* Added bad and goof example to NR.5 in CppCoreGuidelines.md
Added bad and good example to NR.5 Don’t: Don’t do substantive work in a constructor; instead use two-phase initialization.
I think it could be suitable.
* adjusted coding style
* removed extra space
* removed one more whitespace
* removed spaces before note to make it a blank line
* made Cleanup method from bad example return void
* some changes after review comments
- removed try catch
- removed defaulted dtor
- changed int to size_t, removed check for even.
- Expects() for invariant check
- typo
* spell check adjustment
* moved comment up for met the line length
* changed variablename in good example
... they were named same after removed the try catch scope
* changed afer comments
- changed check_size() function to a static member function
- fixed comment mentioning the default contract violation behavior.
* C.129 Fix typos and conjugation
I noticed some grammatical errors in this section and fixed them to match my interpretation of the author's intention.
* One more fix
Pluralization
* Use `memoizes` instead of `mnemonizes` in the context of caching
While apparently, 'mnemonizes' is a word, I don't think it's the best choice here.
* Update isocpp.dic
The code fails to set the type when a number value is assigned to a (formerly) string value. As a result, later access to the value or destruction of the object cause undefined behaviour (access to arbitrary memory address and/or heap corruption). The string field of the union is accessed, but its the number what is there…
It's also wrong in the book!
The fact that this bug has survived so long pretty much proves the point that code with unions is hard to get right ;-)
Oh, by the way, in order to test this, I had to add a constructor. Though, I'm not including it in the change. I suppose this just stuff we take for granted in the "// …" comment.
hsutter
Florian Thake
Kyle
Aleksander
Paul Romano
Taewon Park
Sergey Zubkov
Saad
Amir Livneh
Dave Smith
Martín Knoblauch Revuelta