[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting; moved to DR at the October, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraph 3 as follows:

At Except in a declaration of a constructor, destructor, or conversion function, at least one type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier is required in a declaration unless it declares a constructor, destructor or conversion function shall appear in a complete type-specifier-seq or a complete decl-specifier-seq.⁹² A type-specifier-seq shall not define...

(Note: paper N2546, voted into the Working Draft in February, 2008, addresses part of this issue.)

The constraints on type-specifiers given in 9.2.9 [dcl.type] paragraphs 2 and 3 (at most one type-specifier except as specified, at least one type-specifier, no redundant cv-qualifiers) are couched in terms of decl-specifier-seqs and declarations. However, they should also apply to constructs that are not syntactically declarations and that are defined to use type-specifier-seqs, including 7.6.2.8 [expr.new], 8.7 [stmt.jump], 9.3.2 [dcl.name], and 11.4.8.3 [class.conv.fct].