Fix weird line breaks (#1115)

Author: leamir

frontend/docs/scripting/language/reference/12-Assorted-tips.md

@@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ In other words, the char operators divides its left operand by the number of
 bytes that fit in a cell and rounds upwards. Again, in a typical implementation,
 this means dividing by four and rounding upwards.
 
-You can design routines that work on strings in both packed and unpacked for-
-mats. To find out whether a string is packed or unpacked, look at the first
+You can design routines that work on strings in both packed and unpacked formats. 
+To find out whether a string is packed or unpacked, look at the first
 cell of a string. If its value is either negative or higher than the maximum possible
 value of an unpacked character, the string is a packed string. Otherwise it
 is an unpacked string.
@@ -147,14 +147,13 @@ characters in strings and character constants. The PAWN language
 requires that all keywords and symbols (names of functions, variables, tags and other
 elements) be encoded in the ascii character set.
 
-For languages whose required character set is relatively small, a common solu-
-tion is to use an 8-bit extended ascii character set (the ascii character set is
-7-bit, holding 128 characters). The upper 128 codes of the extended set con-
-
-tain glyphs specific for the language. For Western European languages, a well
+For languages whose required character set is relatively small, a common solution 
+is to use an 8-bit extended ascii character set (the ascii character set is
+7-bit, holding 128 characters). The upper 128 codes of the extended set contain 
+glyphs specific for the language. For Western European languages, a well
 known character set is “Latin-1”, which is standardized as ISO 8859-1 —the
-same set also goes by the name “codepage 1252”, at least for Microsoft Win-
-dows.∗ Codepages have been defined for many languages; for example, ISO
+same set also goes by the name “codepage 1252”, at least for Microsoft Windows.∗ 
+Codepages have been defined for many languages; for example, ISO
 8859-2 (“Latin-2”) has glyphs used in Central and Eastern Europe, and ISO
 8859-7 contains the Greek alphabet in the upper half of the extended ascii set.
 
@@ -183,16 +182,16 @@ the 7-bit ascii set) can still be indicated by a single byte. The
 
 Codepages become problematic when interchanging documents or data with
 people in regions that use a different codepage, or when using different
-languages in the same document. Codepages that use “shift” characters compli-
-cate the matter further, because text processing must now take into account
+languages in the same document. Codepages that use “shift” characters complicate 
+the matter further, because text processing must now take into account
 that a character may take either one or two bytes. Scanning through a string
 from right to left may even become impossible, as a byte may either indicate a
 glyph from the base set (“unshifted”) or it may be a glyph from a shifted set
 -in the latter case the preceding byte indicates the shift set, but the meaning
 of the preceding character depends on the character before that.
 
-The ISO/IEC 10646 “Universal Character Set” (UCS) standard has the ambi-
-tious goal to eventually include all characters used in all the written
+The ISO/IEC 10646 “Universal Character Set” (UCS) standard has the ambitious 
+goal to eventually include all characters used in all the written
 languages in the world, using a 31-bit character set. This solves both of the problems
 related to codepages and “shifted” character sets. However, the ISO/IEC body
 could not produce a standard in time, and therefore a consortium of mainly
@@ -225,8 +224,8 @@ emerged in two different ways: either the internal representation of characters
 is multi-byte (typically 16-bit, or 2-byte), or the application stores strings
 internally in UTF-8 format, and these strings are converted to the proper glyphs
 only when displaying or printing them. Recent versions of Microsoft Windows
-use Unicode internally; The Plan-9 operating system pioneered the UTF-8 en-
-coding approach, which is now widely used in Unix/Linux. The  
+use Unicode internally; The Plan-9 operating system pioneered the UTF-8 encoding 
+approach, which is now widely used in Unix/Linux. The  
 advantage of UTF-8 encoding as an internal representation is that it is physically an 8-
 bit encoding, and therefore compatible with nearly all existing databases, file
 formats and libraries. This circumvents the need for double entry-points for
@@ -330,10 +329,10 @@ x = valencia                    /* ok */
 
 ```
 
-The first assignment causes a “tag mismatch” diagnostic as it assigns an “or-
-ange” tagged variable to a variable with an “apple” tag. The second assignment
-puts the untagged value of x into a tagged variable, which causes again a di-
-agnostic. When the untagged variable is on the left hand of the assignment
+The first assignment causes a “tag mismatch” diagnostic as it assigns an “orange” 
+tagged variable to a variable with an “apple” tag. The second assignment
+puts the untagged value of x into a tagged variable, which causes again a diagnostic. 
+When the untagged variable is on the left hand of the assignment
 operator, as in the third assignment, there is no warning or error message. As
 variable x is untagged, it can accept a value of any weak tag.
 
@@ -356,14 +355,14 @@ if (apple:valencia < elstar)
 ```
 
 The test expression of the if statement (between parentheses) compares the
-variable valencia to the variable elstar. To avoid a “tag mismatch” diagnos-
-tic, it puts a tag override apple: on valencia —after that, the expressions
+variable valencia to the variable elstar. To avoid a “tag mismatch” diagnostic, 
+it puts a tag override apple: on valencia —after that, the expressions
 on the left and the right hands of the > operator have the same tag
 name: “apple:”. The second line, the assignment of elstar to valencia, overrides
 the tag name of elstar or orange: before the assignment. In an assignment,
 you cannot override the tag name of the destination; i.e., the left hand of
-the = operator. It is an error to write “apple:valencia = elstar”. In the as-
-signment, valencia is an “lvalue” and you cannot override the tag name of an
+the = operator. It is an error to write “apple:valencia = elstar”. In the assignment, 
+valencia is an “lvalue” and you cannot override the tag name of an
 lvalue.
 
 As shown earlier, when the left hand of an assignment holds an
@@ -437,8 +436,8 @@ in the above snippet (which uses the original definition of printf), I
 needed to put an empty tag override, “\_:”, before the variables value and limit in
 the first printf call.
 
-There is an alternative to untagging expressions with strong tag names in gen-
-eral purpose functions: adjust the definition of the function to accept both
+There is an alternative to untagging expressions with strong tag names in general 
+purpose functions: adjust the definition of the function to accept both
 all weak tags and a selective set of strong tag names. The PAWN language supports
 multiple tag names for every function arguments. The original definition of printf (from the file console.inc) is:
 
@@ -463,8 +462,8 @@ native printf(const format[], {Float, _}: ...);
 
 ```
 
-Plural tags allow you to write a single function that accepts cells with a pre-
-cisely specified subset of tags (strong and/or weak). While a function argument
+Plural tags allow you to write a single function that accepts cells with a precisely 
+specified subset of tags (strong and/or weak). While a function argument
 may accept being passed actual arguments with diverse tags, a variable can
 only have a single tag —and a formal function argument is a local variable in
 the body of the function. In the presence of plural tags, the formal function
@@ -517,12 +516,12 @@ print("Hello \
 
 ### • A program that generates its own source code
 
-An odd, slightly academic, criterion to quantify the “expressiveness” of a pro-
-gramming language is size of the smallest program that, upon execution, re-
+An odd, slightly academic, criterion to quantify the “expressiveness” of a programming 
+language is size of the smallest program that, upon execution, re-
 generates its own source code. The rationale behind this criterion  
 is that the shorter the self-generating program, the more flexible and expressive the
-language must be. Programs of this kind have been created for many program-
-ming languages —sometimes surprisingly small, as for languages that have a
+language must be. Programs of this kind have been created for many programming 
+languages —sometimes surprisingly small, as for languages that have a
 built-in reflective capabilities.
 
 Self-generating programs are called “quines”, in honour of the