Index: doc/papers/general/Paper.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/papers/general/Paper.tex	(revision 10f814274819855875989c6dbf86fcb1e3ddf61d)
+++ doc/papers/general/Paper.tex	(revision 5f4f31fe679878fd3a1c760a504443652ee98a15)
@@ -1205,8 +1205,9 @@
 p2 = &y;  $\C{// p2 points to y}$
 p3 = &p1;  $\C{// p3 points to p1}$
+*p2 = ((*p1 + *p2) * (**p3 - *p1)) / (**p3 - 15);
 \end{cfa}
 
 Unfortunately, the dereference and address-of operators introduce a great deal of syntactic noise when dealing with pointed-to values rather than pointers, as well as the potential for subtle bugs.
-It would be desirable to have the compiler figure out how to elide the dereference operators in a complex expression such as @*p2 = ((*p1 + *p2) * (**p3 - *p1)) / (**p3 - 15);@, for both brevity and clarity.
+For both brevity and clarity, it would be desirable to have the compiler figure out how to elide the dereference operators in a complex expression such as the assignment to @*p2@ above.
 However, since C defines a number of forms of \emph{pointer arithmetic}, two similar expressions involving pointers to arithmetic types (\eg @*p1 + x@ and @p1 + x@) may each have well-defined but distinct semantics, introducing the possibility that a user programmer may write one when they mean the other, and precluding any simple algorithm for elision of dereference operators.
 To solve these problems, \CFA introduces reference types @T&@; a @T&@ has exactly the same value as a @T*@, but where the @T*@ takes the address interpretation by default, a @T&@ takes the value interpretation by default, as below: