Merge pull request #230 from david-mitchell/patch-12

Fix awkward wording.
This commit is contained in:
Gabriel Dos Reis 2015-09-29 17:31:17 -07:00
commit b8c9ad47ac

View File

@ -2981,9 +2981,9 @@ If the answer is "yes", much of the design of the class follows (see [the rule o
### <a name="Rc-dtor"></a> C.30: Define a destructor if a class needs an explicit action at object destruction ### <a name="Rc-dtor"></a> 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. 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**: **Example**: