As for the editorial notes: I'll take them to heart and fix/revise the
proposal as needed. Thanks for the feedback.

> `class T...` should be `class... T`, and also please rename `T` to `Ts` ("packs should be plural").

I agree that it should be Ts; that's a more popular style.

> Are you saying that `int f(int x ...)` has never been valid C, all the way back to C89?

Yes, never has been. See http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/c89-draft.html
3.5.4 Declarators.

> That should be the above-the-fold headline!

Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to include it in the abstract.

> FWIW, I haven't heard "abominable pack"

Fair point; I've just invented it for this proposal; perhaps I should
call it something like "six-dots pack" or always mention it as
"T......".

> The second Note in that section seems wrong to me;

Yeah it's possible that I've misremembered this. Non-template member
functions in class templates definitely work though.


Thanks
Jan