Restored accidentally overwritten editorial changes

CppCoreGuidelines.md

@@ -6658,7 +6658,7 @@ resource management problems.
         return sv;
     }
 
-    A user can reasonably assume that returning a standard-like container is cheap.
+A user can reasonably assume that returning a standard-like container is cheap.
 
 ##### Enforcement
 
@@ -7904,12 +7904,12 @@ Avoid resource leaks.
 
 ##### Reason
 
- `make_unique` gives a more concise statement of the construction.
+`make_unique` gives a more concise statement of the construction.
 It also ensures exception safety in complex expressions.
 
 ##### Example
 
-    unique_ptr<Foo> p {new<Foo>{7}};   // OK: but repetitive
+    unique_ptr<Foo> p {new Foo{7}};   // OK: but repetitive
 
     auto q = make_unique<Foo>(7);      // Better: no repetition of Foo
 
@@ -7935,14 +7935,14 @@ It also ensures exception safety in complex expressions.
 
 ##### Reason
 
- `make_shared` gives a more concise statement of the construction.
+`make_shared` gives a more concise statement of the construction.
 It also gives an opportunity to eliminate a separate allocation for the reference counts, by placing the `shared_ptr`'s use counts next to its object.
 
 ##### Example
 
     void test() {
         // OK: but repetitive; and separate allocations for the Bar and shared_ptr's use count
-        shared_ptr<Bar> p {new<Bar>{7}};
+        shared_ptr<Bar> p {new Bar{7}};
 
         auto q = make_shared<Bar>(7);   // Better: no repetition of Bar; one object
     }
@@ -8473,7 +8473,7 @@ So far, so good, but we can easily misuse the `union`:
     cout << v.x << '\n';    // BAD, undefined behavior: v holds a double, but we read it as an int
 
 Note that the type error happened without any explicit cast.
-When we tested that program the last value printed was `1683627180` which it the integer value for the bit pattern for `987.654`.
+When we tested that program the last value printed was `1683627180` which is the integer value for the bit pattern for `987.654`.
 What we have here is an "invisible" type error that happens to give a result that could easily look innocent.
 
 And, talking about "invisible", this code produced no output:
@@ -8727,7 +8727,7 @@ Switching on an enumeration is common and the compiler can warn against unusual
         }
     }
 
-Such off-by-one switch`statements are often the results of an added enumerator and insufficient testing.
+Such off-by-one `switch`statements are often the results of an added enumerator and insufficient testing.
 
 ##### Enforcement
 
@@ -10717,7 +10717,7 @@ Use `={...}` if you really want an `initializer_list<T>`
 
 `={}` gives copy initialization whereas `{}` gives direct initialization.
 Like the distinction between copy-initialization and direct-initialization itself, this can lead to surprises.
-`{}` accepts `explicit` constructors; `={}` does not`. For example:
+`{}` accepts `explicit` constructors; `={}` does not. For example:
 
     struct Z { explicit Z() {} };