https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Sutton from comment #12) > I don't think that's a good idea. It means the template-id would be > characterized as an atomic constraint for purposes of partial > ordering. You lose the ability to order on constraints within the > concept, which means you're no better off than using a type trait for > the definition. True, I guess it's a trade-off between power and ease of use. Should I re-apply the change to coerce_template_parms?
