The following sentence frequently appears in several paragraphs in subclause [temp.deduct.general]
If the substitution results in an invalid type, as described above, type deduction fails.
However, we do not see the relevant contents referred to by "as described above". AFAIK, the invalid type or expression in the immediate context of the function type or something else stated in [temp.deduct.general] p8 can result in "deduction fails" rather than a program ill-formed. Does "as described above" intend to refer to [temp.deduct.general] p8? Should we rearrange the position of [temp.deduct.general] p8 to make "as described above" have a corresponding expound.
Full name of submitter (unless configured in github; will be published with the issue): Jim X
The original issue is https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues/5150
The following sentence frequently appears in several paragraphs in subclause [temp.deduct.general]
However, we do not see the relevant contents referred to by "as described above". AFAIK, the invalid type or expression in the immediate context of the function type or something else stated in [temp.deduct.general] p8 can result in "deduction fails" rather than a program ill-formed. Does "as described above" intend to refer to [temp.deduct.general] p8? Should we rearrange the position of [temp.deduct.general] p8 to make "as described above" have a corresponding expound.