Rationale (August, 2011):

As given in the preceding note.

Additional note (April, 2011):

These points appear to have been addressed by previous resolutions, so presumably the issue is now NAD.

Rationale:

This is not a defect; the standard unambiguously makes the above example ill-formed due to ambiguity.

Rationale:

This is not a defect; it is not necessary to pinpoint cross-references to this level of detail.

Issue 2:

13.7.7.3 [temp.func.order] paragraph 4 says:

Using the transformed function parameter list, perform argument deduction against the other function template. The transformed template is at least as specialized as the other if, and only if, the deduction succeeds and the deduced parameter types are an exact match (so the deduction does not rely on implicit conversions).

Issue 3:

13.7.7.3 [temp.func.order] paragraph 5 says:

A template is more specialized than another if, and only if, it is at least as specialized as the other template and that template is not at least as specialized as the first.

    template<class T> void f(T,int);
    template<class T> void f(T, T);
    void f(1,1);

Issue 1:

13.7.7.3 [temp.func.order] paragraph 2 says:

Given two overloaded function templates, whether one is more specialized than another can be determined by transforming each template in turn and using argument deduction (13.10.3 [temp.deduct] ) to compare it to the other.