Thank Paul for revising the paragraph for me! On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:48 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I read it twice, and the revised paragraph looks fantastic to me! Thanks again Zhouyi > > Thoughts? > > Thanx, Paul
