[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++][RFC] Rewrite CPOs with resolver functions (PR #209104)

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -40,50 +42,50 @@ concept __can_borrow = is_lvalue_reference_v<_Tp> || enable_borrowed_range<remov
 
 namespace ranges {
 namespace __begin {
-template <class _Tp>
-concept __member_begin = __can_borrow<_Tp> && requires(_Tp&& __t) {
-  { _LIBCPP_AUTO_CAST(__t.begin()) } -> input_or_output_iterator;
-};
-
 void begin() = delete;
 
-template <class _Tp>
-concept __unqualified_begin =
-    !__member_begin<_Tp> && __can_borrow<_Tp> && __class_or_enum<remove_cvref_t<_Tp>> && requires(_Tp&& __t) {
-      { _LIBCPP_AUTO_CAST(begin(__t)) } -> input_or_output_iterator;
-    };
-
-struct __fn {
-  template <class _Tp>
-  [[nodiscard]] _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr auto operator()(_Tp (&__t)[]) const noexcept
-    requires(sizeof(_Tp) >= 0) // Disallow incomplete element types.
-  {
-    return __t + 0;
+struct __fn : _CPO<[]<class _Ep> consteval noexcept {
+  // [range.access.begin]
+
+  // Given a subexpression E with type T, let t be an lvalue that denotes the reified object for E. Then:
----------------
ldionne wrote:

I mean, this is obviously a huge readability improvement in my opinion. IMO the discussion is mostly about whether there other traps we're falling into here. Are other implementations doing it this way?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209104