Work around the broken formatting of sys.ps1 prompts in running text.
Move sample sessions to the left margin of the file for consistency;
formatting can adjust the margin if needed.
This closes SF bug #133213.
diff --git a/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex b/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex
index bc8ad8b..8adbc9d 100644
--- a/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex
+++ b/Doc/lib/libdoctest.tex
@@ -226,11 +226,11 @@
traceback itself. For example:
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> [1, 2, 3].remove(42)
- Traceback (most recent call last):
- File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
- ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list
- >>>
+>>> [1, 2, 3].remove(42)
+Traceback (most recent call last):
+ File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
+ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list
+>>>
\end{verbatim}
Note that only the exception type and value are compared (specifically,
@@ -257,26 +257,27 @@
the business of guessing what you think a tab means).
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> # comments are ignored
- >>> x = 12
- >>> x
- 12
- >>> if x == 13:
- ... print "yes"
- ... else:
- ... print "no"
- ... print "NO"
- ... print "NO!!!"
- ...
- no
- NO
- NO!!!
- >>>
+>>> # comments are ignored
+>>> x = 12
+>>> x
+12
+>>> if x == 13:
+... print "yes"
+... else:
+... print "no"
+... print "NO"
+... print "NO!!!"
+...
+no
+NO
+NO!!!
+>>>
\end{verbatim}
-Any expected output must immediately follow the final \code{">>>"} or
-\code{"..."} line containing the code, and the expected output (if any)
-extends to the next \code{">>>"} or all-whitespace line.
+Any expected output must immediately follow the final
+\code{'>\code{>}>~'} or \code{'...~'} line containing the code, and
+the expected output (if any) extends to the next \code{'>\code{>}>~'}
+or all-whitespace line.
The fine print:
@@ -310,8 +311,9 @@
1.0
\end{verbatim}
-and as many leading whitespace characters are stripped from the expected
-output as appeared in the initial ">>>" line that triggered it.
+and as many leading whitespace characters are stripped from the
+expected output as appeared in the initial \code{'>\code{>}>~'} line
+that triggered it.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Warnings}
@@ -349,26 +351,26 @@
% Hey! What happened to Monty Python examples?
% Tim: ask Guido -- it's his example!
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> foo()
- {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
- >>>
+>>> foo()
+{"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
+>>>
\end{verbatim}
is vulnerable! One workaround is to do
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> foo() == {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
- 1
- >>>
+>>> foo() == {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
+1
+>>>
\end{verbatim}
instead. Another is to do
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> d = foo().items()
- >>> d.sort()
- >>> d
- [('Harry', 'broomstick'), ('Hermione', 'hippogryph')]
+>>> d = foo().items()
+>>> d.sort()
+>>> d
+[('Harry', 'broomstick'), ('Hermione', 'hippogryph')]
\end{verbatim}
There are others, but you get the idea.
@@ -376,9 +378,9 @@
Another bad idea is to print things that embed an object address, like
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> id(1.0) # certain to fail some of the time
- 7948648
- >>>
+>>> id(1.0) # certain to fail some of the time
+7948648
+>>>
\end{verbatim}
Floating-point numbers are also subject to small output variations across
@@ -386,20 +388,20 @@
formatting, and C libraries vary widely in quality here.
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> 1./7 # risky
- 0.14285714285714285
- >>> print 1./7 # safer
- 0.142857142857
- >>> print round(1./7, 6) # much safer
- 0.142857
+>>> 1./7 # risky
+0.14285714285714285
+>>> print 1./7 # safer
+0.142857142857
+>>> print round(1./7, 6) # much safer
+0.142857
\end{verbatim}
Numbers of the form \code{I/2.**J} are safe across all platforms, and I
often contrive doctest examples to produce numbers of that form:
\begin{verbatim}
- >>> 3./4 # utterly safe
- 0.75
+>>> 3./4 # utterly safe
+0.75
\end{verbatim}
Simple fractions are also easier for people to understand, and that makes