Fix the wording "counter example"

[pieterhijma]

Make a small fix in reaction to this feedback by @benj5378.

[hyarion]

I think we could make it more clear what is good and what is bad.
Maybe we could do something in the same style as the core guidelines (example from https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#f16-for-in-parameters-pass-cheaply-copied-types-by-value-and-others-by-reference-to-const):

void f1(const string& s);  // OK: pass by reference to const; always cheap

void f2(string s);         // bad: potentially expensive

void f3(int x);            // OK: Unbeatable

void f4(const int& x);     // bad: overhead on access in f4()

in this case it could look like:

auto value = randomThing.weirdProperty->getValue(); // bad: non-obvious type

long value = randomThing.weirdProperty->getValue(); // OK: type is specified, no need to guess type

[maxwxyz]

@pieterhijma are you going to update this?

[pieterhijma]

@pieterhijma are you going to update this?

Yes, I just did :)

[pieterhijma]

@hyarion, could you please review?