From: tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com   
      
   James Kuyper  writes:   
      
   > On 5/14/25 07:00, David Brown wrote:   
   > ...   
   >   
   >> My interpretation matches yours.  I can't find any indication in the   
   >> standard of a definition of what an "array" actually means   
   >   
   > This is a problem with all of the derived types (6.2.5p25).  There are   
   > definitions of the terms "array type", "structure type:, "union type",   
   > "function type", and "pointer type", but no definitions of the things   
   > that those types are types of.  My interpretation is that for each of   
   > those object types, "X" is short-hand for "an object of X type".   
   > [...]   
      
   That interpretation is not consistent with usage in the standard.   
   There are at least dozens of places, and probably hundreds of   
   places, where the C standard refers to pointers, structs, or unions,   
   but where there is no object.  An easy example is the address-of   
   operator, &.  The expression & gives a pointer value, but   
   just by itself there is no pointer object.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)