Index: doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/introduction.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/introduction.tex	(revision 98b4b120d533ef4cef3eb4d2a31814b29043a42a)
+++ doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/introduction.tex	(revision bd405fa5a47462483423c39d874053d41ec0a699)
@@ -42,5 +42,5 @@
 Though the direction and experimental validation of this work is fairly narrowly focused on the \CFA{} programming language, the tools used and results obtained should be of interest to a wider compiler and programming language design community. 
 In particular, with the addition of \emph{concepts} in \CCtwenty{}~\cite{C++Concepts}, conforming \CC{} compilers must support a model of type assertions very similar to that in \CFA{}, and the algorithmic techniques used here may prove useful. 
-Much of the difficulty of type-checking \CFA{} stems from the language design choice to allow overload selection from the context of a function call based on function return type in addition to the type of the arguments to the call; this feature allows the programmers to specify fewer redundant type annotations on functions that are polymorphic in their return type.
+Much of the difficulty of type-checking \CFA{} stems from the language design choice to allow overload selection from the context of a function call based on function return type in addition to the type of the arguments to the call; this feature allows the programmer to specify fewer redundant type annotations on functions that are polymorphic in their return type.
 As an example in \CC{}:
 \begin{C++}
Index: doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/resolution-heuristics.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/resolution-heuristics.tex	(revision 98b4b120d533ef4cef3eb4d2a31814b29043a42a)
+++ doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/resolution-heuristics.tex	(revision bd405fa5a47462483423c39d874053d41ec0a699)
@@ -18,5 +18,5 @@
 A comparison of the richer type systems in \CFA{} and \CC{} highlights some of the challenges in \CFA{} expression resolution. 
 The key distinction between \CFA{} and \CC{} resolution is that \CC{} uses a greedy algorithm for selection of candidate functions given their argument interpretations, whereas \CFA{} allows contextual information from superexpressions to influence the choice among candidate functions. 
-One key use of this contextual information is for type inference of polymorphic return types; \CC{} requires explicit specification of template parameters that only occur in a function's return type, while \CFA{} allows the instantiation of these type parameters to be inferred from context(and in fact does not allow explicit specification of type parameters to a function), as in the following example:
+One key use of this contextual information is for type inference of polymorphic return types; \CC{} requires explicit specification of template parameters that only occur in a function's return type, while \CFA{} allows the instantiation of these type parameters to be inferred from context (and in fact does not allow explicit specification of type parameters to a function), as in the following example:
 
 \begin{cfa}
Index: doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/thesis.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/thesis.tex	(revision 98b4b120d533ef4cef3eb4d2a31814b29043a42a)
+++ doc/theses/aaron_moss_PhD/phd/thesis.tex	(revision bd405fa5a47462483423c39d874053d41ec0a699)
@@ -16,5 +16,5 @@
 \usepackage{ifthen}
 \newboolean{PrintVersion}
-\setboolean{PrintVersion}{true} 
+\setboolean{PrintVersion}{false} 
 % CHANGE THIS VALUE TO "true" as necessary, to improve printed results for hard copies
 % by overriding some options of the hyperref package below.