docs: CodingStandards should follow the coding standards.

Some variables in code examples were not LikeThis.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@168275 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

docs/CodingStandards.rst

@@ -714,8 +714,8 @@ sort of thing is:
 .. code-block:: c++
 
   bool FoundFoo = false;
-  for (unsigned i = 0, e = BarList.size(); i != e; ++i)
-    if (BarList[i]->isFoo()) {
+  for (unsigned I = 0, E = BarList.size(); I != E; ++I)
+    if (BarList[I]->isFoo()) {
       FoundFoo = true;
       break;
     }
@@ -733,8 +733,8 @@ code to be structured like this:
 
   /// \returns true if the specified list has an element that is a foo.
   static bool containsFoo(const std::vector<Bar*> &List) {
-    for (unsigned i = 0, e = List.size(); i != e; ++i)
-      if (List[i]->isFoo())
+    for (unsigned I = 0, E = List.size(); I != E; ++I)
+      if (List[I]->isFoo())
         return true;
     return false;
   }
@@ -821,8 +821,8 @@ Here are some examples of good and bad names:
 
   Vehicle MakeVehicle(VehicleType Type) {
     VehicleMaker M;                         // Might be OK if having a short life-span.
-    Tire tmp1 = M.makeTire();               // Bad -- 'tmp1' provides no information.
-    Light headlight = M.makeLight("head");  // Good -- descriptive.
+    Tire Tmp1 = M.makeTire();               // Bad -- 'Tmp1' provides no information.
+    Light Headlight = M.makeLight("head");  // Good -- descriptive.
     ...
   }
 
@@ -842,9 +842,9 @@ enforced, and hopefully what to do about it.  Here is one complete example:
 
 .. code-block:: c++
 
-  inline Value *getOperand(unsigned i) { 
-    assert(i < Operands.size() && "getOperand() out of range!");
-    return Operands[i]; 
+  inline Value *getOperand(unsigned I) {
+    assert(I < Operands.size() && "getOperand() out of range!");
+    return Operands[I];
   }
 
 Here are more examples:
@@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@ form has two problems. First it may be less efficient than evaluating it at the
 start of the loop.  In this case, the cost is probably minor --- a few extra
 loads every time through the loop.  However, if the base expression is more
 complex, then the cost can rise quickly.  I've seen loops where the end
-expression was actually something like: "``SomeMap[x]->end()``" and map lookups
+expression was actually something like: "``SomeMap[X]->end()``" and map lookups
 really aren't cheap.  By writing it in the second form consistently, you
 eliminate the issue entirely and don't even have to think about it.
 
@@ -1112,39 +1112,39 @@ macros.  For example, this is good:
 
 .. code-block:: c++
 
-  if (x) ...
-  for (i = 0; i != 100; ++i) ...
-  while (llvm_rocks) ...
+  if (X) ...
+  for (I = 0; I != 100; ++I) ...
+  while (LLVMRocks) ...
 
   somefunc(42);
   assert(3 != 4 && "laws of math are failing me");
 
-  a = foo(42, 92) + bar(x);
+  A = foo(42, 92) + bar(X);
 
 and this is bad:
 
 .. code-block:: c++
 
-  if(x) ...
-  for(i = 0; i != 100; ++i) ...
-  while(llvm_rocks) ...
+  if(X) ...
+  for(I = 0; I != 100; ++I) ...
+  while(LLVMRocks) ...
 
   somefunc (42);
   assert (3 != 4 && "laws of math are failing me");
 
-  a = foo (42, 92) + bar (x);
+  A = foo (42, 92) + bar (X);
 
 The reason for doing this is not completely arbitrary.  This style makes control
 flow operators stand out more, and makes expressions flow better. The function
 call operator binds very tightly as a postfix operator.  Putting a space after a
 function name (as in the last example) makes it appear that the code might bind
 the arguments of the left-hand-side of a binary operator with the argument list
 of a function and the name of the right side.  More specifically, it is easy to
-misread the "``a``" example as:
+misread the "``A``" example as:
 
 .. code-block:: c++
 
-  a = foo ((42, 92) + bar) (x);
+  A = foo ((42, 92) + bar) (X);
 
 when skimming through the code.  By avoiding a space in a function, we avoid
 this misinterpretation.