[PATCH] D13006: Replace references to "transform" with references to "check" where neccessary in the documentation.

[Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits]

alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Thanks! LG with a couple of nits.


================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-pass-by-value.rst:6
@@ -5,2 +5,3 @@
 move constructors added for many types it is now interesting to take an argument
 directly by value, instead of by const-reference, and then copy. This
+check allows the compiler to take care of choosing the best way to
----------------
2gqj

================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-replace-auto-ptr.rst:35
@@ -34,3 +34,3 @@
 * If headers modification is not activated or if a header is not allowed to be
-  changed this transform will produce broken code (compilation error), where the
+  changed this check will produce broken code (compilation error), where the
   the headers' code will stay unchanged while the code using them will be
----------------
One "the" too much. Also 2gqj

================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.rst:56
@@ -55,3 +55,3 @@
 
-The transform will only replace iterator type-specifiers when all of the
+The check will only replace iterator type-specifiers when all of the
 following conditions are satisfied:
----------------
gqj

================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.rst:58
@@ -57,3 +57,3 @@
 following conditions are satisfied:
 * The iterator is for one of the standard container in ``std`` namespace:
 
----------------
Add an empty line above, otherwise this line doesn't get recognized as a list item.

================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.rst:60
@@ -59,3 +59,3 @@
 
   * ``array``
 
----------------
Please try removing the empty lines between these list items to make it easier to see the whole list.

================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-auto.rst:131
@@ -130,3 +130,3 @@
 =================
-* If the initializer is an explicit conversion constructor, the transform will
+* If the initializer is an explicit conversion constructor, the check will
   not replace the type specifier even though it would be safe to do so.
----------------
gqj


http://reviews.llvm.org/D13006