Add constructor comments to match controller docs

Empty constructors are pointless and bad practice, but removing them
from this part of the documentation makes it less readable, makes less
of a point, and would be quite frankly weird. Added a comment that
suggests that further user code should be put there, like it is in the
controller documentation

2 files changed, 3 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/user_guide_src/source/general/core_classes.rst b/user_guide_src/source/general/core_classes.rst
index 07c0b00ba..79f73ef06 100644
--- a/user_guide_src/source/general/core_classes.rst
+++ b/user_guide_src/source/general/core_classes.rst
@@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ your new class in your application controller's constructors.
 		public function __construct()
 		{
 			parent::__construct();
+			// Your own constructor code
 		}
 
 		public function index()
diff --git a/user_guide_src/source/general/models.rst b/user_guide_src/source/general/models.rst
index 08e9f5b30..eb842e927 100644
--- a/user_guide_src/source/general/models.rst
+++ b/user_guide_src/source/general/models.rst
@@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ The basic prototype for a model class is this::
 		public function __construct()
 		{
 			parent::__construct();
+			// Your own constructor code
 		}
 
 	}
@@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ The file name must match the class name. For example, if this is your class::
 		public function __construct()
 		{
 			parent::__construct();
+			// Your own constructor code
 		}
 
 	}