Use :: for all examples, fix name.

It turns out docutils thinks my first initial is the first element of
a numbered list if it is followed by a period.

'make' now completes successfully.

pep-0548.rst

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ PEP: 548
 Title: More Flexible Loop Control
 Version: $Revision$
 Last-Modified: $Date$
-Author: R. David Murray
+Author: R David Murray
 Status: Draft
 Type: Standards Track
 Content-Type: text/x-rst
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Motivation
         It is often necessary for some code to be executed before each
         evaluation of the while loop condition.  This code is often
         duplicated outside the loop, as setup code that executes once
-        before entering the loop:
+        before entering the loop::
 
             <setup code>
             while <condition>:
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Motivation
                 <setup code>
 
     That PEP was rejected because no syntax was found that was superior
-    to the following form:
+    to the following form::
 
         while True:
             <setup code>
@@ -50,12 +50,12 @@ Motivation
 Syntax
 
     The syntax of the break and continue statements are extended
-    as follows:
+    as follows::
 
         break_stmt : "break" ["if" expression]
         continue_stmt : "continue" ["if" expression]
 
-    In addition, the syntax of the while statement is modified as follows:
+    In addition, the syntax of the while statement is modified as follows::
 
         while_stmt : while1_stmt|while2_stmt
         while1_stmt : "while" expression ":" suite
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Semantics
 
 Justification
 
-    The previous "best possible" form:
+    The previous "best possible" form::
 
         while True:
             <setup code>
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Justification
                 break
             <loop body>
 
-    could be formatted as:
+    could be formatted as::
 
         while True:
             <setup code>
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Justification
             <loop body>
 
     This is superficially almost identical to the form proposed by this
-    PEP:
+    PEP::
 
         while:
             <setup code>
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Justification
     when reading colorized code.
 
     For example, this is a common code pattern, taken in this case
-    from the tarfile module:
+    from the tarfile module::
 
         while True:
             buf = self._read(self.bufsize)
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ Justification
     triggers it; or, we read the condition and only afterward discover
     that this condition changes the flow of the loop.
 
-    With the new syntax this becomes:
+    With the new syntax this becomes::
 
         while:
             buf = self._read(self.bufsize)
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Justification
     body, and then we read the condition that causes the flow of control
     to change.
 
-    Further, consider a more complex example from sre_parse:
+    Further, consider a more complex example from sre_parse::
 
         while True:
             c = self.next
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ Justification
 
     This is the natural way to write this code given current Python
     loop control syntax.  However, given ``break if``, it would be more
-    natural to write this as follows:
+    natural to write this as follows::
 
         while:
             c = self.next
@@ -175,21 +175,21 @@ Justification
     The proposed syntax also provides a natural, Pythonic spelling of
     the classic  ``repeat ... until <expression>`` construct found in
     other languages, and for which no good syntax has previously been
-    found for Python:
+    found for Python::
 
         while:
             ...
             break if <expression>
 
     The tarfile module, for example, has a couple of "read until" loops like
-    the following:
+    the following::
 
         while True:
             s = self.__read(1)
             if not s or s == NUL:
                 break
 
-    With the new syntax this would read more clearly:
+    With the new syntax this would read more clearly::
 
         while:
             s = self.__read(1)
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ Justification
     but buttressed by the value of consistency.
 
     It is much more common for a ``continue`` statement to be at the
-    end of a multiline if suite, such as this example from zipfile :
+    end of a multiline if suite, such as this example from zipfile ::
 
         while True:
             try:
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ Justification
     The only opportunity for improvement the new syntax would offer for
     this loop would be the omission of the ``True`` token.
 
-    On the other hand, consider this example from uuid.py:
+    On the other hand, consider this example from uuid.py::
 
         for i in range(adapters.length):
             ncb.Reset()
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ Justification
                 continue
             return int.from_bytes(bytes, 'big')
 
-    This becomes:
+    This becomes::
 
         for i in range(adapters.length):
             ncb.Reset()