docs(linter): add backquotes where appropriate

crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/eslint/no_compare_neg_zero.rs

@@ -18,13 +18,13 @@ pub struct NoCompareNegZero;
 declare_oxc_lint!(
     /// ### What it does
     ///
-    /// Disallow comparing against -0
+    /// Disallow comparing against `-0`
     ///
     /// ### Why is this bad?
     ///
-    /// The rule should warn against code that tries to compare against -0,
-    /// since that will not work as intended. That is, code like x === -0 will
-    /// pass for both +0 and -0. The author probably intended Object.is(x, -0).
+    /// The rule should warn against code that tries to compare against `-0`,
+    /// since that will not work as intended. That is, code like `x === -0` will
+    /// pass for both `+0` and `-0`. The author probably intended `Object.is(x, -0)`.
     ///
     /// ### Examples
     ///

crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/eslint/no_extra_boolean_cast.rs

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ declare_oxc_lint!(
     /// ### Why is this bad?
     ///
     /// In contexts such as an if statement's test where the result of the expression will already be coerced to a Boolean,
-    /// casting to a Boolean via double negation (!!) or a Boolean call is unnecessary.
+    /// casting to a Boolean via double negation (`!!`) or a `Boolean` call is unnecessary.
     ///
     /// ### Examples
     ///

crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/eslint/no_unsafe_optional_chaining.rs

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ declare_oxc_lint!(
     ///
     /// ### Why is this bad?
     ///
-    /// The optional chaining (?.) expression can short-circuit with a return value of undefined.
+    /// The optional chaining (`?.`) expression can short-circuit with a return value of undefined.
     /// Therefore, treating an evaluated optional chaining expression as a function, object, number, etc.,
     /// can cause TypeError or unexpected results. For example:
     ///

crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/eslint/use_isnan.rs

@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ impl Default for UseIsnan {
 declare_oxc_lint!(
     /// ### What it does
     ///
-    /// Disallows checking against NaN without using isNaN() call.
+    /// Disallows checking against NaN without using `isNaN()` call.
     ///
     /// ### Why is this bad?
     ///
@@ -65,10 +65,10 @@ declare_oxc_lint!(
     ///
     /// Because NaN is unique in JavaScript by not being equal to anything, including itself,
     /// the results of comparisons to NaN are confusing:
-    /// - NaN === NaN or NaN == NaN evaluate to false
-    /// - NaN !== NaN or NaN != NaN evaluate to true
+    /// - `NaN === NaN` or `NaN == NaN` evaluate to false
+    /// - `NaN !== NaN` or `NaN != NaN` evaluate to true
     ///
-    /// Therefore, use Number.isNaN() or global isNaN() functions to test whether a value is NaN.
+    /// Therefore, use `Number.isNaN()` or global `isNaN()` functions to test whether a value is NaN.
     ///
     /// ### Examples
     ///