Re: Concepts vs template constraints - the practical approach

[Denis Shelomovskij]

Your example, a bit improved:
---
// In std.concept, e.g.
template verify(alias concept, T) {
    //static assert(isConcept!concept, concept.stringof ~ " is not a 
concept"); //the test for particular concept's concepts can be added
    mixin concept!T;
}
template verify(alias concept) {
    mixin verify!(concept, typeof(this));
}

template satisfy(alias concept, T) {
    enum satisfy = __traits(compiles, verify!(concept, T));
}

// User code
template myConcept(A) {
    static assert(is(A.type), "Error 1: !is(A.type)");
    static assert(A.len >= 0, "Error 2: A.len < 0");
    static assert(is(typeof(A.init[0]) == A.type), "Error 3: 
typeof(A.init[0]) != A.type");
}

struct MyClass(T,int R) {
    alias T type;
    enum len = R;

    T[R] value;

    T opIndex(int idx) {
        return value[idx];
    }

    mixin verify!myConcept;
}

void myFunction(A)(A arr) {
    mixin verify!(myConcept, A);
}

void myOverlodedFunction(A)(A arr) if(satisfy!(myConcept, A)) {
    // Do something
}

void myOverlodedFunction(A)(int i, A arr) if(satisfy!(myConcept, A)) {
    // Do something
}

void myOverlodedFunction(T...)(T) {
    static assert(0, "Error: here should be some user-defined error 
message(s) based on T");
}

unittest {
    MyClass!(int,4) x;
    myFunction(x);
    //myFunction(1); //Error: static assert  "Error 1: !is(A.type)"
    myOverlodedFunction(x);
    myOverlodedFunction(3, x);
    //myOverlodedFunction(3, 2); //Error: static assert  "Error: here 
should be..."
}
---