contification paper

[Stephen Weeks]

> I struggled with the definition of \prefix when I was writing it; I had
> one version like you have, but arguably, the exp is not needed.  I don't
> know if it makes that much difference, but one thing that motivated me to
> drop it is that if we were to do a really formal proof of correctness, the
> definition of prefix doesn't make it clear that the expression is
> _really_ the body of the function, it just turns out that way from the
> places where we call \prefix.  Again, no big deal, but the function and
> expression are not independent, and that becomes very obvious when you
> pull the function body out of P in the definition of \prefix.

You're right.  I changed it back.

>   make "theorem", "lemma", and "proof" be in bold
> - Started looking into, but it will mean hacking through acm.cls;
>   actually, it's not bad, since we're not submitting the .tex;
>   I modified acm.cls, look for %fluet for the changes

This looks much better to me.

>   try to make figure 2 (cps semantics) appear on same page as text that
>      describes it.
> - I moved the \figBegins to before the first reference to it, but looking
> at the pages, I don't think we can have the semantics on the same page as
> the reference.

It's fine on page 4.  The note was due to an earlier version of the paper where
it got pushed to page 5.

I'm working on other todo items.  I have a lab meeting from 2-3.  I'll make a
snapshot available just before then.