Possible typo in documentation: %> should be %>>

[GlancingMind]

The documentation for the undocument-word mentions two possible prefixes for initiating a source code line:
>> and %>. Source

A few lines further in the document, a new prefix is mentioned: %>>. Source

Since %> was mentioned first, I would expect %>> to be an invalid prefix, but the implementation of undocument seems to only treat >> and %>> as valid prefixes. So I suspect that the first occurrence of %> is a type and just missing another >.