Fix Sphinx warnings.

[oota-llvm.git] / docs / CodingStandards.rst

diff --git a/docs/CodingStandards.rst b/docs/CodingStandards.rst
index bc58f57cb74252e7d986dfc4c395e4930aab0496..cb57b890297763136da80782aaa5e5fe6ae25c4c 100644 (file)
--- a/docs/CodingStandards.rst
+++ b/docs/CodingStandards.rst
@@ -601,9 +601,9 @@ code to be structured like this:
 
 .. code-block:: c++
 
-  /// ListContainsFoo - Return true if the specified list has an element that is
+  /// containsFoo - Return true if the specified list has an element that is
   /// a foo.
-  static bool ListContainsFoo(const std::vector<Bar*> &List) {
+  static bool containsFoo(const std::vector<Bar*> &List) {
     for (unsigned i = 0, e = List.size(); i != e; ++i)
       if (List[i]->isFoo())
         return true;
@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ code to be structured like this:
   }
   ...
 
-  if (ListContainsFoo(BarList)) {
+  if (containsFoo(BarList)) {
     ...
   }
 
@@ -826,14 +826,14 @@ unimplemented copy constructor and copy assignment operator and make them
 private. This would give a compiler error for accessing a private method or a
 linker error because it wasn't implemented.
 
-With C++11, we can mark methods that won't be implemented with ``= deleted``.
+With C++11, we can mark methods that won't be implemented with ``= delete``.
 This will trigger a much better error message and tell the compiler that the
 method will never be implemented. This enables other checks like
 ``-Wunused-private-field`` to run correctly on classes that contain these
 methods.
 
 To maintain compatibility with C++03, ``LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION`` should be used
-which will expand to ``= deleted`` if the compiler supports it. These methods
+which will expand to ``= delete`` if the compiler supports it. These methods
 should still be declared private. Example of the uncopyable pattern:
 
 .. code-block:: c++
@@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@ good:
     };
   } // end anonymous namespace
 
-  static void Helper() { 
+  static void runHelper() { 
     ... 
   }
 
@@ -1140,7 +1140,7 @@ This is bad:
     bool operator<(const char *RHS) const;
   };
 
-  void Helper() { 
+  void runHelper() { 
     ... 
   }
 
@@ -1150,7 +1150,7 @@ This is bad:
 
   } // end anonymous namespace
 
-This is bad specifically because if you're looking at "``Helper``" in the middle
+This is bad specifically because if you're looking at "``runHelper``" in the middle
 of a large C++ file, that you have no immediate way to tell if it is local to
 the file.  When it is marked static explicitly, this is immediately obvious.
 Also, there is no reason to enclose the definition of "``operator<``" in the