Note that [basic.pre] p4 defines what a name is. A module-name is none of these.

What exactly do you have in mind here? Why do you think that's editorial?

Note that [basic.pre] p4 defines what a name is. A module-name is none of these.

Indeed.

What exactly do you have in mind here?

My intention was to make it evident that some _module-name_s are reserved for the library.
In the same manner that [over.literal] backreferences [usrlit.suffix],
one of the bullets of [reserver.names.general] could reference [module.unit].

Why do you think that's editorial?

Because, presumably, std followed by any amount of digits is reserved for the library. And core can't use it without library buy-in. A backreference wouldn't be a normative addition.

We can also take advantage of [reserved.names.general] saying "kind of names". That weakens the normative meaning of name as their "kind" is not normatively defined. So it could be stretched to include module-names.

A macro name is not a name per [basic.pre] p4 either, and those are in the list, too.