Add minor fixes

Author: uzluisf

doc/Language/hashmap.pod6

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ By default, any object declared with the C<%> sigil will get the Associative
 role, and will by default behave like a hash, but this role will only provide
 the two methods above, as well as the default Hash behavior.
 
-    say (%).^name ;# OUTPUT: «Hash␤»
+    say (%).^name ; # OUTPUT: «Hash␤»
 
 Inversely, you cannot use the C<%> sigil if the C<Associative> role is not mixed
 in, but since this role does not have any associated properties, you will have
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ say %logger<2018-04-22>:exists;  # OUTPUT: «False»
 =end code
 
 In this case, we are defining a logger with Associative semantics that would be
-able to use dates (or a part of them) as keys. Since we are parametrizing
+able to use dates (or a part of them) as keys. Since we are parameterizing
 C<Associative> to those particular classes, C<of> will return the value type we
 have used, C<Cool> in this case (we can log lists or strings only). Mixing the C<Associative> role gives it the right to use the C<%> sigil; binding is needed in the definition since C<%>-sigilled variables get by default the C<Hash> type.
 
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ my %h =  e => f => 'g';
 
 This, however, will effectively define a nested hash:
 
-     m: my %h =  e => { f => 'g'};
+     my %h =  e => { f => 'g' };
      say %h<e>.^name;  # OUTPUT: «Hash␤»
      say %h<e><f>;     # OUTPUT: «g␤»
 
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ instead:
 Note: Rakudo implementation currently erroneously applies L<the same
 rules|/routine/{ }#(Operators)_term_{_}> for C<:{ }> as it does for C<{ }> and
 can construct a L<Block> in certain circumstances. To avoid that, you can
-instantiate a parameterized Hash directly. Parameterization of C<%>-sigiled
+instantiate a parameterized Hash directly. Parameterization of C<%>-sigilled
 variables is also supported:
 
     my Num %foo1      = "0" => 0e0; # Str keys and Num values