Ulrich Eckthardt wrote.......

[Paul]

Excuse me Ulrich but you seem to CLAIM the standard describe a built-in
type as an object type.
Can you please provide the relevant section of the relevant standard so that
we may properly assesss this CLAIM.

Or, as many of your other posts suggest, are you just a complete babbling
idiot who repeatedly misinterprets the standards. This looks like an othor
pro example of one of your misinterpretations however in this case, there is
actually a chance you may be correct. I give you this opportunity to shine.

<quote>
>>> I would be very surprised if the standards described a built-in type
>>> as an object type
>>
>> Region of storage, remember? I'd say this matches the an int matches
>> the object definition pretty well.
>>
> Are you suggesting the standards describe a built-in type as an object
> type? or just implying it might do in some round about way?

Yes. You have been told that the C++ object model considers even non-class
types as objects. Get over it, it isn't going to change, no matter how
much you bitch and complain that it doesn't make sense [to you, that is].
</ quote>

Please note his ability to answer two questions with one answer, amazing
isnt it :P