Getting rid of the huge requirements tables would be great!

One small Q: is "return type" really appropriate for something like X::char_type? A quick search for "return type" in the spec suggests that so far, outside these requirements tables it's been used exclusively to refer to the return types of actual functions.

"Effects" also sounds kinda weird when describing compile-time type expressions that have no side-effects.

One small Q: is "return type" really appropriate for something like X::char_type?

No, but it's used like that pervasively in the requirements tables. I'd be happy fold this into a generic "Requirements" element or so. In general, those requirement tables are not abundantly clear whether a member is a type or an expression, anyway. (For example, X::size_type could be a static data member.)

Updated with @tkoeppe; samples:

LWG supports this. Next step: turn this into a paper.

Editorial meeting 2021-04-30: "is an expression with the following properties:" Otherwise, good to go. Make a paper with containers and regex tables converted.

use

X u = X();
X u;

drop presenting X(a,b,c) (it does not introduce "u") otherwise

@jwakely, Daniel Krügler has opined on the -lib reflector that "Result:" is an undefined descriptive item and that it would be better to use "Return type:" (which is similarly undefined, but at least pre-existing). However, an expression usually has a type and a value category, but not really a "return type". LWG3166 Should I just invent some words for "Result" for [structure.specification], or what would be your preferred way forward?

http://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2021/12/21327.php

I think it would be better to use Result: (and define it) rather than try to reuse something that isn't a great fit.

I think it would be better to use Result: (and define it) rather than try to reuse something that isn't a great fit.

I'm OK with that but would like to ask for explicitly referring to LWG 3166 as part of the paper.

I've added an entry for "Result:"to [structure.specification]. I think I'm not using "Value:" anywhere, so I'm not seeing why a reference to LWG3166 is necessary.

I've added an entry for "Result:"to [structure.specification]. I think I'm not using "Value:" anywhere, so I'm not seeing why a reference to LWG3166 is necessary.

The new entry for "Result:" is new information to me, it was not present in the draft I had reviewed and where my request came from. Given the new state I agree that quoting LWG 3166 is no longer useful.

The new entry for "Result:" is new information to me, it was not present in the draft I had reviewed

Right, I've just added it.