On 3/7/24 12:03, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 3/7/24 10:17, Kent Overstreet wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 07:18:57PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
...
+- i.e. iterating over them to print them in debugfs/procfs.
i.e., iterating
i.e. latin id est, that is: grammatically my version is fine
Some of my web search hits say that a comma is required after "i.e.".
At least one of them says that it is optional.
And one says that it is not required in British English.
But writing it with "that is":
hence code tagging) and then finding and operating on them at runtime
- that is iterating over them to print them in debugfs/procfs.
is not good IMO. But it's your document.
Technical writing often benefits from a small amount redundancy. Short
sentences and repetition of terms are helpful to most readers. And this
also stays out of the more advanced grammatical constructs, as a side
effect.
So, for example, something *approximately* like this, see what you
think:
Memory allocation profiling is based upon code tagging. Code tagging is
a library for declaring static structs (typically by associating a file
and line number with a descriptive string), and then finding and
operating on those structs at runtime. Memory allocation profiling's
runtime operation is simply: print the structs via debugfs/procfs.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
