Finals and Literals: Spec contradiction

This came up in python/typeshed#16301. I assume this is mostly a clerical/historical error, but let me know if we should follow the whole spec change process.

The typing spec says about Final:

Example:

ID: Final = 1

The typechecker should apply its usual type inference mechanisms to determine the type of ID (here, likely, int).

And then a bit later:

Type checkers should treat uses of a final name that was initialized with a literal as if it was replaced by the literal.

Both sentences are copied directly from PEP 591, which overlapped with the Literals PEP 586.

I assume that we should change the first sentence to "here, likely, Literal[1]" and change the second sentence to be a bit more concrete along these lines:

Type checkers should infer uses of a final name that was initialized with a literal X as Literal[X] if X is an allowed literal type (cf. to the literals section). Otherwise, they should infer the type of the X.

(And maybe extend the example after a bit.)

In fact, this is what the conformance tests already check:

https://github.com/python/typing/blob/cf943ccbea5596ef969eec6e2260097ff697b7ba/conformance/tests/qualifiers_final_annotation.py#L11-L13

(Although the tests could be extended a bit.)

Beginne damit, die Syntax von Final und die Formulierung zur Verwendung von Literalen in der typing specification mit PEP 591 und PEP 586 zu vergleichen. Überprüfe conformance/tests/qualifiers_final_annotation.py, insbesondere die Zeilen 11-13, und erweitere die relevanten Fälle bei Bedarf. Als erledigt gilt die Aufgabe, wenn die Spezifikation intern konsistent ist und die conformance tests das präzisierte Verhalten widerspiegeln.