On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 02:12:08PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote: > 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! Updated with your Reported-by, thank you! Thanx, Paul
