fix formatting

Author: RexJaeschke

standard/classes.md

@@ -5094,7 +5094,7 @@ This allows the context to keep track of how many `void`-returning async functio
 
 ### §indexable-sequence-general General
 
-> Note to TG2 reviewers: Rationale for the choice of the name of the term *indexable sequence*: Various MS-hosted on-line pages use the term *sequence*. This word is already used quite a bit in the C# spec, in both a general sense as well as being defined in the context of query expressions. "§11.17 Query expressions|§11.17.1 General states: A query expression begins with a `from` clause and ends with either a `select` or `group` clause. The initial `from` clause may be followed by zero or more `from`, `let`, `where`, `join` or `orderby` clauses. Each `from` clause is a generator introducing a ***range variable*** that ranges over the elements of a ***sequence***. Each `let` clause introduces a range variable representing a value computed by means of previous range variables. …". That definition is *not* applicable to indexes and ranges! The MS-provided proposal uses *collection*; however, that implies enumerable support, which is *not* required by indexes and ranges. (BTW, although it is used a lot in the C# spec, the term *collection* is *not* defined!) As such, rather than overload an existing term or invent a completely different one, I came up with *indexable sequence*.
+> Note to TG2 reviewers: Rationale for the choice of the name of the term *indexable sequence*: Various MS-hosted on-line pages use the term *sequence*. This word is already used quite a bit in the C# spec, in both a general sense as well as being defined in the context of query expressions. "§11.17 Query expressions|§11.17.1 General states: A query expression begins with a `from` clause and ends with either a `select` or `group` clause. The initial `from` clause may be followed by zero or more `from`, `let`, `where`, `join` or `orderby` clauses. Each `from` clause is a generator introducing a range variable that ranges over the elements of a sequence. Each `let` clause introduces a range variable representing a value computed by means of previous range variables. …". That definition is *not* applicable to indexes and ranges! The MS-provided proposal uses *collection*; however, that implies enumerable support, which is *not* required by indexes and ranges. (BTW, although it is used a lot in the C# spec, the term *collection* is *not* defined!) As such, rather than overload an existing term or invent a completely different one, I came up with *indexable sequence*.
 
 An ***indexable sequence*** is an ordered set of zero or more elements having the same type. Any given element can be accessed via an index, and a contiguous subset of elements—referred to as a ***slice***—can be denoted via a range.