Merge pull request InterviewMap#109 from naihe138/master

fix the '[Object Type]' in "JS Typeof"

JS/JS-br.md

@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ typeof null // 'object'
 
 Why does this happen? Because the initial version of JS was based on 32-bit systems, which stored type information of variables in the lower bits for performance considerations. Those start with `000` are objects, and all the bits of `null`  are zero, so it is erroneously treated as an object. Although the current code of checking internal types has changed, this bug has been passed down.
 
-We can use `Object.prototype.toString.call(xx)` if we want to get the correct data type of a variable, and then we can get a string like `[Object Type]`:
+We can use `Object.prototype.toString.call(xx)` if we want to get the correct data type of a variable, and then we can get a string like `[object Type]`:
 
 ```js
 let a

JS/JS-ch.md

@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ typeof null // 'object'
 
 PS：为什么会出现这种情况呢？因为在 JS 的最初版本中，使用的是 32 位系统，为了性能考虑使用低位存储了变量的类型信息，`000` 开头代表是对象，然而 `null` 表示为全零，所以将它错误的判断为 `object` 。虽然现在的内部类型判断代码已经改变了，但是对于这个 Bug 却是一直流传下来。
 
-如果我们想获得一个变量的正确类型，可以通过 `Object.prototype.toString.call(xx)`。这样我们就可以获得类似 `[Object Type]` 的字符串。
+如果我们想获得一个变量的正确类型，可以通过 `Object.prototype.toString.call(xx)`。这样我们就可以获得类似 `[object Type]` 的字符串。
 
 ```js
 let a

JS/JS-en.md

@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ typeof null // 'object'
 
 Why does this happen? Because the initial version of JS was based on 32-bit systems, which stored type information of variables in the lower bits for performance considerations. Those start with `000` are objects, and all the bits of `null`  are zero, so it is erroneously treated as an object. Although the current code of checking internal types has changed, this bug has been passed down.
 
-We can use `Object.prototype.toString.call(xx)` if we want to get the correct data type of a variable, and then we can get a string like `[Object Type]`:
+We can use `Object.prototype.toString.call(xx)` if we want to get the correct data type of a variable, and then we can get a string like `[object Type]`:
 
 ```js
 let a