[expr.prim.id.unqual]/15 Could a variable be an object / reference?

[BlowingWind314]

The variable / object distinction becomes confusing in [expr.prim.id.unqual]/15

An implicitly movable entity is a variable with automatic storage duration that is either a non-volatile object or an rvalue reference to a non-volatile object type.

How can a variable BE an object or reference? Isn't it just

... a variable with automatic storage duration that iswhose declaration declares either a non-volatile object or an rvalue reference to a non-volatile object type.

See [basic.pre]/7

A variable is introduced by the declaration D of

• a reference other than a non-static data member or
• an object,

where D is not the parameter-declaration of a template-parameter.

It's unclear whether the variable introduced by D is a reference or object, respectively, or these terms are distinct, associated with the same D only.

[jensmaurer]

Maybe we can just discuss the type of the variable, without diverging to its declaration (and re-opening the can of worms whether we have one or many objects for a single variable)?

[eisenwave]

A few years ago or so I looked at how "variable" is used throughout the wording, and most of it treats "variable" as being synonymous with "object", while some treats it as being just a grammatical construct, and there are some other types of uses. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mtndPK8feMtVD5uOzOpfvSeNDeVjQ-e12XhCdYTdjXc/edit?usp=sharing (I gave up pretty early, so this spreadsheet is incomplete)

"variable" in the C++ standard is in a quantum superstate of being a syntactical construct, an object, and sometimes other things. For example, [expr.prim.lambda.capture] paragraph 6 says:

a variable of the form “auto init-capture ;”

and

the variable's lifetime ends

So, this paragraph is treating the term "variable" as simultaneously being a syntactical construct as well as having a lifetime.

I don't think it makes sense to touch this "variable" issue case-by-case because for every instance of wording that you "fix", there are literally 100+ that are not aligned with whatever wording changes you're applying, and you don't have the big picture. I think it's paper material, and it would take days of CWG time to really clean this up.

If you're going to make any changes, they should definitely not distance "variable" from being an object/reference because that's what most of the wording already treats it as.