Or just replace "another" with "an"? "... an object of the original type does not occupy that same storage location ..."



On 23 November 2023 18:05:56 GMT, Daniel Markus via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>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
>