From 0fbb8c19991cdda12c1e28297fc415a5d5046711 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ricardo Abreu Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:59:40 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] doc detail --- docs/design.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/design.md b/docs/design.md index a980730..8a4112b 100644 --- a/docs/design.md +++ b/docs/design.md @@ -287,8 +287,9 @@ Both intents are purely technical. They justify supporting a special state that is otherwise artificial and exists only because of the way C++ works. In other words, the inactive state represents nothing useful from any problem domain. It would not be required in a hypothetical programming language where local -variables could be deleted and moved without leaving _ghosts_ behind. However, -it enables programming approaches that would not be possible in any other way. +variables could be deleted early and moved without leaving _ghosts_ behind. +However, it enables programming approaches that would not be possible in any +other way. Without any meaningful default callback, a potential default constructor could only create inactive scope guards (or active no-op, which would be equivalent).