From 2a64d423982fd1c394862137851f531a07c8b38c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sergey Zubkov Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:03:50 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Revert "Fixed a typo. local var name (#2284)" This reverts commit 2722375cee15a055fde2357fa576b20cecbc7215. That typo was intentional as noted in the prose after the example (addmittedly hard to see) --- CppCoreGuidelines.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/CppCoreGuidelines.md b/CppCoreGuidelines.md index d8fb955..5ea7207 100644 --- a/CppCoreGuidelines.md +++ b/CppCoreGuidelines.md @@ -767,7 +767,7 @@ We can of course pass the number of elements along with the pointer: void g2(int n) { - f2(new int[n], n); // bad: a wrong number of elements can be passed to f() + f2(new int[n], m); // bad: a wrong number of elements can be passed to f() } Passing the number of elements as an argument is better (and far more common) than just passing the pointer and relying on some (unstated) convention for knowing or discovering the number of elements. However (as shown), a simple typo can introduce a serious error. The connection between the two arguments of `f2()` is conventional, rather than explicit. @@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ The standard library resource management pointers fail to pass the size when the void g3(int n) { - f3(make_unique(n), n); // bad: pass ownership and size separately + f3(make_unique(n), m); // bad: pass ownership and size separately } ##### Example