Minor problem in sample code for p0323r11 and p0323r12 about papers

[jonitis]

One more suspicious thing in section 3.6.
It says the expected<T, void> vocabularity type means. Is "vocabularity" here intentional? Or "vocabulary type" was meant instead?

[jonitis]

Section 3.7
In addition std::optional has already be delivered in C++17. "already be"->"already been"?

[jonitis]

Section 3.10
the use of operator* would be more appropriated.. "more appropriated"->"more appropriate"?

[jonitis]

Section 3.11
The rational described in. "rational"->"rationale"?

[jonitis]

Hmm. Section name "3.11. Explicit conversion to bool" talks about explicit conversion to bool, but given sample code
if (expected<char, errc> ch = readNextChar()) { to my eye looks implicit.

[jonitis]

Section 3.13.
Again potentially wrong use of "rational " instead of "rationale ". The document has 3 such uses. The first one is in the beginning of document.

[jonitis]

Section 3.14
Again talking about explicit conversion to bool, but sample shows implicit conversion:
if (p) use(*p);

[jonitis]

Section 3.16
but here the exception throw is given by the user. "exception throw"->"exception thrown"?

[jonitis]

Section 3.17
// won’t throw comment is awkwardly placed. Intent is to say that r.error() won't throw, not that getInt() won't do it.

    auto r = getInt(); // won’t throw
    if (!r && r.error() == errc::empty_stream) {

[jonitis]

Section 3.19
has the same semantics than optional. "than"->"as"?

[jonitis]

Section 3.20
C++ does not have concepts yet. It does now.

[jonitis]

Section 3.23
the semantics and rationale is the same than in [N3672]. "same than in"->"same as in"?

[jonitis]

Section 3.26
Each operations on expected<T, E> have different requirements and may be disable if T or E doesn’t respect these requirements..
"may be disable"->"may be disabled"?

[jfbastien]

The paper is already in the standard, issues should go to LWG: https://isocpp.org/std/submit-issue