On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 22:19, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 09:37:08 PDT Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > > There is an object of the proper type at the address. The problem is we
> > > can't get to the address without UB in the first place because the
> > > pointer arithmetic is undefined.
> >
> > But P1839 solves that problem. And this post was written under the
> > rules governed by P1839.
>
> That was not the consensus of the discussions so far.
>
> P1839 may need a stronger wording to make it explicit that pointer arithmetic
> on the char-sized backing buffer is well-defined.

I have no idea how
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1839r2.pdf
can be any *more* explicit about that. It says that both in the design
part of the paper and in the wording.