Fix some typos & add a note on a bug

Author: zverok

3.3.md

@@ -8,9 +8,9 @@ description: Ruby 3.3 full and annotated changelog
 # Ruby 3.3
 
 * **Released at:** Dec 25, 2023 (<a class="github" href="https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/ruby_3_3/NEWS.md">NEWS.md</a> file)
-* **Status (as of Dec 25, 2023):** 3.3.0 is recently released
+* **Status (as of Dec 27, 2023):** 3.3.0 is recently released
 * **This document first published:** Dec 25, 2023
-* **Last change to this document:** Dec 25, 2023
+* **Last change to this document:** Dec 27, 2023
 
 <!--
 * **Reason:**
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ description: Ruby 3.3 full and annotated changelog
 
 In Ruby 3.3, it will just warn to prepare for a change.
 
-* **Reason:** Numeric designation for anonymous bloc arguments (`_1`, `_2`, and so on) were considered ugly by many people, so after years of discussion, the `it` keyword is to be introduced on the next Ruby version; for now, it just warns _in places where it would be considered an anonymous block argument_.
+* **Reason:** Numeric designation for anonymous block arguments (`_1`, `_2`, and so on) were considered ugly by many people, so after years of discussion, the `it` keyword is to be introduced on the next Ruby version; for now, it just warns _in places where it would be considered an anonymous block argument_.
 * **Discussion:** <a class="tracker feature" href="https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18980">Feature #18980</a>
 * **Code:** In the code below, where Ruby 3.3 currently produces a warning, Ruby 3.4 would treat `it` as an anonymous block argument; where Ruby 3.3 doesn't produce a warning, Ruby 3.4 would treat `it` as a local variable name or a method call (and would look for such names available in the scope).
   ```ruby
@@ -105,7 +105,16 @@ Now anonymous parameters forwarding inside a block raise error.
   #   "test"
   #   "test"
   ```
-* **Notes:** There is a [question](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19370#note-9) whether disallowing block parameters forwarding is the best way to solve the confusion; alternative solution would be just to support forwarding inside the block properly. I hope the discussion to continue during 3.4 development.
+* **Notes:**
+  * There is a [question](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19370#note-9) whether disallowing block parameters forwarding is the best way to solve the confusion; alternative solution would be just to support forwarding inside the block properly. I hope the discussion to continue during 3.4 development.
+  * In the 3.3.0 release, the prohibition was accidentally too greedy, affecting lambdas with unambiguous forwarding, see <a class="tracker bug" href="https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20090">Bug #20090</a>:
+  ```ruby
+  def b(*)
+    -> { c(*) } # Unambiguous, yet raises:
+                #  anonymous rest parameter is also used within block (SyntaxError)
+  end
+  ```
+  This is already fixed to be released in the next minor version.
 
 ## Core classes and modules[](#core-classes-and-modules)
 

_src/3.3.md

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ description: Ruby 3.3 full and annotated changelog
 
 In Ruby 3.3, it will just warn to prepare for a change.
 
-* **Reason:** Numeric designation for anonymous bloc arguments (`_1`, `_2`, and so on) were considered ugly by many people, so after years of discussion, the `it` keyword is to be introduced on the next Ruby version; for now, it just warns _in places where it would be considered an anonymous block argument_.
+* **Reason:** Numeric designation for anonymous block arguments (`_1`, `_2`, and so on) were considered ugly by many people, so after years of discussion, the `it` keyword is to be introduced on the next Ruby version; for now, it just warns _in places where it would be considered an anonymous block argument_.
 * **Discussion:** [Feature #18980](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18980)
 * **Code:** In the code below, where Ruby 3.3 currently produces a warning, Ruby 3.4 would treat `it` as an anonymous block argument; where Ruby 3.3 doesn't produce a warning, Ruby 3.4 would treat `it` as a local variable name or a method call (and would look for such names available in the scope).
   ```ruby
@@ -105,7 +105,16 @@ Now anonymous parameters forwarding inside a block raise error.
   #   "test"
   #   "test"
   ```
-* **Notes:** There is a [question](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19370#note-9) whether disallowing block parameters forwarding is the best way to solve the confusion; alternative solution would be just to support forwarding inside the block properly. I hope the discussion to continue during 3.4 development.
+* **Notes:**
+  * There is a [question](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19370#note-9) whether disallowing block parameters forwarding is the best way to solve the confusion; alternative solution would be just to support forwarding inside the block properly. I hope the discussion to continue during 3.4 development.
+  * In the 3.3.0 release, the prohibition was accidentally too greedy, affecting lambdas with unambiguous forwarding, see [Bug #20090](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20090):
+  ```ruby
+  def b(*)
+    -> { c(*) } # Unambiguous, yet raises:
+                #  anonymous rest parameter is also used within block (SyntaxError)
+  end
+  ```
+  This is already fixed to be released in the next minor version.
 
 ## Core classes and modules