From 360a20291db4d0aea23841390c58f03f59cbeb84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yichen Yan Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:32:07 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] PEP 13: Fix broken link. --- pep-0013.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pep-0013.rst b/pep-0013.rst index 9c8442ea579..f036a9be64f 100644 --- a/pep-0013.rst +++ b/pep-0013.rst @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ History of council elections * January 2019: :pep:`8100` * December 2019: :pep:`8101` * December 2020: :pep:`8102` -* December 2021: :pep:`8104` +* December 2021: :pep:`8103` History of amendments From ef49d92065ea50bf963aa508517c459254ea9da4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yichen Yan Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 14:13:25 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] PEP 245: Fix broken link. --- pep-0245.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pep-0245.txt b/pep-0245.txt index 367b3f6392b..38f5b7f861d 100644 --- a/pep-0245.txt +++ b/pep-0245.txt @@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ extension to Python's syntax does not change any existing syntax in any backward incompatible way. The new ``from __future__`` Python syntax (:pep:`236`), and the new warning -framework (:pep:`236`) is ideal for resolving this backward +framework (:pep:`230`) is ideal for resolving this backward incompatibility. To use interface syntax now, a developer could use the statement::