Slightly refined rant.

RANT.md

@@ -11,17 +11,17 @@ I guess my biggest gripe with Go's
 tries *very* hard to *never* **ever** panic.
 I don't understand this, and in fact I think it's rather dangerous.
 
-Take a plain old array for example.
+Take an array (or slice) for example.
 When you index outside of its domain, you get a panic even in Go.
 As you should!
 This kind of runtime check helps you catch your indexing errors and
-it also enforces the abstraction provided by the array.
+enforces the abstraction provided by the array (or slice).
 
 But then Go already "messes things up" with the builtin map type.
 Instead of getting a panic when you try to access a key that's not
 in the map, you get a zero value.
 And if you *really* want to know whether a key is there or not you
-have to go through some extra stunts.
+have to jump through some extra hoops.
 
 Apparently they just kept going from there with the libraries.
 In the case of [container/list](https://golang.org/pkg/container/list/)
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ the wrong list.
 In any case, presumably the Go folks know better what they want their
 libraries to look like than I do, so for this queue module I simply
 followed their conventions.
-I would much prefer to panic in your face when you try to remove or
+I would much prefer to "panic in your face" when you try to remove or
 even just access something from an empty queue.
 But since their stuff doesn't panic in similar circumstances, this
 queue implementation doesn't either.