I can't believe this to be editorial. Rephrasing large bodies of text always risks a subtle semantic change, so this should really be an LWG issue.

See also #232.

I think editorially, we can incrementally improve these clauses in various ways without triggering a large paper and asking library to review it - as I believe LWG would rather focus its limited resources elsewhere. Editorially, I think this subclause is far from satisfactory in its current shape, given the improving structure of library clauses over time. Continuous refinement to avoid normative changes though, definitely makes this a 'big' task.

Whatever we do, I recommend extreme caution. Be careful about edtorial fever overreach.

[removed e-mail quote --jensmaurer]

yup - agree that appropriate caution is needed too.

@AlisdairM: After #1215 went in, could you please re-check and name a few examples where we still need improvement, in your opinion?

#1215 covers the major concern I had when opening this ticket, and would be happy to close it as resolved, picking up anything else we later find as separate issues.