Skip to content

Fixed a typo. local var name #2284

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 19, 2025
Merged

Fixed a typo. local var name #2284

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions CppCoreGuidelines.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -767,7 +767,7 @@ We can of course pass the number of elements along with the pointer:

void g2(int n)
{
f2(new int[n], m); // bad: a wrong number of elements can be passed to f()
f2(new int[n], n); // bad: a wrong number of elements can be passed to f()
}

Passing the number of elements as an argument is better (and far more common) than just passing the pointer and relying on some (unstated) convention for knowing or discovering the number of elements. However (as shown), a simple typo can introduce a serious error. The connection between the two arguments of `f2()` is conventional, rather than explicit.
Expand All @@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ The standard library resource management pointers fail to pass the size when the

void g3(int n)
{
f3(make_unique<int[]>(n), m); // bad: pass ownership and size separately
f3(make_unique<int[]>(n), n); // bad: pass ownership and size separately
}

##### Example
Expand Down