How should we format wording where a codeblock is used for an expression at the end of a sentence, e.g.:
Remarks: The expression inside explicit is equivalent to:
!(is_convertible_v<decltype(get<I>(FWD(u))), Types> && ...)

This isn't an effects clause, but let's keep the formatting similar (see "Writing Effects: in a function description" in https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/wiki/Specification-Style-Guidelines). That said, this would most closely fit the "Effects: Equivalent to expression." case, but appending a "." at the end of the codeblock might look a bit strange. So we could instead follow the multi-statement codeblock case which is introduced via "Effects: Equivalent to:", because we're not completing the sentence here. We could adopt whatever formatting is used most consistently elsewhere in the spec - what's that? I think we typically don't use a ":" when we can complete the sentence with more text after the codeblock, and use a ":" to introduce the codeblock otherwise.

We should come up with guidelines for how to format normative wording that contains a codeblock and add examples to https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/wiki/Specification-Style-Guidelines, something like:

Some wording that introduces a codeblock with no text afterwards:

expression_part1
expression_part2

Some wording that contains a codeblock

expression_part1
expression_part2

but has more text afterwards, so can be part of a complete a sentence.

We should also expand the guidelines for how to write \effects clauses to include these cases.

Originally posted by @burblebee in #5024 (comment)