add extra requirement for returns that I forgot

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 2e871e2..4191246 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ slowly try to make it more self-reliant. My target would be systems programming,
 possibly even embedded systems, though I don't yet know if this 'paradigm' is
 powerful enough or if I might need some escape hatches like `unsafe` in Rust.
 
-### Really, not returns?
+### Really, no returns?
 
 Semantically, yes, although it is useful to convert certain closure calls to
 equivalent return statements where possible. This reduces stack usage if nothing
@@ -100,10 +100,13 @@ call is equivalent to a return when
 2. all code paths end in the closure call
 3. the closure call does not reference any local variables by reference
     (except references that were taken as parameters)
+4. all nodes in paths to closure calls can be converted to equivalent returns
 
-Our fibonacci function matches all these cases, and could theoretically be
-turned into a more typical return-oriented function for great benefit. Checking
-these requirements should be relatively straightforward.
+Our fibonacci function matches all these cases (assuming `fwd_if` would be a
+statement instead of a function call as it is now, this was just quicker to do),
+and could theoretically be turned into a more typical return-oriented function
+for great benefit. Checking these requirements should be relatively
+straightforward.
 
 We could potentially loosen up these requirements, for example we could allow
 multiple closure parameters and just return a variant, although the caller now