>From 415ec82df62f29b0901b124c6991f05117432835 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 00:18:34 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] toolsoftrade: Use nbsp in front of single letter variable
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
---
toolsoftrade/toolsoftrade.tex | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/toolsoftrade/toolsoftrade.tex b/toolsoftrade/toolsoftrade.tex
index 01529a0c..79d6c2cd 100644
--- a/toolsoftrade/toolsoftrade.tex
+++ b/toolsoftrade/toolsoftrade.tex
@@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ values of \co{x} stored by \co{lock_writer()}.
\QuickQuiz{}
Wait a minute here!!!
Listing~\ref{lst:toolsoftrade:Demonstration of Same Exclusive Lock}
- didn't initialize shared variable \co{x},
+ didn't initialize shared variable~\co{x},
so why does it need to be initialized in
Listing~\ref{lst:toolsoftrade:Demonstration of Different Exclusive Locks}?
\QuickQuizAnswer{
@@ -689,11 +689,10 @@ values of \co{x} stored by \co{lock_writer()}.
Listing~\ref{lst:toolsoftrade:Demonstration of Exclusive Locks}.
Because the code in
Listing~\ref{lst:toolsoftrade:Demonstration of Same Exclusive Lock}
- ran first, it could rely on the compile-time initialization of
- \co{x}.
+ ran first, it could rely on the compile-time initialization of~\co{x}.
The code in
Listing~\ref{lst:toolsoftrade:Demonstration of Different Exclusive Locks}
- ran next, so it had to re-initialize \co{x}.
+ ran next, so it had to re-initialize~\co{x}.
} \QuickQuizEnd
Although there is quite a bit more to POSIX exclusive locking, these
--
2.17.1
