From c3e45c9403d6501fd5cd62fa6776cdbe21570eae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: tal <tal.lancaster+gh@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:21:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] R.3_609: changed owner<T> to owner<T*> in R.3 per issue #609

---
 CppCoreGuidelines.md | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CppCoreGuidelines.md b/CppCoreGuidelines.md
index 082bbf5..26c3de9 100644
--- a/CppCoreGuidelines.md
+++ b/CppCoreGuidelines.md
@@ -7232,7 +7232,7 @@ We can fix that problem by making ownership explicit:
     class X2 {
         // ...
     public:
-        owner<T> p;   // OK: p is owning
+        owner<T*> p;  // OK: p is owning
         T* q;         // OK: q is not owning
     };
 
@@ -7256,9 +7256,9 @@ Some interfaces cannot be simply annotated with `owner` because they need to rem
 
 ##### Note
 
-`owner<T>` has no default semantics beyond `T*`. It can be used without changing any code using it and without affecting ABIs.
+`owner<T*>` has no default semantics beyond `T*`. It can be used without changing any code using it and without affecting ABIs.
 It is simply a indicator to programmers and analysis tools.
-For example, if an `owner<T>` is a member of a class, that class better have a destructor that `delete`s it.
+For example, if an `owner<T*>` is a member of a class, that class better have a destructor that `delete`s it.
 
 ##### Example, bad