Changeset 2260ab6c

Timestamp:

Jul 9, 2018, 6:30:49 PM (6 years ago)

Author:

Peter A. Buhr <pabuhr@…>

Branches:

ADT, aaron-thesis, arm-eh, ast-experimental, cleanup-dtors, deferred_resn, demangler, enum, forall-pointer-decay, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, no_list, persistent-indexer, pthread-emulation, qualifiedEnum

Children:

a74503ff

Parents:

0fd0c16

Message:

small updates

File:

• doc/papers/general/Paper.tex (modified) (5 diffs)

doc/papers/general/Paper.tex

@@ -226 +226 @@
 The C programming language is a foundational technology for modern computing with millions of lines of code implementing everything from hobby projects to commercial operating-systems.
 This installation base and the programmers producing it represent a massive software-engineering investment spanning decades and likely to continue for decades more.
-The TIOBE~\cite{TIOBE} ranks the top 5 most \emph{popular} programming languages as: Java 15\%, \Textbf{C 12\%}, \Textbf{\CC 5.5\%}, Python 5\%, \Csharp 4.5\% = 42\%, where the next 50 languages are less than 4\% each with a long tail.
+The TIOBE index~\cite{TIOBE} ranks the top 5 most \emph{popular} programming languages as: Java 15\%, \Textbf{C 12\%}, \Textbf{\CC 5.5\%}, Python 5\%, \Csharp 4.5\% = 42\%, where the next 50 languages are less than 4\% each, with a long tail.
 The top 3 rankings over the past 30 years are:
 \begin{center}
@@ -250 +250 @@
 (4) Extensions introduced by \CFA must be translated in the most efficient way possible.
 These goals ensure existing C code-bases can be converted to \CFA incrementally with minimal effort, and C programmers can productively generate \CFA code without training beyond the features being used.
-\CC is used similarly, but has the disadvantages of multiple legacy design-choices that cannot be updated and active divergence of the language model from C, requiring significant effort and training to incrementally add \CC to a C-based project.
+\CC is used similarly, but has the disadvantages of multiple legacy design-choices that cannot be updated, and active divergence of the language model from C, requiring significant effort and training to incrementally add \CC to a C-based project.
 
 All languages features discussed in this paper are working, except some advanced exception-handling features.
@@ -1096 +1096 @@
 
 
-\subsection{\texorpdfstring{\protect\lstinline{if} Statement}{if Statement}}
+\subsection{\texorpdfstring{\protect\lstinline@if@ Statement}{if Statement}}
 
 The @if@ expression allows declarations, similar to @for@ declaration expression:
@@ -1108 +1108 @@
 
 
-\subsection{\texorpdfstring{\protect\lstinline{switch} Statement}{switch Statement}}
+\subsection{\texorpdfstring{\protect\lstinline@switch@ Statement}{switch Statement}}
 
 There are a number of deficiencies with the C @switch@ statements: enumerating @case@ lists, placement of @case@ clauses, scope of the switch body, and fall through between case clauses.
@@ -1263 +1263 @@
 
 
-\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Labelled \protect\lstinline{continue} / \protect\lstinline{break}}{Labelled continue / break}}
+\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Labelled \protect\lstinline@continue@ / \protect\lstinline@break@}{Labelled continue / break}}
 
 While C provides @continue@ and @break@ statements for altering control flow, both are restricted to one level of nesting for a particular control structure.