Don't define typedef-names in the library wording

[frederick-vs-ja]

Since typedef-names are declared but not defined ([basic.def]/2.9, [basic.def]/2.10).

• In [library], I think sometime it would be better to use "shown" or "specified".
• The member type value_type (or sometimes type?) is not always a typedef-name, but it is in most case. So, I'm changing to use "declared" for it.
• For member types iterator_category and iterator_concept, this PR used to use "determined" instead of "defined" when the aliased type is talked. Now the changes to "determined" are reverted.

[jensmaurer]

I'm very much on board with replacing "defined" with "declared" when we're talking about the introduction of a name, such as "X is declared if and only if..." I think that's a straightforward fix and actually improves the presentation quite a bit.

For situations where we describe what the "value" of a typedef is, I like "defined" a bit better, because it's alluding to the mathematical idea of "definition", and that's what we do in those contexts. A better way of phrasing this without using the term "defined" might exist, but "determined" leaves open a bit who determines what. Maybe "specified to be" would work; I'm not sure.

Anyway, if you want to extract the changes of the first category into a separate pull request, where we actually talk about the (presence of) a typedef declaration, then that could probably progress faster.

[frederick-vs-ja]

@jensmaurer Now the changes to "determined" are reverted.

[frederick-vs-ja]

Rebased & force-pushed. @tkoeppe @jensmaurer

[AlisdairM]

I would love to see this clean-up considered for the C++26 FDIS, but first it needs a rebase!

[frederick-vs-ja]

I would love to see this clean-up considered for the C++26 FDIS, but first it needs a rebase!

I rebased the changes many times to resolve conflicts. But the label hasn't been removed for a long while.

[jensmaurer]

@jwakely , this concerns library wording.

[W-E-Brown]

On Dec 15, 2025, at 8:02 AM, Jens Maurer ***@***.***> wrote: @jensmaurer commented on this pull request. In source/lib-intro.tex <#6419 (comment)>: > @@ -528,8 +528,8 @@ \pnum Several entities -defined in \ref{\firstlibchapter} through \ref{\lastlibchapter} and \ref{depr} -are only defined for the purpose of exposition. +declared in \ref{\firstlibchapter} through \ref{\lastlibchapter} and \ref{depr} +are only declared for the purpose of exposition. Each definition is also a declaration, so "declared" alone is enough. But the "only" should be after the "declared".

I believe the phrase "the purpose of" is unnecessary. Instead, I recommend "...are declared for exposition only." Further, I doubt we need to repeat "declared"; instead, I recommend "are provided for exposition only."