When reading the docs, I noticed that the capitalization and formatting of the Python constants ``True``, ``False``, and ``None`` were inconsistent.

The attached patch contains a fix for all such occurrences under ``/Doc/library/``.

(I **think** I correctly made the patch.  I hardly ever make patches, so if I screwed up, let me know and I’ll see if I can get it right. ☺)


Parent commit: 
9137e2d1c00c6906af206d1c9d217b15613bb1ed

This has already been proposed in issue 15580.  By the way, you don't always want to replace "true" with ``True``.  The former has a different connotation/meaning which is boolean true rather than the object True.

Ah; I did look for dupes, but didn’t find it.  (So many issues…!)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

> By the way, you don't always want to replace "true" with ``True``. 

The former has a different connotation/meaning which is boolean true =
rather than the object True.

Yes, I know.  I went through all the occurrences one by one, and I tried to take that into account.

*sigh* I guess it’s a moot point, now…

----

Got more to say on this subject, but I’ll do it in other issue.  Take care!

> Yes, I know.  I went through all the occurrences one by one, and I tried to take that into account.

See issue 4945 for a discussion like this.  Might be relevant to what you have in mind.

> This has already been proposed in issue 15580.

By the way, I should have said "something along the same lines."  Issue 15580 is about eliminating uses of :const:`None`, etc, whereas this targets a different case.  But it is similar in scope so the same discussion/reasons apply.

> By the way, I should have said "something along the same lines."  Issue 15580 is about eliminating uses of :const:`None`, etc, whereas this targets a different case.  But it is similar in scope so the same discussion/reasons apply.

Yep!  I read, and understood the difference.  

I still had 2¢ to add.  I’m kind of a nut for good documentation. ;)