On 23/11/2023 19.42, Daniel Markus via Std-Discussion wrote:
> Maybe I'm picky and probably everyone understands what is meant, but
> what's said right now is that the (an) other object occupies its own
> storage location, which is the normal use case.

There is half a sentence in front that talks about ending the lifetime
prior to the implicit destructor call, and there is an example that follows.

What exactly is unclear here?

Jens

 
> Br,
> Daniel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Std-Discussion <std-discussion-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 23, 2023 19:25
> *To:* std-discussion_at_[hidden] <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>
> *Cc:* Lénárd Szolnoki <cpp_at_[hidden]>
> *Subject:* Re: [std-discussion] Wording Includes Normal Use Case
>
> 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 <https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit/84087b3d3f0f60a2878a89810a1c4d0e354722d9>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel Markus
>
>