message: Review and update tutorial step3 (root).
  Part of
diff: @@ -12,20 +12,20 @@ result/data structure/value.
  Chevrotain supports two **very different** solutions to this problem:
  - * Separation of grammar and user actions (Semantics) using **CST Visitor**.
  + * Separation of grammar and user actions (Semantics) using a **CST Visitor**.
  - [Example](https://github.com/SAP/chevrotain/blob/master/examples/grammars/calculator/calculator_pure_grammar.js)
  - * **Embedding** user actions (Semantics) inside the grammar rules
  - - [Example](https://github.com/SAP/chevrotain/blob/master/examples/grammars/calculator/calculator_embedded_actions.js)
  + * **Embedding** user actions (Semantics) inside the grammar rules.
  + - [Example](https://github.com/SAP/chevrotain/blob/master/examples/grammars/calculator/calculator_embedded_actions.js)
  Before we continue one of the two approaches must be chosen.
  The main different between the two approaches is in regards to the question:
  **Where are the user actions (a.k.a semantics) written?**
  -When using a **CST Visitor** the semantics are completely separated from the grammar
  +When using a CST Visitor the semantics are **completely separated** from the grammar
  They could actually be implemented in a **different** file. This has great benefits
  -for the ease of **maintenance** of the grammar and its **re-usability**.
  +for the parser's ease of **maintenance** and its **re-usability**.
  Thus using a CST Visitor is the **recommended approach**.
  That is not to say there are no use cases in which **embedded actions** are better.
  @@ -48,8 +48,3 @@ but that is not the case:
  #### What is Next?
  * Next step in the tutorial: [Step 3a - Separated Actions](https://github.com/SAP/chevrotain/blob/master/docs/tutorial/step3b_adding_actions_separated.md).
  * Next step in the tutorial: [Step 3b - Embedded Actions](https://github.com/SAP/chevrotain/blob/master/docs/tutorial/step3b_adding_actions_embedded.md).
  -
  -
  -
  -
  -
  