From 1398b72b32e3fb9628be2e09ffe97bea88565868 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tomaz Lovrec Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:02:12 +0000 Subject: 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 --- user_guide_src/source/general/models.rst | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) (limited to 'user_guide_src/source/general/models.rst') 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 } } -- cgit v1.2.3-24-g4f1b