Change bold code snippets to inline code blocks

01-03.md

@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ that, we have to understand what's wrong with the current design.
 #### Know the Territory {#Heading9}
 
 Just why is Listing 1.1 so slow? In a word: overhead. The C library
-implements the **read()** function by calling DOS to read the desired
+implements the `read()` function by calling DOS to read the desired
 number of bytes. (I figured this out by watching the code execute with a
 debugger, but you can buy library source code from both Microsoft and
 Borland.) That means that Listing 1.1 (and Listing 1.3 as well) executes
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ if the desired byte has already been read, read it from the disk if not,
 store the byte in the specified location, and return. All of that takes
 a *long* time—far, far longer than the rest of the main loop in Listing
 1.1. In short, Listing 1.1 spends virtually all of its time executing
-**read(),** and most of that time is spent somewhere down in DOS.
+`read()`, and most of that time is spent somewhere down in DOS.
 
 You can verify this for yourself by watching the code with a debugger or
 using a code profiler, but take my word for it: There's a great deal of
@@ -174,13 +174,13 @@ bytes internally, doling them out to the application as needed by
 reading them from memory rather than calling DOS. Let's try using stream
 I/O and see what happens.
 
-Listing 1.4 is similar to Listing 1.1, but uses **fopen()** and
-**getc()** (rather than **open()** and **read()**) to access the file
+Listing 1.4 is similar to Listing 1.1, but uses `fopen()` and
+`getc()` (rather than `open()` and `read()`) to access the file
 being checksummed. The results confirm our theories splendidly, and
 validate our new design. As shown in Table 1.1, Listing 1.4 runs more
 than an order of magnitude faster than even the assembly version of
 Listing 1.1, *even though Listing 1.1 and Listing 1.4 look almost the
-same*. To the casual observer, **read()** and **getc()** would seem
+same*. To the casual observer, `read()` and `getc()` would seem
 slightly different but pretty much interchangeable, and yet in this
 application the performance difference between the two is about the same
 as that between a 4.77 MHz PC and a 16 MHz 386.