[temp.arg.explicit] Misleading note about explicit template arguments on constructors

[jensmaurer]

The note in paragraph 7 says "Because ... constructor member function templates are called without using a function name, there is no way to provide an explicit template argument list for these function templates."

This reasoning falls short for the other situations where a constructor template may be named, e.g. in an explicit instantiation or specialization.

I'd suggest to replace the "called" with "named" and add cross-references to [class.ctor] and [class.mem].

There is 12-year-old core issue 581 on the subject whether explicit instantiations or specializations of constructors should be allowed to use explicit template arguments, but the status quo normative situation in 17.9.1 [temp.arg.explicit] p1 seems pretty clear ("function template name").