[dcl.constexpr] awkward grammar in resolution of CWG2602

CWG2602 asks for this text in [dcl.constexpr]/3:

A function is constexpr-suitable if:

• it is not a coroutine (9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]), and
• if the function is a constructor or destructor, its class does not have any virtual base classes.

The second bullet does fit well into the enclosing context ("A function is constexpr-suitable if, [...] if the function [...]"). This would be easier to read if rephrased:

A function is constexpr-suitable if:

• it is not a coroutine (9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]), and
• if the function either it is not a constructor or destructor, or its class does not have any virtual base classes.

or

A function is constexpr-suitable if:

• it is not a coroutine (9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]), and
• if the function it is not a constructor or destructor, its of a class does not have any with virtual base classes.

Locate [dcl.constexpr]/3 in the draft source and review the two proposed rewrites against the surrounding sentence. Choose and apply wording that is grammatically consistent while preserving the intended CWG2602 requirement, then verify the rendered paragraph.