Specification Style Guidelines have some outdated rules

[Eisenwave]

In discussion during code review, some decisions have been pointed out that have not been codified in the guidelines:

1. The current rule for indentation in itemize doesn't seem accurate. That is:

   \begin{itemize}
   \item
     A B
     C D.
   \end{itemize}

   I have indented the library part of reflections like this, believing that the guidelines are correct, but I can see that Jens doesn't bother indenting after \item.

2. We have a rule to indent two spaces after a template-head, but this allegedly doesn't apply to struct. Some C++26 wording still follows this outdated rule, like:

   template<auto V>
     struct nontype_t {
       explicit nontype_t() = default;
     };
   template<auto V> constexpr nontype_t<V> nontype{};

   If this is not what we want, it should be clarified.

@burblebee do you have links to the discussions where these decisions have been made?

[Eisenwave]

Hmm, I think the second rule thing is already in the guidelines. According to the current rules, it should be

// indent in declaration
template<auto V>
  struct nontype_t;

// no indent in definition
template<auto V>
struct nontype_t {
  explicit nontype_t() = default;
};

Assuming that

In a class template definition, there is no additional indent after the template<...> head, and the linebreak after the template head is optional.

... also applies in a header synopsis, and the previous sentence doesn't have precedence:

In a header synopsis, declarations of class and function templates should have a linebreak+indent after the template<...> head.

It's not really obvious which of these two rules takes precedent when a class definition is also inside a synopsis. They contradict each other, and they're in the same bullet.

[burblebee]

Much of our discussions on style guidelines was done over the phone in edit meetings and/or in person at committee meetings. That said, #3127 has some history on the \items indentation discussions.