From 4beea9b23b1fb9cd2c173b1ff0a10e499ba34016 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Bogumi=C5=82=20Kami=C5=84ski?= <bkamins@sgh.waw.pl>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:41:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Update README.md

---
 README.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 395adf6..17924c7 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ julia> @time sum_n(1_000_000_000)
 500000000500000000
 ```
 
-The reason for this inconsistency is a bug in `@time` macro introduced in Julia 1.8 release.
+The reason for this inconsistency is a bug in the `@time` macro introduced in Julia 1.8 release.
 The `sum_n(1_000_000_000)` call (without `@time`) is executed fast.
 Here is a simplified benchmark (run under Julia 1.9-beta4):