syntax suggestion for concepts

[W Karas]

[Note: either groups.google.com or the comp.std.c++ moderation SW
appears to be eating messages, so this may wind up being a
repetitive posting.]

I don't really see what that proves. T is not always the same as RT.
And then there's find_if, transform, accumulate, lower_bound, and a
whole slew of other algorithms with more complicated type
relationships.

I can only say this doesn't seem to jive with the usage of
templates that I personally have seen. Not much point in
arguing about guesstimates of statistical frequency of
patterns in the "general population" of code.

It isn't. Did somebody claim it was?

I did. I tend to use the term "OO polymorphism" to cover
the idea of writing code that is only bound to a class
interface subset, regardless of whether the interface
subset is explicit or implicit. I realize that's
different for how this term in normally used in
the C++ realm, but then, what term should be used
for the more general idea?

Whoosh! That went right over my head; I have no clue what you're
trying to say here.

This subthread was originally about whether the syntax
for Concepts should be very different from the
class declaration syntax, in order to emphasize
the difference between a Concept and a base class,
and the general difference between GP and OO.