Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 18:05:56 +0000
Hi!
I'm trying to learn about object lifetime and am reading the specification. When I was
reading §6.7.3/9 I realized that "another object of the original type does not occupy
that same storage location" is applicable also for the normal use case. I.e. a normal
destruction would also be undefined.
Would the following wording amend it?
"another object not of the original type does occupy..."
Here's the commit.
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit/84087b3d3f0f60a2878a89810a1c4d0e354722d9
Best regards,
Daniel Markus
I'm trying to learn about object lifetime and am reading the specification. When I was
reading §6.7.3/9 I realized that "another object of the original type does not occupy
that same storage location" is applicable also for the normal use case. I.e. a normal
destruction would also be undefined.
Would the following wording amend it?
"another object not of the original type does occupy..."
Here's the commit.
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit/84087b3d3f0f60a2878a89810a1c4d0e354722d9
Best regards,
Daniel Markus
Received on 2023-11-23 18:05:59