[dcl.fct]/22 An abbreviated function template is _functionally_ equivalent to a function template

Problems with the presentation of the specification, which, when fixed, would not alter the (intended) meaning of the specification. Typos and obvious inconsistencies fall into this category.

I think this can be fixed as an editorial issue, but please advice me otherwise.

I believe that [dcl.fct]/22, when describing the equivalence relation between an abbreviated function template and a function template [emphasis mine]

An abbreviated function template is a function declaration that has one or more generic parameter type placeholders ([dcl.spec.auto]). An abbreviated function template is equivalent to a function template ([temp.fct]) [...]

should in fact be

[...] is functionally equivalent [...]

and that this is the intended meaning of the specification:

• The non-normative example of [dcl.fct]/22 uses functional equivalence:

  [...] The declarations above are functionally equivalent (but not equivalent) to their respective declarations below [...]

• P0717R1 discussed Concept TS's terse template syntax, with a Kona (15 | 14 | 13 | 2 | 3) vote to restrict redeclarations to identical forms (equivalence). P1141R2 later introduced abbreviated function templates with the specification cited above, and it seems just as an oversight that "functional equivalence" didn't make the normative spec, particularly as both authors of P07017R1 were co-authors of P1141R2.

Start with [dcl.fct]/22 and its non-normative example, then compare the wording with P0717R1 and P1141R2. Done means the normative paragraph accurately reflects the distinction shown by the example and the editorial change is validated against the surrounding standard text.