[basic.lval] bit-fields are objects

[languagelawyer]

no need to mention them separately

[jensmaurer]

Unnamed bit-fields are not members (and thus, presumably, not (sub)objects), but those cannot be the result of an expression.

[zygoloid]

Looks like a little more cleanup may be desirable: [intro.memory]p3: "A memory location is either an object of scalar type that is not a bit-field or a maximal sequence of adjacent bit-fields all having nonzero width." The note in p4 makes it completely obvious that this is the intent, so I think it's fine to fix this editorially.

While we're cleaning things up in this area, I think we can clarify [intro.object]/8.4: "has subobjects of nonzero size or unnamed bit-fields of nonzero length."

[languagelawyer]

@zygoloid Do I understand correctly: you want to stress that unnamed bit-fields [are not|do not have corresponding] subobjects, yet they "contribute to" a memory location and affect whether a class object is of nonzero size?