XPost: comp.lang.c   
      
   Keith Thompson  wrote:   
   >   
   > A subtle distinction at best.  As I wrote upthread, the standard says:   
   >   
   > C99 6.3.2.1p2:   
   >   
   >     Except when it is the operand of [list of operators deleted],   
   >     an lvalue that does not have array type is converted to the value   
   >     stored in the designated object (and is no longer an lvalue).   
   >   
   > So in the above context, ``x'' *was* an lvalue, but "is no longer"   
   > an lvalue.   
      
   By that token, it's no longer ``x'' either, it's just the value stored   
   in x.  The wording is a bit odd because lvalue-ness sits firmly on the   
   fence between syntax and semantics and is thus awkward to talk about   
   from either side because it doesn't quite fit (which is also why the   
   definition has been so darned hard to get right).   
   --   
   Larry Jones   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)