<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom Honermann <span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:Thomas.Honermann@synopsys.com">Thomas.Honermann@synopsys.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail-">On 2/14/2017 10:24 AM, Hannes Hauswedell via cfe-dev wrote:<br>
> I previously planned designing concepts as variables and don't yet see<br>
> the added flexibility of the function interface as really important, but<br>
> I agree that it adds consistency to also have function concepts.<br>
<br>
</span>I'll note that the Ranges proposal [1] exclusively specifies function<br>
concepts.<br></blockquote><div>Which makes sense if you believe in overloading concept names.<br><br></div><div>There's a proposal (not yet reviewed by the committee) on (characterization mine) being more conservative about how Concepts are in C++:<br><a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0587r0.pdf">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0587r0.pdf</a><br></div><div><br></div>-- HT<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<br>
Tom.<br>
<br>
[1]: <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/n4620.pdf">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/<wbr>sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/<wbr>n4620.pdf</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>