From d4d48ec77239df071a6592eab9ed2e343dfbfaf5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Florin Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:57:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix tense, semantic error --- CppCoreGuidelines.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/CppCoreGuidelines.md b/CppCoreGuidelines.md index 67f7027..6d7e804 100644 --- a/CppCoreGuidelines.md +++ b/CppCoreGuidelines.md @@ -6965,8 +6965,8 @@ This kind of "vector" isn't meant to be used as a base class at all. ##### Reason `protected` data is a source of complexity and errors. -`protected` data complicated the statement of invariants. -`protected` data inherently violates the guidance against putting data in base classes, which usually leads to having to deal virtual inheritance as well. +`protected` data complicates the statement of invariants. +`protected` data inherently violates the guidance against putting data in base classes, which usually leads to having to deal with virtual inheritance as well. ##### Example, bad @@ -6985,7 +6985,7 @@ This has been popular, but also a major source of maintenance problems. In a large class hierarchy, the consistent use of protected data is hard to maintain because there can be a lot of code, spread over a lot of classes. The set of classes that can touch that data is open: anyone can derive a new class and start manipulating the protected data. -Often, it is not possible to examine the complete set of classes so any change to the representation of the class becomes infeasible. +Often, it is not possible to examine the complete set of classes, so any change to the representation of the class becomes infeasible. There is no enforced invariant for the protected data; it is much like a set of global variables. The protected data has de facto become global to a large body of code.