I'd like to see this addressed in the context of #2872 (which might very well need CWG review), as opposed to piecemeal.

It seems to me that [basic.life] p5 should become a note entirely; there is no new information here, unless it wants to say that reusing the storage of an in-lifetime object of class type with a non-trivial destructor is undefined behavior.

The existing text in [basic.life]/5 is technically correct, as it is true that

A program may end the lifetime of any object by reusing the storage which the object occupies or by explicitly calling the destructor for an object of a class type with a non-trivial destructor.

It is simply excluding/ignoring other cases that end lifetime, which does not make it wrong, per se, just not super helpful.

@random-internet-cat We can probably do away with it all together. As I said on slack and Jens did here, no new information is introduced, but rather it reaffirms how implicit destruction works (although, the wording might be changing quite drastically, see #2879)

Deferring; this should be addressed by http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p0593r3.html#pseudo-destructor-calls

Please rebase and fix the conflicts, then force-push.

@jensmaurer We can close this; this has been addressed by the aforementioned paper.