[indirect.general, polymorphic.general] Should we define "indirect/polymorphic object"?

[frederick-vs-ja]

Currently, "indirect object" and "polymorphic object" are not formally introduced by italic style texts. Should we define them as "object whose type is an indirect/polymorphic specialization"?

On the other hand, as a "polymorphic object" mentioned [polymorphic.general] isn't an object of a polymorphic class type, and isn't even required to manage polymorphic class objects. Should we use another phrase or "polymorphic object" to avoid ambiguity?

[jwakely]

We do introduce optional object but not as formally as "an object whose type is a specialization of optional". Elsewhere we don't even bother with that, e.g. "A variant object holds and manages the lifetime of a value."