Fix typos

Author: cdce8p

peps/pep-0824.rst

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ See the `Specification`_ section for more details.
 Motivation
 ==========
 
-First officially proposed ten years ago in (the now deferred) :pep:`505`
+First officially proposed ten years ago in (the now deferred) :pep:`505`,
 the idea to add coalescing operators has been along for some time now,
 discussed at length in numerous threads, most recently in
 [#discuss_revisit_505]_. This PEP aims to capture the current state of
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ option is a conditional statement:
             s = "fallback"
         print(f"The value is {s.lower()}")
 
-While the intend is quite clear, the conditional statement is verbose
+While the intent is quite clear, the conditional statement is verbose
 and often requires repeating the variable expression. An common
 alternative is the conditional expression:
 
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ values other then ``None``, too. Common ones include ``0``, ``""``,
 The "``None`` coalescing" operator can bridge this gab by adding an
 alternative to ``or`` which explicitly checks only for ``None`` values.
 Adding ``??`` can keep the expression concise while clearly
-communicating the intend:
+communicating the intent:
 
 ::
 
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ overwrite the "old" ``None`` value.
             val = "fallback"
         print(f"The value is {val.lower()}")
 
-A new ``?=`` operator is introduced to make these conditional
+A new ``??=`` operator is introduced to make these conditional
 assignments easier.
 
 ::
@@ -196,8 +196,8 @@ Precedence
 
 The precedence of ``??`` will be between ``or`` and conditional
 expressions. Parentheses can be added as necessary to modify the
-precedence in individual expressions. A few examples how implicit
-parentheses would be placed:
+precedence in individual expressions. A few examples of how
+implicit parentheses would be placed:
 
 ::
 
@@ -425,20 +425,20 @@ Proliferation of ``None`` in code bases
 ---------------------------------------
 
 One of the reasons why :pep:`505` stalled was that some expressed their
-concern how coalescing and ``None``-aware operators will effect the code
+concern how coalescing and ``None``-aware operators will affect the code
 written by developers. If it is easier to work with ``None`` values,
 this will encourage developers to use them more. They believe that
 e.g. returning an optional ``None`` value from a function is usually an
 anti-pattern. In an ideal world the use of ``None`` would be limited as
 much as possible, for example with early data validation.
 
-It is certainly true that new language features effect how the language
+It is certainly true that new language features affect how the language
 as a whole develops. Therefore any changes should be considered carefully.
 However, just because ``None`` represents an anti-pattern for some, has
 not prevented the community as a whole from using it extensively. Rather
 the lack of coalescing operators has stopped developers from writing
 concise expressions and instead often leads to more complex code or such
-which can contain subtly errors, see the `Motivation`_ section for more
+which can contain subtle errors, see the `Motivation`_ section for more
 details.
 
 ``None`` is not special enough