[Moved to DR at the May, 2015 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (June, 2014):

Delete the third item of 6.4.7 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 and renumber the succeeding items:

3. If reordering member declarations in a class yields an alternate valid program under (1) and (2), the program is ill-formed, no diagnostic is required.

The rules for class scope in 6.4.7 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 include the following:

2. A name N used in a class S shall refer to the same declaration in its context and when re-evaluated in the completed scope of S. No diagnostic is required for a violation of this rule.

3. If reordering member declarations in a class yields an alternate valid program under (1) and (2), the program is ill-formed, no diagnostic is required.

The need for rule #3 is not clear; it would seem that any otherwise-valid reordering would have to violate rule #2 in order to yield a different interpretation. Taken literally, rule #3 would also apply to simply reordering nonstatic data members with no name dependencies at all. Can it be simply removed?