Fix bad indentation on quantumcircuit.py

[arnaucasau]

Summary

This PR fixes a bad indentation of two code blocks that was causing the page to not render correctly those snippets.

Screenshots before this PR

First code block:

Second code block:

Screenshots applying the change

First code block:

Second code block:

[qiskit-bot]

Thank you for opening a new pull request.

Before your PR can be merged it will first need to pass continuous integration tests and be reviewed. Sometimes the review process can be slow, so please be patient.

While you're waiting, please feel free to review other open PRs. While only a subset of people are authorized to approve pull requests for merging, everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. Doing reviews helps reduce the burden on the core team and helps make the project's code better for everyone.

One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:

• @Qiskit/terra-core

[mtreinish]

Do we need the >>> here? It always seemed unnecessary to put that in there and it gets in the way of copy and paste.

[arnaucasau]

I think in this case is useful to differentiate the instructions from the final output (shows the value of circuit.parameters as you would show it on jupyter-notebook rather than printing it like in the other code-block).

The good thing here is that you can't select the >>> part, so it shouldn't get in the way of copy and paste :)

[mtreinish]

I'm fine with leaving this like this as this is just fixing a clear spacing issue. I still think we might want to revisit >>> usage in the future more broadly, but there isn't any reason to block this over that as it's a good fix.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7830597825

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 3 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 89.192%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
crates/qasm2/src/lex.rs	3	92.19%

Totals
Change from base Build 7830061937:	0.02%
Covered Lines:	58813
Relevant Lines:	65940

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jakelishman]

Eric: Matt did this first review on this and had a question, so it'd be a bit bad form for me or Elena to follow-up without giving Matt a chance to see the response.

[mtreinish]

LGTM, thanks for fixing this.

[mtreinish]

I'm fine with leaving this like this as this is just fixing a clear spacing issue. I still think we might want to revisit >>> usage in the future more broadly, but there isn't any reason to block this over that as it's a good fix.