typos

related.tex

@@ -26,24 +26,24 @@ the argument has type {\tt Number}, and when the output is {\tt false}, the
 argument does not. Such information is used selectively
 in the ``then'' and ``else'' branches of a test.
 \rev{%%%%
-Since \citet{THF10} focus they analysis on a particular set of pure
-operations, their approach works also in the presence of side-effects. Although
-the choices made by our and their approach seems diametrically opposed
-(the Boolean output of few pure operations vs.\ any output of any
+Since \citet{THF10} focus their analysis on a particular set of pure
+operations, the approach works also in the presence of side-effects. Although
+the choices made by our and their approach seem poles apart
+(Boolean output of few pure operations vs.\ any output of every
 expression), they share some similar techniques. For instance, our
 deduction system for $\vdashp$ plays a similar role as
 the proof systems and \textsf{update} function of \citet[Figures 4,
-7 \& 9]{THF10}. In that framework, when one needs to type a variable
-(judgemetn ``$\Gamma \vdash x:\tau$''), one has to be able to prove
+7 \& 9]{THF10}. In that framework, in order to type a variable
+(judgement ``$\Gamma \vdash x:\tau$'') one needs to prove
 that the logical formula $\tau_x$ holds (under the hypotheses of
 $\Gamma$). This atomic formula may not be directly available in
 $\Gamma$ but may
-be proven by a combination of logical deduction rules (Figure~4), or
-by recursively exploring a path leading to $x$ (Figure~7 and ~9) a
+be proven by a combination of logical deduction rules (Figure~4 of~\cite{THF10}), or
+by recursively exploring a path leading to $x$ (Figure~7 and ~9 of~\cite{THF10}) a
 path being a sequence of \textbf{cdr} or \textbf{car} applications,
 much like our $f$ and $s$ components of paths. This idea is also
-present in our $\vdashp$ with differences pertaining to our type
-framework and design choices : type restrictions can be encoded using
+present in our deduction system for $\vdashp$ with differences pertaining to our type
+framework and design choices: type restrictions can be encoded using
 set-theoretic intersections and negations (instead of meta-functions working on the
 syntax of types) and our richer language of paths components.
 }%%%%rev