> Ah, I see. I misunderstood at first.
>
> This seems to be related to CWG1027
> <https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1027.html> which is not resolved
> because there was an idea that it would be resolved by CWG1116
> <https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1116.html>, whose proposed
> resolution was going to simply make certain replacements UB. Since CWG1116
> was resolved differently from the proposed resolution, CWG1027 was not
> resolved and is still open.
> --
> *Brian Bi*
>

 Although that seem to be related more to basic#life-8 to give original
pointers / references even more freedom in the case if the new object is
transparently replaceable. Or your point is that because CWG1027
<https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1027.html> mentions that *if
basic#life-8 condition does not apply *(since re-use comes before end of
lifetime in placement new), than it is allowed to use original reference?
Which means if basic#life-6 condition I mentioned above also does not apply
we also still can use original reference? *So it is kind of allowed just
because it was not forbidden? *