Proposed resolution:

Change the synopsis in [futures.promise]:

// setting the result
void set_value(const R& r);
void set_value(see below);

And the definition be changed by qualifying the first signature:

void promise::set_value(const R& r);
void promise::set_value(R&& r);
void promise<R&>::set_value(R& r);
void promise<void>::set_value();

Rationale:

Solved by N3058.

[ 2010 Pittsburgh: Moved to NAD EditorialResolved. Rationale added below. ]

The definitions of promise::set_value need tidying up, the synopsis says:

// setting the result
void set_value(const R& r);
void set_value(see below);

Why is the first one there? It implies it is always present for all specialisations of promise, which is not true.

The definition says:

void set_value(const R& r);
void promise::set_value(R&& r);
void promise<R&>::set_value(R& r);
void promise<void>::set_value();

The lack of qualification on the first one again implies it's present for all specialisations, again not true.