> I imagine Herb Sutter (herb.sutter_at_[hidden]) either can edit that page
or knows who can edit it.

About p2 for the list of three things,
I am setting up in order to open an issue and attach a PR as you had
previously suggested,


>> p2: states that 'optionally_constrainted auto' may be in a
decl-specifiers
>> doubt A) -> it might better specify that it is intended for the
parameter,
>> e.g., not for a nested parameter within the function type of the
>> initial parameter:
>> void func(int (*pf)(auto p2) );
>> as this would mimic a kind of template template paramer (based
>> on the well clear Note 1 of p2), which is not an object.

> If you have a concrete wording suggestion,
> please open an issue at https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues
> so CWG can discuss it.

ok, I will integrate in the issue-PR for p2 above.
Anyway, for any new topic, I will first discuss here.


> I suppose "(see below)" may not be strictly needed.
> Or perhaps there is a reason for it that I'm not aware of.

I may include in the aforemention issue-PR about p2.


> It appears that the examples already cover p3 and p4.
> Are you requesting examples for p2?

Ok, I agree that p3 and p4 are covered, but p4 is partially.
I mean, no example with a function declaration and auto
in trailing.
And, yes, I was asking to cover also p2.


Do you believe that moving p3 before p2 will help ?
I see it as a more general case compared to specific
cases of parameter, function, variable.


And, as minor, when p2 and p5 refer a trailing, they
might specifiy to consider the sub-case of functor
declarator. I say 'minor' because it should also be
obvious (for experts).


If you agree with any of these three aspects above,
I may include what you agree withing the issue-PR that
you suggested about p2 wording.



As last. do you still confirm the same opinion about
trailing return type -> trailing-return-type
in [class.conv.fct]-p3
even if it is the unique case over all the
standard without dashes ?


Thank you.

>