http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.over.link#5.sentence-1 states:

> Two expressions involving template parameters are considered equivalent if two function definitions containing the expressions would satisfy the one-definition rule, except that [...]

From my reading, there are several things wrong with this sentence. Firstly, it never specifies where in the function definition this expression would go: the parameters? return type? in the body? Making a few assumptions, its safe to say that the probable intended meaning is in the body, but that brings up another issue: these two functions would never satisfy the one definition rule, Perhaps the intended wording for this is:

> Two expressions involving template parameters are considered equivalent if two inline function definitions in separate translation containing the expressions in their function-body would satisfy the one definition rule

Which would make a lot more sense.

> Two expressions involving template parameters are considered equivalent if two function definitions containing the expressions would satisfy the one-definition rule, except that [...]

From my reading, there are several things wrong with this sentence. Firstly, it never specifies where in the function definition this expression would go: the parameters? return type? in the body? Making a few assumptions, its safe to say that the probable intended meaning is in the body, but that brings up another issue: these two functions would never satisfy the one definition rule, Perhaps the intended wording for this is:

> Two expressions involving template parameters are considered equivalent if two inline function definitions in separate translation containing the expressions in their function-body would satisfy the one definition rule

Which would make a lot more sense.