Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #119796

Re: is "x = ++f ++f" a valid statement ?

From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: is "x = ++f ++f" a valid statement ?
Date	2024-08-11 06:22 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<8634nbp52l.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <v7n2mj$t6tp$1@dont-email.me> <877cdchj2i.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86ttgg41yb.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8734nzhjkg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87y15rg3wo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> A minor detail is that a variable must be declared, whereas memory
>>>>> locations can, for instance, be part of allocated memory for which
>>>>> no declaration exists - it is still undefined behavior to write
>>>>> code that applies unsequence side-effects to such memory locations.
>>>>
>>>> Digression:  I'm not even sure what "variable" means in C++.  The
>>>> standard defines the term, but not in a way that really tells us
>>>> what it means.
>>>>
>>>> "A *variable* is introduced by the declaration of a reference other
>>>> than a non-static data member or of an object.  The variable's name,
>>>> if any, denotes the reference or object."
>>>
>>> What part do you find confusing or hard to understand?
>>
>> The missing part that should tell us what a variable *is*.
>>
>> It says that certain declarations "introduce" a variable.  That's a
>> statement about variables, but it doesn't say what a variable is.
>>
>> Given:
>>
>>     int n;
>>
>> we know that the declaration introduces a variable.  Is the object
>> itself a "variable"?  That's the obvious meaning, and it's consistent
>> with what the standard says.  Or is a "variable" some kind of logical
>> binding between an object and a name?  That's also consistent with what
>> the standard says.  Under the latter interpretation, the "variable" has
>> a name, and that name denotes an object, but the variable is not the
>> object.
>>
>> Given the above declaration, is the introduced variable an object?  If
>> so, or if not, how does your answer follow from what the standard says?

[...]

> But the following paragraph says:
>
>     A *local entity* is a variable with automatic storage duration
>     (6.7.5.4), a structured binding (9.6) whose corresponding variable
>     is such an entity, or the *this object (7.5.3).
>
> Storage duration is an attribute of objects.  If a variable can have
> automatic storage duration, then apparently a variable is an object.

It seems clear that the quoted sentence is meant to be read as

    A *local entity* is a variable [associated with an object that
    has] automatic storage duration, [etc].

I'm not sure if C++ references also have storage durations, in which
case the word "object" in that sentence might need to be replaced with
"object or reference".  The key point though is that the property of
having automatic storage duration is meant to be associated with the
affiliated object or reference rather than with the variable itself.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 16:14 +0200
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-06-18 18:53 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 17:40 +0200
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:55 -0500
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:10 -0400
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:06 -0500
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 20:14 -0400
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:35 -0700
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:58 -0500
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:38 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:45 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 09:13 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 10:23 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-23 11:48 +0300
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 17:54 -0700
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-21 23:42 -0400
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:02 -0500
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-22 13:09 +0200
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:40 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:56 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 12:14 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-22 16:52 +0200
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 11:27 -0500
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 13:20 -0400
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 17:55 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-23 14:46 +0200
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? PLO James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-22 15:48 -0400
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-18 22:27 -0400
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 21:51 -0500
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 21:51 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 07:32 -0400
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 07:59 -0500
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 14:25 -0400
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 14:18 -0500
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 16:23 -0400
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 09:11 +0200
  Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? what@tf.com (testuseri2p) - 2024-07-22 17:51 +0000
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-22 14:58 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-22 21:57 -0400
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-22 20:40 -0700
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-23 10:15 -0400
        Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-23 07:28 -0700
          Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-23 14:42 -0700
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-23 15:05 -0700
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-11 06:22 -0700
                Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-11 14:09 -0700
            Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-11 06:11 -0700
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-08-11 09:25 -0400
              Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-11 14:17 -0400
      Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-23 07:32 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-22 19:53 -0700
    Re: is "x *= ++f * ++f" a valid statement ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-23 10:01 -0400

csiph-web