Updated mangling specs

[Martin von Loewis]

> It's definitely the latter interpretation.  The intent was to express the
> "inverted A" quantifier, though it probably would have been clearer to
> say "for all" instead of "for any".

I trust you that this was indeed the intent. However, it seems that
the only reasonable implementation is to encode all expressions as
they appear in the source. If that is done, what can be saved by not
having to tell functionally-equivalent templates apart? Using an
expression encoding, 'I+10' and 'I+1+2+3+4' would turn out to be
different, so why explicitly mention that an implementation could
consider them equivalent?

Regards,
Martin