fixups: addressed feedback from Jens

Author: joshuaberne

source/expressions.tex

@@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@
 If the expression \tcode{this}
 appears within the predicate of a contract assertion\iref{basic.contract.general}
 (including as the result of an implicit transformation\iref{expr.prim.id.general}
-and including in the bodies of nested \grammarterm{lambda-expression}s), %JMB: I think this is hard to parse, and lori suggested removing the second comma.  It's "If (X including Y) and Z then A" but we have "If X and Y, and Z, then A".   Should we make this "If X (including Y) and Z, A"
+and including in the bodies of nested \grammarterm{lambda-expression}s)
 and the current class
 encloses the contract assertion,
 \keyword{const} is combined with the \grammarterm{cv-qualifier-seq}
@@ -1402,7 +1402,7 @@
 If this transformation occurs
 in the predicate of a precondition assertion of a constructor of \tcode{X}
 or a postcondition assertion of a destructor of \tcode{X},
-the expression is ill-formed.  %JMB: Should we add an xref to dcl.contract.func?
+the expression is ill-formed.
 \begin{note}
 If \tcode{C} is not \tcode{X} or a base class of \tcode{X},
 the class member access expression is ill-formed.
@@ -3614,7 +3614,7 @@
 initialized\iref{dcl.init,class.copy.ctor} with
 its corresponding argument,
 and each precondition assertion of the function
-is evaluated.  %JMB: should we have an xref to dcl.contract.func here?
+is evaluated.\iref{dcl.contract.func}
 If the function is an explicit object member function and
 there is an implied object argument\iref{over.call.func},
 the list of provided arguments is preceded by the implied object argument
@@ -3674,7 +3674,7 @@
 The \grammarterm{postfix-expression} is sequenced before
 each \grammarterm{expression} in the \grammarterm{expression-list}
 and any default argument.
-The initialization of a parameter or,  %JMB: do we need a comma before the or too?
+The initialization of a parameter or,
 if the implementation introduces any temporary objects
 to hold the values of function parameters\iref{class.temporary},
 the initialization of those temporaries,
@@ -7864,7 +7864,7 @@
 the full-expression of its initialization is a constant expression
 when interpreted as a \grammarterm{constant-expression}
 with all contract assertions
-using the ignore evaluation semantic\iref{basic.contract.eval}, and  %JMB: Should we remove this "and", there are 3 bullets?
+using the ignore evaluation semantic\iref{basic.contract.eval},
 \begin{note}
 Within this evaluation,
 \tcode{std::is_constant_evaluated()}\iref{meta.const.eval}