🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm wondering about an apparent contradiction in the standard
concerning addressing "one past the last element" of an array.

Consider the following expressions:
    {
        char a[N];

(1)     &a[N];
(2)     a[N];
    }

If expression (1) is legal (which is implied by the Rationale 3.3.6)
then I claim that expression (2) should also be legal, although it
isn't according to the standard (3.3.6).

My reasoning is as follows:
        1. &a[N] is valid iff &(*(a+N)) is valid.
           (by definition of array subscripting [3.3.2.1])

        2. &(*(a+N)) is valid iff *(a+N) is valid.
           (by definition of indirection operator [3.3.3.2])

        3. *(a+N) is valid iff a[N] is valid.
           ([3.3.2.1])
        ---------------------
        4. &a[N] is valid iff a[N] is valid. (by 1,2,3)


By "is legal" I mean "has defined behavior".