#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

Addressed below: #4403 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

Please consider opening a separate issue or a PR for this.

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

PR welcome.

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment)

Might be worth a small PR?

#4379 (comment) (request for example)

#4379 (comment) -- typo, @opensdh?

#4379 (comment) (question for clarification)

@opensdh says:

It means the latter; "the scope of X" is used throughout to mean that introduced by X (which might be an entity or a grammar production like a compound-statement) or its declaration(s). We could of course define an explicit term for it in [basic.scope.scope] if desired.

consider whether we need an explicit term

#4379 (comment) (define "component name")

See also #4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) and #4379 (comment) -- meaning of parentheticals

also #4379 (comment), #4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) - @jensmaurer?

#4379 (comment) -- prefer to use bullets

also #4379 (comment)

also #4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment), #4379 (comment) -- requests for rewording

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) (@tkoeppe )

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) -- request for rewording

#4379 (comment)

@opensdh: Thank you! I copied some of the material out. I don't yet know how to organize this best. Could you maybe just start a new post, leading with the original comment link, and maybe (if you can) also link the comment here that lists it? But I can also do that latter step later.

I'm just trying to somehow keep track of everything, this is far from thought out :-(

Thanks again!

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) -- "constructor name"

@opensdh: Dealing with the parentheticals is perhaps the most fruitful post-merge cleanup for now, since it seems to have the biggest potential for confusion.

#4379 (comment) -- request for rewrite

also #4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) -- clarify pronoun

#4379 (comment)

#4379 (comment) -- "result of what"

subject

We need to actually say that such a scope is introduced, which was the motivation for the current phrasing. If definitions must be in terms of "to be", we can say

A parameter-declaration-clause P introduces a scope. A function parameter scope is any such scope. The scope includes P.

(where the last bit is put in its own sentence to connect to the subsequent potential expansions of the scope). If we can use "called", we can use the simpler formulation

A parameter-declaration-clause P introduces a scope, called a function parameter scope, that includes P.

Whatever the rules for definitions are, we should document them.

P1787R6 doesn't introduce this (poor) definition of "extends"; that should be a separate issue.

Proposal:

or that nominates a class other than with an elaborated-type-specifier of the form class identifier

I think using "verify" would be wrong: the name that is dependent is looked up before it is known to be dependent, not as a double-check. (That's not to say we can't find a better word!)

The "X or Y and Z" cannot be reasonably interpreted as "(X or Y) and Z" because Z refers to an object identified by Y. We can of course use bullets or an extra "if" to avoid the reader having to figure this out.

The "it" is the elaborated-type-specifier; there is no sentence fragment here, just a compound predicate. (Jens was pointing out that adding an "it" could be misconstrued as bringing in a new antecedent.) Also, the comment to which this comment links has the same link twice, so I don't know what the other "request[] for rewording" is.

It's perfectly possible that I eventually messed up the copy paste and copied something twice!

The "therefrom" is "from [that] explicit instantiation of that entity" (again).

Either of "whose" -> "which" or "in whose" -> "whose" would change the meaning of the sentence, as would rewording to omit "search" (which causes the naming class to be the derived class, not the base class, unless d.B::x is used).

Jens' interpretation is correct; the reachability check is between D3 and D2, although I haven't tried to construct an example where this differs from checking D1/D2.

The use of "it could be a friend function" is preexisting.

The "member of a class that is the current instantiation" is preexisting.

Via the same comment here: a lookup context is an entity; the check against "the current instantiation" is complicated by the existing confusion between id-expressions and entities in the use of that phrase.

The phrase "program point" is preexisting (although often just as the word "point").

The "point of the lookup" is the program point from which the lookup is performed. Every lookup has such a point, although in some cases one lookup is described in terms of another which is supposed to take place at the same point without repeating "from a point P" on both sides.

Here, "it" refers to the "class, namespace, or enumeration" in question.

The "(original) lookup context" is the lookup context of Q, not the one used for the surrogate lookups in bullets 2 and 3.

"Such a constructor name" is preexisting (not that rectifying this misuse of "name" would be at all out of scope here).

How can "its" (be construed to) refer to a plural subject?

"The result is the entity" is preexisting (the diff is misleading here).

Thanks a lot for all the clarifications and double-checks!