[intro.execution] p10 Imprecise terminology in "value computation of the result of the operator"

[xmh0511]

Full name of submitter (unless configured in github; will be published with the issue): Jim X

In [intro.execution], paragraph 7 (or equivalent) establishes that evaluation applies to expressions:

Evaluation of an expression...

Throughout [intro.execution], the phrase pattern "value computation of X" consistently expects X to be an expression (or subexpression), such as in "value computations of the operands of an operator".

However, [intro.execution] p10 states:

The value computations of the operands of an operator are sequenced before the value computation of the result of the operator.

This phrasing creates a grammatical and conceptual inconsistency. "The result of the operator" refers to the value, object, or reference produced by the evaluation, rather than a syntactic expression itself. Using the form "value computation of [non-expression]" can be misleading, as it implicitly suggests that "the result of the operator" is an expression.

To maintain precision and align with the rest of [intro.execution], the wording should clarify that the value computation is the process that produces or computes the result of the operator expression, rather than a computation of the result itself.

Proposed Resolution:

Not sure whether this issue is editorial; IIUC, Change [intro.execution] p10 as follows:

The value computations of the operands of an operator are sequenced before the value computation of that computes the result of the operator.

[frederick-vs-ja]

It seems to me that you tend to clarify some imprecise "colloquial wordings" in some way making them not equivalent to the intended corresponding formal wordings. Can we do the other way around?

[safocl]

In my personal understanding of the above, it's best to first identify the specific provisions covered by the stated problem. It seems there's no such problem, as can be seen from the following possible inclusions of the specified text fragment (these provisions are associated with the expressions themselves, and have no effect on them in the context specified in these provisions of the standard):

An expression X is said to be sequenced before an expression Y if every value computation and every side effect associated with the expression X is sequenced before every value computation and every side effect associated with the expression Y.

Every value computation and side effect associated with a full-expression is sequenced before every value computation and side effect associated with the next full-expression to be evaluated.

The value computations of the operands of an operator are sequenced before the value computation of the result of the operator.
The behavior is undefined ([intro.multithread]) ([ub:intro.execution.unsequenced.modification]) if
(10.1) a side effect on a memory location ([intro.memory]) or
(10.2) starting or ending the lifetime of an object in a memory location

is unsequenced relative to
(10.3) another side effect on the same memory location,
(10.4) starting or ending the lifetime of an object occupying storage that overlaps with the memory location, or
(10.5) a value computation using the value of any object in the same memory location,

and the two evaluations are not potentially concurrent ([intro.multithread]).

This does not require that in the phrase "value computation of X", X must be an expression. It is the "value" that is computed.

[xmh0511]

It seems to me that you tend to clarify some imprecise "colloquial wordings" in some way making them not equivalent to the intended corresponding formal wordings. Can we do the other way around?

As clarified by @t3nsor in his #968 (comment), the intent is that the whole "the result of the operator" should be considered as an expression.

[safocl]

As clarified by @t3nsor in his #968 (comment), the intent is that the whole "the result of the operator" should be considered as an expression.

Can you point to a specific phrase that would imply this?

[xmh0511]

As clarified by @t3nsor in his #968 (comment), the intent is that the whole "the result of the operator" should be considered as an expression.

Can you point to a specific phrase that would imply this?

So "value computation of the result of the operator" means value computation of a prvalue (since the result of the operator is a prvalue).

Only expressions can have value categories.

[safocl]

Only expressions can have value categories.

As clarified by @t3nsor in his #968 (comment), the intent is that the whole "the result of the operator" should be considered as an expression.

It seems to me that he wanted to express a somewhat different statement there (on a different occasion than 'the whole "the result of the operator" should be considered as an expression'). But I would wait for his answer on this matter.