From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> 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 &<something> gives a pointer value, but
just by itself there is no pointer object.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2