@@ -201,17 +201,10 @@ def test(tree, *, args, syntax, expander, **kw): # noqa: F811
201201 to mutate something defined on the outside.
202202
203203 If there is an `expect[expr]` at the top level of the block, the value of
204- `expr` is what will be asserted. At most one `expect[]` per block; using
205- both `expect[]` and `return` in the same block is a `SyntaxError`.
204+ `expr` is what will be asserted. There may be at most one `expect[]` per block.
206205
207- If neither `expect[]` nor `return` is present, the test asserts that the
208- block completes normally, just like `test[returns_normally(...)]` does
209- for an expression.
210-
211- `return expr` continues to work in this position (treated like
212- `expect[expr]`) but emits a `DeprecationWarning`. **Added in v2.2.0**;
213- `return` will be un-hijacked in a future major release so that it
214- regains its standard Python meaning.
206+ If `expect[]` is not present, the test asserts that the block completes
207+ normally, just like `test[returns_normally(...)]` does for an expression.
215208
216209 The asymmetry in syntax reflects the asymmetry between expressions and
217210 statements in Python. Likewise, the fact that `with test` requires
@@ -223,6 +216,18 @@ def test(tree, *, args, syntax, expander, **kw): # noqa: F811
223216 the value of any expressions inside the block. The marks don't have to
224217 be inside `expect[]`; they can appear anywhere.
225218
219+ **Changed in v2.2.0**:
220+
221+ Earlier versions of `unpythonic` used `return expr` instead of `expect[expr]`.
222+
223+ Beginning with v2.2.0, the preferred syntax is `expect[expr]`.
224+ `return expr` continues to work in this position (treated exactly like
225+ `expect[expr]`) but emits a `DeprecationWarning`. `return` will be
226+ un-hijacked in a future major release so that it regains its standard
227+ Python meaning.
228+
229+ Using both `expect[]` and `return` in the same block is a `SyntaxError`.
230+
226231 **Failure and error signaling**:
227232
228233 Upon a test failure, `test[]` will *signal* a `TestFailure` using the
0 commit comments