> I imagine Herb Sutter (herb.sutter@gmail.com) 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.