Update text/0061-functions.md

Co-authored-by: Andrew Wells <[email protected]>

text/0061-functions.md

@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ Doing so may also make it easier to provide clear validation error messages.
 But introducing type annotations for macros introduces several questions.
 
 1. Do we allow `type` declarations allowed in policy sets, or just in schemas?
-2. Are type annotations on functions enforced dynamically à la "contracts," or are they just ignored at runtime?
+2. Are type annotations on macros enforced dynamically à la "contracts," or are they just ignored at runtime?
   1. If they are dynamically enforced, that implies access to the schema to unfold type definitions. It also may introduce redundant type checking.
 3. Are type annotations required or optional?
 4. Will we have types to support generics, i.e., polymorphism?