Proposed resolution:

1. Before [slice.arr.assign] insert a new sub-clause as indicated:

   -?- slice_array constructors [slice.arr.cons]

   slice_array(const slice_array&);
   

   -?- Effects: The constructed slice refers to the same valarray<T> object to which the argument slice refers.

2. Before [gslice.array.assign] insert a new sub-clause as indicated:

   -?- gslice_array constructors [gslice.array.cons]

   gslice_array(const gslice_array&);
   

   -?- Effects: The constructed slice refers to the same valarray<T> object to which the argument slice refers.

3. Before [mask.array.assign] insert a new sub-clause as indicated:

   -?- mask_array constructors [mask.array.cons]

   mask_array(const mask_array&);
   

   -?- Effects: The constructed slice refers to the same valarray<T> object to which the argument slice refers.

4. Before [indirect.array.assign] insert a new sub-clause as indicated:

   -?- indirect_array constructors [indirect.array.cons]

   indirect_array(const indirect_array&);
   

   -?- Effects: The constructed slice refers to the same valarray<T> object to which the argument slice refers.

I found a missing specification of the copy constructor of the following class templates:

• slice_array ([template.slice.array])

• gslice_array ([template.gslice.array])

• mask_array ([template.mask.array])

• indirect_array ([template.indirect.array])