N.B. the proposed wording in this paper is missing a semi-colon after the definition of struct unwrap_ref_decay.

The description for unwrap_reference says:

The member typedef type of unwrap_reference <T> shall equal X& if T equals reference_wrapper<X>, T otherwise.

This should not say "equals" (see #491 and #2354)

The suggested change to [pairs.spec] is

Let Vi is unwrap_ref_decay_t <Ti> .

That should say "be" not "is"

And the changes to the Concurrency TS were not included in the motion to apply this paper, but the suggested change for the TS is wrong too.

Tomasz suggests that more instances of the pattern replaced by this paper are being introduced by other papers moved this week. We should do a pass over the draft after merging the motions to check for more places where this should be applied.