattern for \CC, but is meant to represent the design of a simple object-oriented programming language. The most notable difference between the implementations is  memory layout; the \CFA and \CC variants inline the stack and pair elements into their corresponding list and pair nodes, while the C and \CCV versions are forced by their lack of a generic type capability to store generic objects via pointers to separately-allocated objects. For more idiomatic language use, the C and \CFA variants used \texttt{cstdio.h} for printing, while the \CC and \CCV variants used \texttt{iostream}, though preliminary experiments showed this distinction to make little runtime difference. For consistency in testing, all implementations used the C @rand()@ function for random number generation.
 
 \begin{figure}
@@ -984,6 +984,6 @@
 Furthermore, structured bindings are not a full replacement for @std::tie@, as it always declares new variables.
 Like \CC, D provides tuples through a library variadic-template structure.
-Go does not have tuple but supports MRVF.
-Java's variadic functions appears similar to C's but type-safe using arrays.
+Go does not have tuples but supports MRVF.
+Java's variadic functions appear similar to C's but are type-safe using arrays.
 Tuples are a fundamental abstraction in most functional programming languages, such as Standard ML~\cite{sml} and Scala~\cite{Scala}, which decompose tuples using pattern matching.