[dcl.type.decltype] "operand" for specifiers

[BlowingWind314]

[dcl.type.decltype]/1 says

... The operand of the decltype specifier is an unevaluated operand.

However decltype is not an operator (even though it looks like one).

Perhaps it's better to say

... The operand expression of the decltype specifier is an unevaluated operand.

Similarly [dcl.type.decltype]/2

If the operand expression of a decltype-specifier is a prvalue and is not a (possibly parenthesized) immediate invocation ([expr.const.imm]), ...

[dcl.type.auto.deduct]/4

... The type deduced for T is determined as described in [dcl.type.decltype], as though E had been the operand expression of the decltype.

[frederick-vs-ja]

The status quo should be fine since we don't restrict operand to operators. However, IIUC, we only define "unevaluated operand" as a term but haven't defined the undecorated "operand".

[BlowingWind314]

The status quo should be fine since we don't restrict operand to operators. However, IIUC, we only define "unevaluated operand" as a term but haven't defined the undecorated "operand".

IIUC, the current wording seems to restrict operand to operators by default, e.g. in [stmt.return]/2

The expr-or-braced-init-list of a return statement is called its operand.

[frederick-vs-ja]

IIUC, the current wording seems to restrict operand to operators by default, e.g. in [stmt.return]/2

The expr-or-braced-init-list of a return statement is called its operand.

I'm totally unable to understand what you meant by this. This sentence is an exact example showing that operands are not restricted to operators, since return is not an operator.

[BlowingWind314]

I'm totally unable to understand what you meant by this. This sentence is an exact example showing that operands are not restricted to operators, since return is not an operator.

I'm sorry to be not very clear. In [expr], "operand" is used (often) without such a definition. But in [stmt] there is a definition to explicitly specify what is the operand of some statement.

So I guess "operand(s) of an operator" is something defined by default, while any other occurance of "operand" needs a explanation.