Docs: Fixed a couple of [my] typos

I read through each my patches again and came across a typo,
a slight incorrectness, and a repeated word. Sorry.

Signed-off-by: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/pod/perlboot.pod b/pod/perlboot.pod
index 6cc59245f2..f4327a70bb 100644
--- a/pod/perlboot.pod
+++ b/pod/perlboot.pod
@@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ reference (and thus an instance).  It then constructs an argument
 list, as per usual.
 
 Now for the fun part: Perl takes the class in which the instance was
-blessed, in this case C<Horse>, and uses that calss to locate the
+blessed, in this case C<Horse>, and uses that class to locate the
 subroutine. In this case, C<Horse::sound> is found directly (without
 using inheritance). In the end, it is as though our initial line were
 written as follows:
@@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ Now with the new C<named> method, we can build a horse as follows:
 
 Notice we're back to a class method, so the two arguments to
 C<Horse::named> are C<Horse> and C<Mr. Ed>.  The C<bless> operator
-not only blesses C<$name>, it also returns that reference.
+not only blesses C<\$name>, it also returns that reference.
 
 This C<Horse::named> method is called a "constructor".
 
@@ -749,8 +749,8 @@ C<Animal> might still mess up, and we'd have to override all of those
 too. Therefore, it's never a good idea to define the data layout in a
 way that's different from the data layout of the base classes. In fact,
 it's a good idea to use blessed hash references in all cases. Also, this
-is also why it's important to have constructors do the low-level work.
-So, let's redefine C<Animal>:
+is why it's important to have constructors do the low-level work. So,
+let's redefine C<Animal>:
 
   ## in Animal
   sub name {