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.

Br,
Daniel



From: Std-Discussion <std-discussion-bounces@lists.isocpp.org> on behalf of Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Discussion <std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2023 19:25
To: std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org <std-discussion@lists.isocpp.org>
Cc: Lénárd Szolnoki <cpp@lenardszolnoki.com>
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@lists.isocpp.org> 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