On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:11:14PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote: > Hi Paul and Akira > > I found a possible typo in section 17.2.1, > "This section therefore critiques transactional memory's ability to so > interact," > > I tried to improve my English everyday, but I still can't tell whether > "so interact" is good or not good. > > Thanks for your time > Reported-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> Here is that paragraph: Whether we believe that input and output are "real programming" or not, the fact is that for most computer systems, interaction with the outside world is a first-class requirement. This section therefore critiques transactional memory's ability to so interact, whether via I/O operations, time delays, or persistent storage. The "so interact" refers back to the "interaction with the outside world". But I agree that this can be unclear. The last sentence is thus shorthand for: This section therefore critiques transactional memory's ability to interact in this way with the outside world, whether via I/O operations, time delays, or persistent storage. But this feels a bit repetitive. Maybe something like this? Whether or not we believe that input and output are "real programming", the fact is that software absolutely must deal with the outside world. This section therefore critiques transactional memory's outside-world capabilities, focusing on I/O operations, time delays, and persistent storage. Thoughts? Thanx, Paul
