On 25/02/2025 02.28, M.P. via Std-Discussion wrote:
> [temp.res.general]/6.4 is not talking about substitution failure, it's
> talking about satisfaction checks of atomic constraints being
> ill-formed (a situation that arises when substitution succeeds but does
> not produce a constant expression of type bool). If a satisfaction
> check of A is performed, then the program is just ill-formed
> (diagnostic required).
>
> Since CWG2461 there's no equivalent of [expr.prim.req.general]/5 for
> atomic constraints. (Maybe there should be; I'm not entirely convinced
> the removal was intentional.)

[temp.constr.atomic] p3 says the satisfaction check includes
the substitution step, so I think CWG2461 didn't remove anything.

Jens