> No, p3 doesn't allow the second `auto`. I'm not sure how you can read it that way.

> Each of p2-p7 defines a context in which placeholders are legal;

> it doesn't define the legality of the entire construct in which the placeholder appears.

> The context that is made legal by p3 is the one occupied by the first `auto`, namely the decl-specifier-seq,

> so it says nothing about the legality of the second `auto`.

> It only means that, if there's no trailing return type present at all,

> then p3 doesn't give any permission for a placeholder to appear in the decl-specifier-seq.

I see your point, ok. I was likely biased by the old text of C++20 (reported in the original post 2710)

but it is useless to discuss it now, as it cannot change.

Thank you.

> As to your second point, I'm not sure which p1 you're referring to.

> The text you quote, "or as one of the type-specifiers in a trailing-return-type",

> does not appear in [dcl.spec.auto.general]/1.

About second point, my bad, I meant p2, sorry for having written p1.

> As to your third point, are you suggesting that in that one comment we

> should use the hyphenated spelling?

> Or do you want to change other comments to say "trailing return type"?

About third point, it might just be fixed adding dashes; trailing-return-type,
for the sake of uniformity with all other points in the standard.

I guess it worth doing it only together any other needed change, not alone.

Hope not to abuse your patience, I would have another point around this standard clauses,

that I was first checking on the web, for which I also posted on stackoverflow today

(https://stackoverflow.com/questions/79208177/multiple-occurrences-of-placeholder-type-auto-in-a-type)

without getting any concrete answer. It is related about the plural words "the occurrences" in [dcl.type.auto.deduct]-p3.

You can read there my question.