Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="thp, post: 1679338"]
[...]
+ The way I prefer to describe situations involving arrays uses
+ somewhat different terminology from that in the C standards.  In
+ my notation, we have "objects" and "values", rather than "lvalues"
+ and "values".

Agreed.  C89/90 attempted to define an "lvalue" to be an object-valued
expression but ran afoul of the fact that to maintain sanity we must
accept "*0" as an lvalue.  We might slip out of that embarrassment by
positing a "null object" that *0 designates, but what's its type?
Obviously, the matter gets even more difficult when there are
reference types.

Things remain sane if we accept that there are objects and there are
values, and that some expressions (called rvalues) will always
designate a value, while others (called lvalues) will not represent
values but will not necessarily designate objects eithers.
Unfortunately, the distinction doesn't rest on type, since per the C
Standard, both "3" and "int x" are of the same type, namely int.

Tom Payne
[/QUOTE]

Verification