fix a few typos in PEP 252, 253, 367, 3135

pep-0252.txt

@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ Specification of the class-based introspection API
 
        Typically, the value of an attribute with a given name is the
        same object as the value corresponding to that name as a key in
-       the __dict__.  In othe words, obj.__dict__['spam'] is obj.spam.
+       the __dict__.  In other words, obj.__dict__['spam'] is obj.spam.
        (But see the precedence rules below; a static attribute with
        the same name *may* override the dictionary item.)
 
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ Static methods and class methods
     'c.foo' and an unbound method object for 'C.foo'.
 
     (XXX Barry suggests to use "sharedmethod" instead of
-    "staticmethod", because the word statis is being overloaded in so
+    "staticmethod", because the word static is being overloaded in so
     many ways already.  But I'm not sure if shared conveys the right
     meaning.)
 

pep-0253.txt

@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ Making a type a factory for its instances
 
     For some objects, tp_new() may return an existing object.  For
     example, the factory function for integers caches the integers -1
-    throug 99.  This is permissible only when the type argument to
+    through 99.  This is permissible only when the type argument to
     tp_new() is the type that defined the tp_new() function (in the
     example, if type == &PyInt_Type), and when the tp_init() slot for
     this type does nothing.  If the type argument differs, the

pep-0367.txt

@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ The reference implementation assumes that it is being run on Python 2.5+.
         except ValueError:
             sv_pos = None
 
-        # Check if the callvar 'super' keyword is already present
+        # Check if the cellvar 'super' keyword is already present
         try:
             sc_pos = list(co.co_cellvars).index('super')
         except ValueError:
@@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ super(self, \*args) or __super__(self, \*args)
 
 This solution only solves the problem of the type indication, does not handle
 differently named super methods, and is explicit about the name of the
-instance. It is less flexable without being able to enacted on other method
+instance. It is less flexible without being able to enacted on other method
 names, in cases where that is needed. One use case this fails is where a base-
 class has a factory classmethod and a subclass has two factory classmethods,
 both of which needing to properly make super calls to the one in the base-

pep-3135.txt

@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ super(self, \*args) or __super__(self, \*args)
 
 This solution only solves the problem of the type indication, does not handle
 differently named super methods, and is explicit about the name of the
-instance. It is less flexable without being able to enacted on other method
+instance. It is less flexible without being able to enacted on other method
 names, in cases where that is needed. One use case this fails is where a base-
 class has a factory classmethod and a subclass has two factory classmethods,
 both of which needing to properly make super calls to the one in the base-