I don't think we are going to change stable names.

But we've already made :: -> . for [string.xxx].

@lynnboy: Wasn't that for new content post-C++14? Things that were added in this revision can still be changed, indeed.

The change from [string::xxx] to [string.xxx] is made in 0b5bcd5.

I see. I guess we do change stable names then...

The stable names are really bad, and those single-paragraph descriptions should never have gotten separate sections to start with.

[reverse.iter.ops] also has many single-paragraph subsections for individual operators. So possibly that one could be cleaned up as well.

This seems to be a pervasive issue in that area; see [front.insert.iter.ops] and [back.insert.iter.ops]. The [reverse.iter.ops] that you mentioned are more than half a page, though, so some kind of subdivision (e.g. "comparison operators", "arithmetic") might be worthwhile.

In short, all of [predef.iterators] is affected, and we should come up with a common approach for that subsection instead of fixing individual issues.

@zygoloid, what do you think?

Editorial committee consensus: Fold mini-sections for operators and rename "::" in stable names.

@jensmaurer: Did we mean to close this issue? Didn't you say there were other aspects to it not yet dealt with by pull requests?

In short, all of [predef.iterators] is affected, and we should come up with a common approach for that subsection instead of fixing individual issues.

Editorial committee consensus: Fold mini-sections for operators and rename "::" in stable names.