From 308477cea72e8f4edcf1a8e0d58ed006f9686033 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Brett Cannon Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:20:14 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix some syntax issues preventing code literal rendering --- pep-0531.txt | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/pep-0531.txt b/pep-0531.txt index 03bb88bf0..4f84399ef 100644 --- a/pep-0531.txt +++ b/pep-0531.txt @@ -143,14 +143,14 @@ or falling back to an alternative input, has shrunk to two uses of the ``?`` symbol and two uses of the ``?else`` keyword. In the first two examples, the 31 character boilerplate clause -`` if exprN is not None else None`` (minimally 27 characters for a single letter +``if exprN is not None else None`` (minimally 27 characters for a single letter variable name) has been replaced by a single ``?`` character, substantially improving the signal-to-pattern-noise ratio of the lines (especially if it encourages the use of more meaningful variable and field names rather than making them shorter purely for the sake of expression brevity). In the last example, two instances of the 21 character boilerplate, -`` if exprN is not None`` (minimally 17 characters) are replaced with single +``if exprN is not None`` (minimally 17 characters) are replaced with single characters, again substantially improving the signal-to-pattern-noise ratio. Furthermore, each of our 5 "subexpressions of potential interest" is included @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ clear conceptual basis for the existence checking attribute access and subscripting operators: * ``obj?.attr`` is roughly equivalent to ``obj ?then obj.attr`` -* ``obj?[expr]``is roughly equivalent to ``obj ?then obj[expr]`` +* ``obj?[expr]`` is roughly equivalent to ``obj ?then obj[expr]`` The main semantic difference between the shorthand forms and their expanded equivalents is that the common subexpression to the left of the existence