As a native speaker of USS mid-western English, it strikes me as fine
(maybe a bit informal, but natural) the way it's written. The first option
suggested strikes me as correct, but for me a bit unnatural, and the second
option is fine, but a bit more formal. I don't know that much would be
gained by the change.
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 10:22 AM Julien Palard via docs
Hi,
On Saturday, May 7th, 2022 at 15:14, khudadat baluch < khudadatbaluch@gmail.com> wrote:
You can see it if you really want to using print(): the above needs to be: You can see it if you really want to use print(): You can see it if you really want by using print():
For some context it's:
Doc/tutorial/controlflow.rst-value is called ``None`` (it's a built-in name). Writing the value ``None`` is Doc/tutorial/controlflow.rst-normally suppressed by the interpreter if it would be the only value written. Doc/tutorial/controlflow.rst:You can see it if you really want to using :func:`print`::
Maybe it misses comas, like:
You can see it, if you really want to, using :func:`print`::
(but I'm not a native english writer so I'm not sure it's even better...).
-- Julien Palard https://mdk.fr
_______________________________________________ docs mailing list -- docs@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to docs-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/docs.python.org/ Member address: naomi.ceder@gmail.com
-- Naomi Ceder @NaomiCeder • https://www.naomiceder.tech https://www.manning.com/books/the-quick-python-book-third-edition