From 7103785b20c24e4197fe27cd6b7edd2a24b69052 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Mitchell Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:55:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix awkward wording. --- CppCoreGuidelines.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/CppCoreGuidelines.md b/CppCoreGuidelines.md index 27f8e3a..3ecd650 100644 --- a/CppCoreGuidelines.md +++ b/CppCoreGuidelines.md @@ -2981,9 +2981,9 @@ If the answer is "yes", much of the design of the class follows (see [the rule o ### C.30: Define a destructor if a class needs an explicit action at object destruction -**Reason**: A destructor is implicitly invoked at the end of an objects lifetime. +**Reason**: A destructor is implicitly invoked at the end of an object's lifetime. If the default destructor is sufficient, use it. -Only if you need code that is not simply destructors of members executed, define a non-default destructor. +Only define a non-default destructor if a class needs to execute code that is not already part of its members' destructors. **Example**: