Function descriptions can contain elements introduced with \requires, \effects, \sync, etc., and in some places the standard text refers to these elements. It does this in several different ways.

• 17.5.1.4p4 uses the same macros that are used to define these elements when mentioning them. This is a bit ugly because it includes the colon.

• A couple of places use \synopsis{Effects} or \synopsis{Throws}, which looks very wrong because it's bold.

• There's at least one instance of ``Requires''.

• There's at least one instance of \emph{Returns}.

Visually, I like \emph the most, since it's rendered the same way as the definitions, but without the colon.

There are also many different nouns used when talking about these: at least element, paragraph, section, clause and subclause. I wonder whether clause and subclause are correct.

I can create a pull request making these consistent if someone decides which form to use. I think either the macros themselves (already used in many places, but come with the colon) or \emph would be best. I can leave the nouns as-is or replace uses of clause/subclause with element or section.