On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:06:30 +0000, bearophile wrote: > Justin Whear: > >> What benefits would accrue from adding this? Static verification that >> a structure implements the specified concepts? > > Not just that, but also the other way around: static verification that a > "Concept" is strictly sufficient for any instantiation of a specific > template. This is what Haskell/Rust do. > > Bye, > bearophile
By this do mean replacing the template constraint `if (isInputRange!R)` syntax? If so, we need concept definition syntax, but we do not necessarily need a "struct realizes concept" syntax. And, in fact, I would argue against it as a static assert would continue to be sufficient.