Index: doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex	(revision f408e1a4b32252bdcb6bfa747a748e6103fef057)
+++ doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex	(revision 8f1608677b1b38a072293dc4629eb9328c2ec372)
@@ -1020,5 +1020,5 @@
 While \CC provides good backwards compatibility with C, it has a steep learning curve for many of its extensions.
 For example, polymorphism is provided via three disjoint mechanisms: overloading, inheritance, and templates.
-The overloading is restricted because resolution does not using the return type, inheritance requires learning object-oriented programming and coping with a restricted nominal-inheritance hierarchy, templates cannot be separately compiled resulting in compilation/code bloat and poor error messages, and determining how these mechanisms interact and which to use is confusing.
+The overloading is restricted because resolution does not use the return type, inheritance requires learning object-oriented programming and coping with a restricted nominal-inheritance hierarchy, templates cannot be separately compiled resulting in compilation/code bloat and poor error messages, and determining how these mechanisms interact and which to use is confusing.
 In contrast, \CFA has a single facility for polymorphic code supporting type-safe separate-compilation of polymorphic functions and generic (opaque) types, which uniformly leverage the C procedural paradigm.
 The key mechanism to support separate compilation is \CFA's \emph{explicit} use of assumed properties for a type.