perfbook: a possible typo report

perfbook: a possible typo report

[Zhouyi Zhou]

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@gmail.com>

Thanks
Zhouyi

Re: perfbook: a possible typo report

[Paul E. McKenney]

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@gmail.com>

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

Re: perfbook: a possible typo report

[Zhouyi Zhou]

Thank Paul for revising the paragraph for me!

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:48 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> 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@gmail.com>
>
> 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