> I agree, these examples seem to be wrong, Binding `int&&`
> to an rvalue is better than binding `const int&` to an rvalue,
> but then for the other argument we have that binding
> `const int&` to an rvalue is better than the ellipsis.

Should I open an issue with PR for that ?


> If `T` is `int&`, then `const T&` and `T&&` are both `int&`.

Sure, I agree... in the sense that this would be
true if deduction would lead to int&.
However, since we agree above that deduction
fails, the statement about #1 and #2 is
consequently wrong, isn't it ?

>