Docs docs

doc/collector-whippet.md

@@ -114,14 +114,15 @@ After all these years, *whether* to mark stacks conservatively or not is
 still an open research question.  Conservative stack scanning can retain
 too much data if an integer is confused for an object reference and
 removes a layer of correctness-by-construction from a system.  Sometimes
-it is required, for example if your embedder cannot enumerate roots
+conservative stack-scanning is required, for example if your embedder
-precisely.  But there are reasons to consider it even if you can do
+cannot enumerate roots precisely.  But there are reasons to consider it
-precise roots:  it removes the need for the compiler to produce a stack
+even if you can do precise roots: conservative scanning removes the need
-map to store the precise root enumeration at every safepoint; it removes
+for the compiler to produce a stack map to store the precise root
-the need to look up a stack map when tracing; and it allows C or C++
+enumeration at every safepoint; it removes the need to look up a stack
-support code to avoid having to place roots in traceable locations
+map when tracing; and it allows C or C++ support code to avoid having to
-published to the garbage collector.  And the [performance question is
+place roots in traceable locations published to the garbage collector.
-still open](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2660193.2660198).
+And the [performance question is still
+open](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2660193.2660198).
 
 Anyway.  Whippet can scan roots conservatively.  Those roots are pinned
 for the collection; even if the collection will compact via evacuation,