Problem: There are 4 instances of the typo "writeable" in the documentation for the IO library affecting, at least, versions 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and the latest master of the documentation (https://docs.python.org/[3.7,3.8,3.9]/library/io.html and https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Doc/library/io.rst).  This can cause confusion to the reader.  The instances are under the "BufferedWriter" section (https://docs.python.org/3/library/io.html#io.BufferedWriter) and "BufferedRWPair" section (https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/io.html#io.BufferedRWPair).

Fix: Change all instances of "writeable" to "writable" in the IO library documentation.

There are more cases of using this spelling in the code base, but I personally don't see how any confusion can arise and why this "fix" is needed.

It is a minor issue and I understand that there are many, much more
important fixes and features the whole Python dev team is working on.

But reading the documentation for these classes indicates that these
classes may have a "writeable" member. If, as an example, the user then
needs to examine the implementation of these classes and searches for
"writeable" in the CPython, they'll find instances in comments, but not in
the code. This may cause them to miss the real spelling of the method
"writable()".

Also, another justification is that the documentation should be correct and
currently it is not. This fix should be a very simple find-and-replace, but
does touch multiple files (probably more than those I referenced) and I
understand how that is.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 11:44 SilentGhost <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> SilentGhost <ghost.adh@runbox.com> added the comment:
>
> There are more cases of using this spelling in the code base, but I
> personally don't see how any confusion can arise and why this "fix" is
> needed.
>
> ----------
> nosy: +SilentGhost
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38040>
> _______________________________________
>

Wiktionary and dictionary.com see 'writeable' as an alternate spelling of 'writable', while merriam-webster.com does not.  Neither of the former say anything about American versus British usage.  I wonder if the first two are rubber-stamping what used to be a misspelling.  Or maybe the unabridged merriam-webster behind a paywall has it as a rare variant (but if so, I would expect mention in the 'writable' entry.  If it is British, it should be changed.  If it is misleading, ditto.