[expr.eq] p2 says "The converted operands shall have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, or pointer-to-member type" so it seems obvious to me that when p3 says an operand "is a pointer" it means it has pointer type.

The obvious answer to your question is yes, everything that has pointer type is a pointer. I think you are reading too much into the list in [basic.align]. I read it as "a pointer to something, or a pointer past the end of something, or ..." not as a definition of what is and isn't "a pointer".

[expr.eq] p2 says "The converted operands shall have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, or pointer-to-member type" so it seems obvious to me that when p3 says an operand "is a pointer" it means it has pointer type.

Yes, you clearly explain the meaning of what is a pointer but it's not clear by the normative rule.

The obvious answer to your question is yes, everything that has pointer type is a pointer. I think you are reading too much into the list in [basic.align]. I read it as "a pointer to something, or a pointer past the end of something, or ..." not as a definition of what is and isn't "a pointer".

Could we highlight the concept by using the normative rule? The meaning(everything that has pointer type is a pointer) seems not clear in the standard. After all, all concepts about pointer are introduced by [basic.compound]. In order to make the meaning more readable, I think [basic.compound#3] might be changed to

Every value of pointer type is one of the following pointers:

• [...]

That could indicate what you say "everything that has pointer type is a pointer.", and they can be subsumed to four kinds of pointers listed in the rule.

No.

We need to clearly differentiate between "pointer type" and "a value of pointer type". The list in [basic.compound] p3 addresses the latter question (and uses proper terminology to do that).

Instead, the ancient text in [expr.eq] should be changed to talk about "operands of pointer type" and then say "Comparing values of pointer type is defined as follows". The term "pointer" should not be used in the (core) portion of the standard.

No.

We need to clearly differentiate between "pointer type" and "a value of pointer type". The list in [basic.compound] p3 addresses the latter question (and uses proper terminology to do that).

Instead, the ancient text in [expr.eq] should be changed to talk about "operands of pointer type" and then say "Comparing values of pointer type is defined as follows". The term "pointer" should not be used in the (core) portion of the standard.

That's totally what I originally thought before issuing this question. But I also think we should clarify what can be called pointer by using a normative rule, after all, the wording "pointer" is referred to in many sections in the standard.

"But I also think we should clarify what can be called pointer by using a normative rule"

No, we need to inspect the instances of "pointer" use one-by-one and fix them one way or the other. For example, the section you quoted in [expr.eq] uses "pointer" for both "pointer type" and "value of pointer type". Not good, and not fixable by defining "pointer".

"But I also think we should clarify what can be called pointer by using a normative rule"

No, we need to inspect the instances of "pointer" use one-by-one and fix them one way or the other. For example, the section you quoted in [expr.eq] uses "pointer" for both "pointer type" and "value of pointer type". Not good, and not fixable by defining "pointer".

Oh, I see it. You mean we should eliminate the wording " pointer" appeared in the normative rule in some sections, and replace it with its concrete meaning defined in [ basic. compound] according to the context. It sounds greate.