Add more NRT examples

[BillWagner]

Fixes #1214

Add examples as noted in the referenced comments.

[Nigel-Ecma]

There is a left-over para, or one that was going to be replaced.

I think “The compiler” here should probably always be ”A compiler” – there are a few of the latter already.

[BillWagner]

@Nigel-Ecma @RexJaeschke

I think “The compiler” here should probably always be ”A compiler” – there are a few of the latter already.

I did replace instances of "the compiler" as it relates to this PR with "a compiler". A search in the standard uncovers 68 other instances of "the compiler". Some should not be changed. They are part of a longer phrase like "the compiler generated backing field" for properties and field like events.

Should I change others where the language is similar to those Nigel mentioned in this PR? Should I add it to this PR, or create a separate smaller PR?

[RexJaeschke]

@BillWagner Yes, please change them, as appropriate. If there are occurrences in other topics then I think a separate PR would be best, making it a general editorial fix.

[Nigel-Ecma]

@BillWagner & @RexJaeschke – I agree with Rex to change the ones you see.

It is easy to go down a rabbit hole here; I started as Bill did and saw each “the” needs to be examined – e.g. as in the backing field example “the” refers to the field and not the compiler. From there I started looking into “automatically” – as in “the compiler automatically…” – and these often should at least be something like “a compiler shall/must/may” – this is a spec not a description after all. Once we get to these we need to decide what is being required etc. Rabbit hole! This language I expect in many cases dates from the descriptive material from which the 1st edition was written, it will be a long road and incremental is the way to go.

[BillWagner]

Yes, please change them, as appropriate. If there are occurrences in other topics then I think a separate PR would be best, making it a general editorial fix.

Added in #1126