[temp.deduct.call] p1 The comment for a function parameter pack is conflict

For a function parameter pack that occurs at the end of the parameter-declaration-list, deduction is performed for each remaining argument of the call, taking the type P of the declarator-id of the function parameter pack as the corresponding function template parameter type.

The formal example after this rule:

template<class T1, class ... Types> void g1(Types ..., T1);
g1(x, y, z);                  // error: Types is not deduced

However, we have implied that a template parameter pack can accept zero arguments and be deduced an empty sequence of template arguments in [temp.arg.explicit] p4

[Note 1: A trailing template parameter pack ([temp.variadic]) not otherwise deduced will be deduced as an empty sequence of template arguments. — end note]

That is, it also does not matter if Types is not deduced. I think the real reason why the above example is an error is that T1 is not deduced. In addition, the requirement of performing the deduction for a function parameter pack is that the pack should occur at the end of the parameter-declaration-list. Does the deduction really need that requirement?

Consider an example in the GCC bug file list

template<int N> struct UniqueType{};

template<class ...T, class U, class... Y>
void fun(T..., U, Y...){}

fun(UniqueType<0>{},UniqueType<1>{},UniqueType<2>{});

U is deduced with UniqueType<0>. T is deduced with an empty sequence. The behavior is more and less related to the above rule: T is not deduced and otherwise deduced to an empty, U and Y participate in the deduction. If this result is the intent of the standard, the comment in the above should also be changed to

// error: Types is deduced to empty, wrong number of arguments

Start with [temp.deduct.call] and the cited note in [temp.arg.explicit], then compare the two standard examples and the linked GCC example. Determine the intended deduction behavior and whether the end-of-parameter-declaration-list requirement is correct. Done means the wording and example comment consistently state the resolved rule.