Various PEPs: fix typos

pep-0011.txt

@@ -218,13 +218,13 @@ No-longer-supported platforms
 
 * | Name:             AtheOS
   | Unsupported in:   Python 2.6 (with "AtheOS" changed to "Syllable")
-  | Build broken in:  Python 2.7 (edit configure to reenable)
+  | Build broken in:  Python 2.7 (edit configure to re-enable)
   | Code removed in:  Python 3.0
   | Details:          http://www.syllable.org/discussion.php?id=2320
 
 * | Name:             BeOS
   | Unsupported in:   Python 2.6 (warning in configure)
-  | Build broken in:  Python 2.7 (edit configure to reenable)
+  | Build broken in:  Python 2.7 (edit configure to re-enable)
   | Code removed in:  Python 3.0
 
 * | Name:             Systems using Mach C Threads

pep-0498.txt

@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ To be defensive, the following code should be used::
 
 ``str.format()`` was added to address some of these problems with
 %-formatting. In particular, it uses normal function call syntax (and
-therefor supports multiple parameters) and it is extensible through
+therefore supports multiple parameters) and it is extensible through
 the ``__format__()`` method on the object being converted to a
 string. See PEP 3101 for a detailed rationale. This PEP reuses much of
 the ``str.format()`` syntax and machinery, in order to provide

pep-0558.rst

@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ This query API allows extension module code to determine the potential impact
 of mutating the mapping returned by ``PyLocals_Get()`` without needing access
 to the details of the running frame object. Python code gets equivalent
 information visually through lexical scoping (as covered in the new ``locals()``
-builtin documention).
+builtin documentation).
 
 To allow extension module code to behave consistently regardless of the active
 Python scope, the stable C ABI would gain the following new function::

pep-0639.rst

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ with `license expression strings <Add License-Expression field_>`_ using
 `SPDX identifiers <#spdxid_>`_ in a new ``License-Expression`` field.
 This will make license declarations simpler and less ambiguous for
 package authors to create, end users to read and understand, and
-tools to programatically process.
+tools to programmatically process.
 
 The PEP also:
 
@@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ Don't mandate validating new fields on PyPI
 
 Previously, while this PEP did include normative guidelines for packaging
 publishing tools (such as Twine), it did not provide specific guidance
-for PyPI (or other package indicies) as to whether and how they
+for PyPI (or other package indices) as to whether and how they
 should validate the ``License-Expression`` or ``License-File`` fields,
 nor how they should handle using them in combination with the deprecated
 ``License`` field or license classifiers. This simplifies the specification

pep-0665.rst

@@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ A string representing a URL where to get the file.
 The installer MAY support any schemes it wants for URLs. A URL with no
 scheme MUST be assumed to be a local file path (both relative paths to
 the lock file and absolute paths). Installers MUST support, at
-minumum, HTTPS URLs as well as local file paths.
+minimum, HTTPS URLs as well as local file paths.
 
 An installer MAY choose to not use the URL to retrieve a file
 if a file matching the specified hash can be found using alternative
@@ -767,10 +767,10 @@ files.
 Reference Implementation
 ========================
 
-I proof-of-concept locker can be found at
-https://github.com/frostming/pep665_poc . Not installer has been
+A proof-of-concept locker can be found at
+https://github.com/frostming/pep665_poc . No installer has been
 implemented yet, but the design of this PEP suggests the locker is the
-more difficult asepect to implment.
+more difficult aspect to implement.
 
 
 ==============

pep-0674.rst

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Using a macro as a l-value
 
 In the Python C API, some functions are implemented as macro because
 writing a macro is simpler than writing a regular function. If a macro
-exposes directly a struture member, it is technically possible to use
+exposes directly a structure member, it is technically possible to use
 this macro to not only get the structure member but also set it.
 
 Example with the Python 3.10 ``Py_TYPE()`` macro::
@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ Backwards Compatibility
 The proposed C API changes are backward incompatible on purpose.
 
 At December 1, 2021, a code search on the PyPI top 5000 projects (4760
-projects in practice, others don't have a source achive) found that
+projects in practice, others don't have a source archive) found that
 `only 14 projects are affected
 <https://bugs.python.org/issue45476#msg407456>`_ (0.3%):
 

pep-0676.rst

@@ -122,13 +122,13 @@ The following redirect rules must be created from the `python.org`_ domain:
     }
 
 Redirects must be implemented to preserve `URL fragments`_ for backward
-compatability purposes.
+compatibility purposes.
 
 Backwards Compatibility
 =======================
 
 Due to server-side redirects to new canonical URLs, there are no backwards
-compatability concerns. Links in previously published materials referring to
+compatibility concerns. Links in previously published materials referring to
 any old URL scheme will be guaranteed to work.
 
 Security Implications

pep-0677.rst

@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ There are a few usability challenges with ``Callable`` we can see here:
 
 - It is verbose, particularly for more complex function signatures.
 - It relies on two levels of nested brackets, unlike any other generic
-  type. This can be expecially hard to read when some of the type
+  type. This can be especially hard to read when some of the type
   parameters are themselves generic types.
 - The bracket structure is not visually similar to how function signatures
   are written.

pep-3104.txt

@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ adopted.  At the time, Guido's response was:
 
     This is dangerously close to introducing CSNS [classic static
     nested scopes]. *If* you were to do so, your proposed semantics
-    of scoped seem allright. I still think there is not enough need
+    of scoped seem alright. I still think there is not enough need
     for CSNS to warrant this kind of construct ...
 
 After PEP 227, the "outer name rebinding discussion" has reappeared