@zygoloid, is this non-editorial? It seems like "the destructor name" could be changed to talk about the id-expression in a postfix expression, except that [expr.call] says that has to be a function member name, and the destructor doesn't have a name:

For a member function call, the postfix expression shall be an implicit (9.3.1, 9.4) or explicit class member access (5.2.5) whose id-expression is a function member name, or a pointer-to-member expression (5.5) selecting a function member.

This makes me think of the White Knight explaining that "The song's name is called Haddocks' Eyes".

If I'm not mistaken, a qualified-id is not a name, therefore that sentence is in itself erroneous.

For the same reason, I think that the grammar term pseudo-destructor-name is poorly named. If ~class-name and ~ decltype-specifier are really not names, then pseudo-destructor-name is nothing similar to a name.

3/4 A name is a use of an identifier (2.11), operator-function-id (13.5), literal-operator-id (13.5.8), conversion-function-id (12.3.2), or template-id (14.2) that denotes an entity or label (6.6.4, 6.1).

Certain _use_s of some kinds of unqualified-id above are considered as names. "~ class-name" is unqualified-id, but not listed here.

What does "use" precisely mean?

We have a precise definition for "name", but we don't stick to it. For instance:

[basic.def.odr]p3: "A variable whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated expression ex is odr-used by ex unless [...]"
This presumably means "A potentially-evaluated id-expression ex that refers to a variable x odr-uses x unless [...]"
But according to the definition of "name", the id-expression need not refer to the variable x; it can refer to another variable in a different declarative region that merely has the same identifier as its name!

Later on in p6, we have the same problem; the ODR doesn't take the declarative region of the entity into account.

And so on. We really need a comprehensive study of where "name" is used and misused.

I've forwarded this to CWG for discussion as to how best to proceed.

This is obsolete, the wording has been fixed. It now says "the destructor is specified by a ~ followed by ..."

Fixed by CWG 2069.