[RFC] Use header levels consistent with (new) template.

docs/rfc/002-bounded-recursion.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ The Aleo Team.
 
 FINAL
 
-# Summary
+## Summary
 
 This proposal provides support for recursion in Leo,
 via a user-configurable limit to the allowed depth of the recursion.
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ User-configurable limits may be also appropriate for
 other compiler transformations that are known to terminate
 but could result in a very large number of R1CS constraints.
 
-# Motivation
+## Motivation
 
 Leo currently allows functions to call other functions,
 but recursion is disallowed:
@@ -34,9 +34,9 @@ a function cannot call itself, directly or indirectly.
 However, recursion is a natural programming idiom in some cases,
 compared to iteration (i.e. loops).
 
-# Background
+## Background
 
-## Function Inlining
+### Function Inlining
 
 Since R1CS are flat collections of constraints,
 compiling Leo to R1CS involves _flattening_ the Leo code:
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ function main(a: u32) -> u32 {
 }
 ```
 
-## Constants and Variables
+### Constants and Variables
 
 A Leo program has two kinds of inputs: constants and variables;
 both come from input files (which represent blockchain records).
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ it is the case that, due to the aforementioned partial evaluation,
 the `const` arguments of function calls have known values
 when the flattening transformations are carried out.
 
-# Design
+## Design
 
 After exemplifying how inlining of recursive functions may terminate or not,
 we discuss our approach to avoid non-termination.
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ Then we discuss future optimizations,
 and how the approach to avoid non-termination of recursion
 may be used for other features of the Leo language.
 
-## Inlining Recursive Functions
+### Inlining Recursive Functions
 
 In the presence of recursion,
 attempting to exhaustively inline function calls does not terminate in general.
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ function main() {
 ...
 ```
 
-## Configurable Limit
+### Configurable Limit
 
 Our proposed approach to avoid non-termination
 when inlining recursive functions is to
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ as discussed later.
 In Aleo Studio, this compiler option is presumably specified
 via GUI preferences and build configurations.
 
-## Circularity Detection
+### Circularity Detection
 
 Besides the depth of the inlining call stack,
 the compiler could also keep track of
@@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ and the compiler can show to the user the trace of circular calls.
 
 This approach would readily reject the `forever` example given earlier.
 
-## Termination Analysis
+### Termination Analysis
 
 In general, a recursive function
 (a generic kind of function, not necessarily a Leo function)
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ If the recognition fails,
 the compiler falls back to inlining until
 either inlining terminates or the limit is reached.
 
-## Application to Loops
+### Application to Loops
 
 Loops are conceptually not different from recursion.
 Loops and recursion are two ways to repeat computations,
@@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ which in particular would readily recognize
 the currently allowed loop forms to terminate.
 All of this should be the topic of a separate RFC.
 
-## Application to Potentially Slow Transformations
+### Application to Potentially Slow Transformations
 
 Some flattening transformations in the Leo compiler are known to terminate,
 but they may take an excessively long time to do so.
@@ -496,18 +496,18 @@ not only for flattening transformations that may not otherwise terminate,
 but also for ones that may take a long time to do so.
 This is a broader topic that should be discussed in a separate RFC.
 
-# Drawbacks
+## Drawbacks
 
 This proposal does not appear to bring any real drawbacks,
 other than making the compiler inevitably more complex.
 But the benefits to support recursion justifies the extra complexity.
 
-# Effect on Ecosystem
+## Effect on Ecosystem
 
 This proposal does not appear to have any direct effects on the ecosystem.
 It simply enables certain Leo programs to be written in a more natural style.
 
-# Alternatives
+## Alternatives
 
 An alternative approach, hinted at in the above discussion about loops,
 is to take a similar approach to the current one for loops.