Update readme.

README.rst

@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Features
 
 * Format string syntax similar to the one used by `str.format
   <http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#str.format>`__ in Python.
+* Support for user-defined types.
 * High speed: performance of the current proof-of-concept implementation
   is close to that of iostreams (see `Speed tests`_).
 * Small code size both in terms of source code (format consists of a single
@@ -15,12 +16,13 @@ Features
   (see `Compile time and code bloat`_).
 * Easy deployment: small self-contained code base, no external dependencies,
   permissive license.
-* Support for user-defined types.
 
-Example
+Examples
--------
+--------
 
-fmt::Print("Hello, {0}!") << "world";
+This prints "Hello, world!" to stdout:
+
+    fmt::Print("Hello, {0}!") << "world";
 
 Benchmarks
 ----------
@@ -28,6 +30,34 @@ Benchmarks
 Compile time and code bloat
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
+Speed tests
+~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The following speed tests results were generated by building
+``tinyformat_test.cpp`` on Ubuntu GNU/Linux 12.10 with
+``g++-4.7.2 -O3 -DSPEED_TEST -DHAVE_FORMAT``, and taking the best of three
+runs.  In the test, the format string ``"%0.10f:%04d:%+g:%s:%p:%c:%%\n"`` or
+equivalent is filled 2000000 times with output sent to ``/dev/null``; for
+further details see the `source
+<https://github.com/vitaut/tinyformat/blob/master/tinyformat_test.cpp>`__.
+
+============== ========
+test name      run time
+============== ========
+libc printf     1.26s
+std::ostream    2.02s
+format          2.20s
+tinyformat      2.51s
+boost::format  10.40s
+============== ========
+
+As you can see boost::format is much slower than the alternative methods; this
+is confirmed by `other tests <http://accu.org/index.php/journals/1539>`__.
+Tinyformat is quite good coming close to iostreams.  Unfortunately tinyformat
+cannot be faster than the iostreams because it uses them internally.
+Performance of format is close to that of std::ostream but there is a room for
+improvement since format is not based on iostreams.
+
 The script ``bloat_test.sh`` from the `tinyformat
 <https://github.com/c42f/tinyformat>`__ repository tests compile time and
 code bloat for nontrivial projects.  It generates 100 translation units
@@ -67,34 +97,6 @@ executable size is smaller with tinyformat then with format and for
 non-optimized build its the other way around. Boost::format has by far
 the largest overheads.
 
-Speed tests
-~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-The following speed tests results were generated by building
-``tinyformat_test.cpp`` on Ubuntu GNU/Linux 12.10 with
-``g++-4.7.2 -O3 -DSPEED_TEST -DHAVE_FORMAT``, and taking the best of three
-runs.  In the test, the format string ``"%0.10f:%04d:%+g:%s:%p:%c:%%\n"`` or
-equivalent is filled 2000000 times with output sent to ``/dev/null``; for
-further details see the `source
-<https://github.com/vitaut/tinyformat/blob/master/tinyformat_test.cpp>`__.
-
-============== ========
-test name      run time
-============== ========
-libc printf     1.26s
-std::ostream    2.02s
-format          2.20s
-tinyformat      2.51s
-boost::format  10.40s
-============== ========
-
-As you can see boost::format is much slower than the alternative methods; this
-is confirmed by `other tests <http://accu.org/index.php/journals/1539>`__.
-Tinyformat is quite good coming close to iostreams.  Unfortunately tinyformat
-cannot be faster than the iostreams because it uses them internally.
-Performance of format is close to that of std::ostream but there is a room for
-improvement since format is not based on iostreams.
-
 Running the tests
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~