The discussion "Is it valid use reinterpret_cast to form pointer to
object?" [0] motivated me to try to simplify things for the language
users.
I'd appreciate any feedback and help with the
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3006R0.html wording.
We've been trying to move away from loose aliasing semantics for plain 'char', especially now that we have std::byte. I think we should leave it out of this change.
Actually, it would probably be better to refer to "provides storage" in the proposed change, e.g. something like
"one is an array of std::byte or unsigned char and the other is an object for which the array provides storage, created at the address of the first array element"
Jason