Match semver crate examples' styling

[convoliution]

At the risk of bikeshedding, I revised the styling I used for #305 to match the styling used in #308.

Probably not even necessary, though. Feelings will not be hurt if the request is closed :')
(should I have opened an issue before PR'ing?)

[budziq]

thanks @mykalu! two minor suggestions.

And you are welcome to update the other example to conform with this one.

[budziq]

thanks @mykalu! two minor suggestions.

And you are welcome to update the other example to conform with this one.

[budziq]

If I were to mark my preference here I would suggest putting the hardcoded string against we are testing on the right.

I probably liked your original version better but it's a matter of taste, so I'll let you chose.

[budziq]

i see no reason for separate version_str.

[convoliution]

Hmmm you're right; I separated it to match the other example, but there's no practical reason for it in this example.

[convoliution]

Suggestions implemented!

Hmm, I'm using
assert_eq!(release.to_string(), "0.3.0");
but the Complex Version example is using
let serialized_version = parsed_version.to_string();
assert_eq!(&serialized_version, version_str);

I feel that's a styling mismatch.
But to create intermediate variables in Simple Version would be excessive,
and removing the intermediate variable in Complex Version would remove the clarity that we're checking serialization.

Also concerned about the nomenclature difference between using release vs parsed_version as the variable names.

@FaultyRAM do you have any thoughts on this? :D

[budziq]

I would say that clarity+conciseness of given examples are more important tan total stylistic regime. Also I feel that parsed_version is more informative than release

[convoliution]

Suggestions implemented!

[budziq]

thanks!