[intro.object] The term "potentially-overlapping subobject" doesn't seem to exclude reference members

[frederick-vs-ja]

no_unique_address can be applied to non-static reference data members, which is needed for ranges::minmax.

However, the current wording seemingly implies that a non-static data member of a reference type declared with [[no_unique_address]] would also be a "potentially-overlapping subobject" even if it can't be a subobject.

[jensmaurer]

Any suggestions how to fix that?

[frederick-vs-ja]

Any suggestions how to fix that?

I've submitted the PR. cplusplus/CWG#254 may be related, but I think this can be resolved editorially.