>From fa89c4d8097dd4db2a7a4f0ba0b59a859d990b06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 07:59:22 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] appendix/questions: Use nbsp in 'value n'
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
---
appendix/questions/ordering.tex | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/appendix/questions/ordering.tex b/appendix/questions/ordering.tex
index 43df44a9..a9b29e4d 100644
--- a/appendix/questions/ordering.tex
+++ b/appendix/questions/ordering.tex
@@ -108,11 +108,11 @@ than the semantics given by the options above.
\cref{lst:count:Just Count Atomically!}
to the statistical counter of
\cref{sec:count:Statistical Counters}.
- Suppose that one thread is adding the value 3 and another is
- adding the value 5, while two other threads are concurrently
+ Suppose that one thread is adding the value~3 and another is
+ adding the value~5, while two other threads are concurrently
reading the counter's value.
With atomic counters, it is not possible for one of the readers
- to obtain the value 3 while the other obtains the value 5.
+ to obtain the value~3 while the other obtains the value~5.
With statistical counters, this outcome really can happen.
In fact, in some computing environments, this outcome can happen
even on relatively strongly ordered hardware such as x86.
--
2.17.1
