If you have multiple lifetime-extended temporaries, do their destructors produce multiple full-expressions?

{
    const auto& rk = Klass{};
    const auto& rk2 = Klass{};
    // ...
}

The current wording seems to allow the destructor invocations rk.~Klass() and rk2.~Klass() to be part of the same full-expression (though it could be clearer whether that is intended, or whether your reading is correct).

If you have multiple lifetime-extended temporaries, do their destructors produce multiple full-expressions?

If I have multiple non-reference variables, do their destruction produce multiple full-expressions?

Yes, but the destruction of temporary objects doesn't have to produce multiple full-expressions, so there's no inherent requirement that destruction of objects happens in separate full-expressions.

Ok, the difference could be intended, lets wait what others will say.

The text is clearly wrong (a lifetime-extended temporaries should be treated as-if it were a non-reference variable), but is the fix editorial?

Given the ambiguity Jonathan mentioned, I think we should process this as a core issue.

@zygoloid, @jwakely: What would the effective difference be between "one full-expression for destruction of several lifetime-extended temporaries" vs. "one full-expression each"? We can't have temporaries in default arguments for destructors.

@jensmaurer the difference would be observable if a destructor throws an exception.

@languagelawyer, sorry, maybe it's too early in the morning for me, but could you please be more specific?

@jensmaurer if there are several temporary object destructor invocations in one full-expression and one of them throws an exception, it will finish evaluating the rest of the full-expression and could left some destructors not invoced. But if each destructor invocation is a full-expression and one of them thows, the following destructors still would be called during stack unwinding.

@languagelawyer: Such behavior would be at odds with [stmt.jump] p2: Even if a destructor throws an exception, you still need to execute the rest of the destructors, now in the context of stack unwinding [except.ctor].

@jensmaurer hm, indeed. Then I also don't see a difference.

I'm not aware of any way the difference is observable, so maybe it can be changed editorially (or maybe it doesn't need to change at all). My original comment was just to say that "it is intended to be a full-expression" may need additional justification, as it's not obvious to me whether that really is the intention.