Merge pull request #24 from spoofax-shell/consistency

[RFC] Consistency fixes

research/00-introduction.tex

@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ \section*{Introduction}
 \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Introduction}
 
 Spoofax is a language workbench developed by Delft University of Technology over
-the course of several years. During those years it has grown to be \textit{"a
+the course of several years. During those years it has grown to be \textit{``a
 language workbench for efficient, agile development of textual domain-specific
-languages with state-of-the-art IDE support"}~\cite{Kats10a}.
+languages with state-of-the-art IDE support''}~\cite{Kats10a}.
 
 Since Spoofax is used to develop new domain-specific languages, the ability for
 rapid prototyping using a read-eval-print loop would be very convenient.  The

research/02-repl.tex

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ \section{Read-Eval-Print Loops}
 expressions in a programming language are typed by the user, after which the
 results of that expression are printed back to the user. Such an environment is
 called a Read-Eval-Print Loop (REPL), although many different names are known,
-including but not limited to \textit{language shell},
-\textit{command-line interpreter} or \textit{interactive interpreter}. There
+including but not limited to \emph{language shell},
+\emph{command-line interpreter} or \emph{interactive interpreter}. There
 are subtle differences between these names and the name REPL. These are,
 however, mostly of semantic value. In this report the term REPL is chosen,
 because it conveys the notion of such an interactive environment well.
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ \subsection{Advantages of REPLs}
 The explorative and interactive features of a REPL also make it an excellent
 tool for programmers to learn a new programming language. REPLs are also
 combined with what is called literate programming to offer notebooks or language
-playgrounds, as discussed in~\cref{sec:literate-programming}.
+playgrounds, as discussed in \cref{sec:literate-programming}.
 
 \subsection{Functionality}
 \label{sssec:repl-functionality}
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ \subsection{Functionality}
 However, a core set of functionalities, shared between all REPL implementations,
 can be identified. To reach this core set of features, well-known REPLs have
 been investigated and their features have been compiled into a matrix as seen
-in~\cref{table:feature-matrix}. These features are shortly discussed below.
+in \cref{table:feature-matrix}. These features are shortly discussed below.
 
 \begin{table}[]
 \centering

research/03-literate-prog.tex

@@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ \section{Literate Programming}
 what the programmer wants a computer to do~\cite{knuth1984},
 by mixing documentation and code in a single source file.
 This idea of literate programming was realized in its original form as the
-`WEB' language developed during Knuth's research at Stanford University.
+``WEB'' language developed during Knuth's research at Stanford University.
 
-\subsubsection{The `WEB' language}
+\subsubsection{The ``WEB'' language}
 
-The `WEB' language was mainly a combination of two other languages, namely
+The ``WEB'' language was mainly a combination of two other languages, namely
 \TeX{} for document formatting and PASCAL as the programming language. By
 combining these languages, each with a different purpose, into one language, the
 source code serves two purposes: to produce a document describing the program
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ \subsubsection{IPython / Jupyter notebooks}
 A more recent example of literate programming comes in the form of IPython with
 Jupyter notebooks~\cite{ipython2007}. IPython was partially inspired by other
 scientific tools already offering notebook-like functionality, such as Matlab or
-Mathematica. Besides the literal programming style introduced by `WEB', IPython
+Mathematica. Besides the literal programming style introduced by ``WEB'', IPython
 notebooks allow for REPL-style interactive editing; documentation and code can
 be edited live and blocks of code can be reevaluated, printing their updated
 results. IPython notebooks also allow for more complex graphical elements such

research/04-problem-def.tex

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ \section{Problem Definition}
 provide this rapid prototyping ability for other languages like Lisp
 and Python. Therefore, the client has expressed their interest in
 REPLs that are generated from language definitions created with
-Spoofax. Such a REPL would aid both the developer of the language, and
+Spoofax. Such a REPL would aid both the developer of the language and
 its end-user.
 
 Since a lot of language services are already provided by Spoofax, the

research/05-problem-ana.tex

@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ \subsubsection{Partially replacing the AST of the current program}
 When given an identifier to bind a new term to, the term in the AST
 corresponding to the identifier has to be replaced with the new term.
 This implies that the REPL needs to able parse single terms that might
-not be valid programs, and then update the AST of the program accordingly.
+not be valid programs and then update the AST of the program accordingly.
 This requirement has certain effects when it comes to the build process
 used in the REPL.
 

research/06-require-ana.tex

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ \subsubsection{Must have}
 
 Requirements listed under ``must haves'' are of critical importance to the
 usability and success of the deliverable. Without these, the product is not in a
-workable state and is not likely to be accepted by the client. \textit{Must} can
+workable state and is not likely to be accepted by the client. \emph{Must} can
 also be considered an acronym for the Minimum Usable SubseT.
 
 \paragraph{Interactive shell} Per the definition of a REPL given in
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ \subsubsection{Should have}
 Requirements listed under ``should-haves'' are important, but not necessary for
 a working product.
 
-\paragraph{Ability to redefine identifiers} As explained in ~\cref{sec:repl},
+\paragraph{Ability to redefine identifiers} As explained in \cref{sec:repl},
 REPLs provide the ability to explore unknown problem domains. It is not a
 far-fetched idea that a developer would want to change function implementations
 or the types of certain variables. To support this, a REPL should allow users to
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ \subsubsection{Could have}
 between this feature and the previously mentioned environment inspection is that
 this feature works per variable.
 
-\paragraph{Literate programming} As explained in section
+\paragraph{Literate programming} As explained in
 \cref{sec:literate-programming}, literate programming offers the advantage that
 code and documentation go hand in hand. This allows developers of languages in
 Spoofax to document and illustrate their language simultaneously with the

research/07-realisation.tex

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \section{Frameworks and Tools}
 \label{sec:realisation-product}
 
-The previous section analysed the requirements for the product as set in
+The previous section analyzed the requirements for the product as set in
 \cref{sec:requirement-analysis}. The purpose of this section is to discuss the
 frameworks and tools used during the development of the product.
 

research/notes.org

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ the designer of the language ever having to care about its
 implementation.
 
 This section goes over the elements that make up the specification of
-a language, and for each element the relevant part of Spoofax is
+a language. For each element the relevant part of Spoofax is
 given[fn:comp-constr-course:This section follows the structure of the
 language specification portion of the compiler construction course at
 the TU Delft. The slides can be found here:
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ The declarative nature of SDF3 allows for thinking in terms of the
 structure (the /what/), instead of in terms of parser algorithms (the
 /how/) as is the case with many current parsing
 algorithms\nbsp\cite{Kats10b}. The syntax definition is used to make
-parsers that parse a textual representation of a program into its AST,
+parsers that parse a textual representation of a program into its AST
 and pretty-printers for mapping ASTs back to text. However, due to its
 declarative nature, SDF3 is not limited to generating parsers and
 pretty printers: it can also be used for error recovery
@@ -83,8 +83,8 @@ parser generated from an SDF3 specification.
 Static semantics refer to the meaning of what a well-formed program is
 for a particular language\nbsp\cite{Milner97}. This imposes more
 constraints than syntax definition, such as name binding, scoping
-rules, and type checking. These cannot be specified by a syntax
-definition alone, and are thus considered separately.
+rules and type checking. These cannot be specified by a syntax
+definition alone and are thus considered separately.
 *** Declarative static semantics specification in Spoofax
 In Spoofax, all the static semantics as well as the dynamic semantics
 used to be specified with the /Stratego/ transformation language
@@ -163,11 +163,11 @@ specification (see the previous section [[#sec:nabl]]).
 :CUSTOM_ID: sec:term-rewrite
 :END:
 Spoofax offers a high level declarative DSL called /Stratego/ for
-program transformation\nbsp\cite{Visser01}. Stratego operates on ASTs,
+program transformation\nbsp\cite{Visser01}. Stratego operates on ASTs
 and is the most general part of Spoofax: it can be used for specifying
 the static semantics (name binding, type checking), desugaring rules
 and the dynamic semantics of a language. As the static semantics can
-now be done using NaBL and TS, and the dynamic semantics with DynSem
+now be done using NaBL and TS and the dynamic semantics with DynSem
 (section [[#sec:dynamic-semantics]]), Stratego is now used to specify
 desugaring rules for a language, as well as optimizations such as
 constant folding and other applications of AST transformations.
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ Stratego is based on the notions of /term rewrite rules/ and so-called
 /strategies/.
 *** Term rewrite rules
 A rewrite rule is a transformation on a term, in which the left-hand
-side allows for pattern matching and variable binding, and the right
+side allows for pattern matching and variable binding and the right
 hand side instantiates new replacement terms. An example of a rewrite
 rule for paplj is given below.
 #+LATEX: \lstset{language=stratego,numbers=left}
@@ -284,13 +284,13 @@ website: http://www.metaborg.org/spoofax/editor-services/].
 
 Editor services are defined using a DSL, shown in the bottom window of
 figure [[fig:menu-actions]]. In the case of menus, their actions are
-specified using Stratego, and via Stratego the actions can even be
+specified using Stratego. Via Stratego these actions can even be
 specified in Java. As such, Spoofax allows for defining arbitrarily
 complex IDE actions.
 
 Many of these editor services such as syntax highlighting and code
 folding rules can be derived from the syntax
-definition\nbsp\cite{Kats10c}, and can be further customized if
+definition\nbsp\cite{Kats10c} and can be further customized if
 needed. Taken together with the language definition, the editor
 services provide a language with a complete and state-of-the-art IDE
 experience\nbsp\cite{Kats10a}.

research/spoofax-org-export.tex

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 implementation.
 
 This section goes over the elements that make up the specification of
-a language, and for each element the relevant part of Spoofax is
+a language. For each element the relevant part of Spoofax is
 given\footnote{This section follows the structure of the
 language specification portion of the compiler construction course at
 the TU Delft. The slides can be found here:
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ \subsubsection{SDF3: syntax definition in Spoofax}
 structure (the \emph{what}), instead of in terms of parser algorithms (the
 \emph{how}) as is the case with many current parsing
 algorithms~\cite{Kats10b}. The syntax definition is used to make
-parsers that parse a textual representation of a program into its AST,
+parsers that parse a textual representation of a program into its AST
 and pretty-printers for mapping ASTs back to text. However, due to its
 declarative nature, SDF3 is not limited to generating parsers and
 pretty printers: it can also be used for error recovery
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ \subsection{Static Semantics}
 Static semantics refer to the meaning of what a well-formed program is
 for a particular language~\cite{Milner97}. This imposes more
 constraints than syntax definition, such as name binding, scoping
-rules, and type checking. These cannot be specified by a syntax
-definition alone, and are thus considered separately.
+rules and type checking. These cannot be specified by a syntax
+definition alone and are thus considered separately.
 \subsubsection{Declarative static semantics specification in Spoofax}
 \label{sec:orgheadline2}
 In Spoofax, all the static semantics as well as the dynamic semantics
@@ -148,11 +148,11 @@ \subsubsection{TS: the Type Specification language}
 \subsection{Term Rewriting and Program Transformation}
 \label{sec:term-rewrite}
 Spoofax offers a high level declarative DSL called \emph{Stratego} for
-program transformation~\cite{Visser01}. Stratego operates on ASTs,
+program transformation~\cite{Visser01}. Stratego operates on ASTs
 and is the most general part of Spoofax: it can be used for specifying
 the static semantics (name binding, type checking), desugaring rules
 and the dynamic semantics of a language. As the static semantics can
-now be done using NaBL and TS, and the dynamic semantics with DynSem
+now be done using NaBL and TS and the dynamic semantics with DynSem
 (section \ref{sec:dynamic-semantics}), Stratego is now used to specify
 desugaring rules for a language, as well as optimizations such as
 constant folding and other applications of AST transformations.
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ \subsection{Term Rewriting and Program Transformation}
 \subsubsection{Term rewrite rules}
 \label{sec:orgheadline4}
 A rewrite rule is a transformation on a term, in which the left-hand
-side allows for pattern matching and variable binding, and the right
+side allows for pattern matching and variable binding and the right
 hand side instantiates new replacement terms. An example of a rewrite
 rule for paplj is given below.
 \lstset{language=stratego,numbers=left}
@@ -264,13 +264,13 @@ \subsection{Editor Services}
 
 Editor services are defined using a DSL, shown in the bottom window of
 figure \ref{fig:menu-actions}. In the case of menus, their actions are
-specified using Stratego, and via Stratego the actions can even be
+specified using Stratego. Via Stratego these actions can even be
 specified in Java. As such, Spoofax allows for defining arbitrarily
 complex IDE actions.
 
 Many of these editor services such as syntax highlighting and code
 folding rules can be derived from the syntax
-definition~\cite{Kats10c}, and can be further customized if
+definition~\cite{Kats10c} and can be further customized if
 needed. Taken together with the language definition, the editor
 services provide a language with a complete and state-of-the-art IDE
 experience~\cite{Kats10a}.