[except.handle] p9 handler vs. implicit handler

[except.handle] p7 says

A handler is considered active when initialization is complete for the parameter (if any) of the catch clause. Also, an implicit handler is considered active when the function std​::​terminate is entered due to a throw.

Since the implicit handler can be considered active, it should also be considered as a matching handler. Simultaneously, [except.handle] p9 sates

If no matching handler is found, the function std​::​terminate is invoked;

Then, whether the implicit handle can be found? this issue is caused by that [except.handle] p7 and [except.handle] p9 have a cross-dependence. I think we should improve [except.handle] p9 to eliminate the dependence:

If no matching handler other than the implicit handler is found, the function std​::​terminate is invoked;

which means, the "the matching handler" case only considers the lexcially handlers.

Start with [except.handle] paragraphs 7 and 9 in the C++ draft and compare how “active” and “matching” handlers interact, especially when std::terminate is entered after a throw. Check the surrounding exception-handling wording and determine whether p9 should explicitly exclude the implicit handler; done means the paragraphs no longer depend circularly on each other and preserve the intended distinction.