At "Two forms -- two examples" corrected as per my comment suggestions.

Updated wikipage ET: Instructions.
	(Signed-off-by:RTH10260).

git-svn-id: https://svn.eiffel.com/eiffel-org/trunk@2172 abb3cda0-5349-4a8f-a601-0c33ac3a8c38

documentation/19.05/eiffel/Tutorials/eiffel-tutorial-et/et-instructions.wiki

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+[[Property:modification_date|Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:54:55 GMT]]
+[[Property:publication_date|Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:54:55 GMT]]
 [[Property:title|ET: Instructions]]
 [[Property:weight|-6]]
 [[Property:uuid|628bf3db-728f-0b3c-bdbb-fe52deaae5b7]]
@@ -104,11 +106,7 @@ Here's one example:
 and the other: 
 
 <code>
-            across
-                        my_list as ic
-            loop
-                        print (ic.item)
-            end 
+            across my_list as ic loop print (ic.item) end
 </code>
 ''Loop example 2.''
 
@@ -117,14 +115,8 @@ At first observation, it may not appear that both of these examples are using th
 
 Incidentally, there is no requirement that ''Loop example 1'' occupy multiple lines, and ''Loop example 2'' occupy only one line. ''Loop example 1'' could have been written like this:
 <code>
-            from
-                        my_list.start
-            until
-                        my_list.off
-            loop
-                        print (my_list.item)
-                        my_list.forth
-            end
+            from my_list.start until my_list.off
+            loop print (my_list.item) my_list.forth end
 </code>
 just as ''Loop example 2'' could have been written to take multiple lines. It comes down to a matter of balance among traditional style, conciseness, and readability.