Subject: Re: Values of objects
From: Tony V E (tvaneerd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-26 00:53:46
Are you then going to continue, and define what value is?
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:22 PM sdkrystian via Std-Discussion <
> The standard only defines what the *value* is for objects of trivially
> copyable types, and it is left unspecified as to what the value of objects
> of non-trivially copyable types is, however it can be inferred that they do
> have value, since the value representation is what represents it.
> My question is, why is it not specified that all objects have value, and
> then only specify that the value representation of an object of trivially
> copyable type appears inside the object representation. Something like:
> > The *value representation* of an object of type T is the set of bits
> that participate in representing a *value* of type T; for objects of
> trivially copyable type, the value representation is within the object
> Surely this would be more explicit, and better illustrate that the value
> representation (and by association, value) for objects of non-trivially
> copyable type need not be fully contained within the object itself.
> Std-Discussion mailing list
-- Be seeing you, Tony
STD-DISCUSSION list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Older Archives on Google Groups