https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Casey Carter from comment #5) > If you think that defending against unconstrained templates is important, > then we should open a library issue to standardize that behavior. From my > experience with range-v3, fighting unconstrained templates seems to > generally be a losing battle; I think we'd be better off simply forbidding > them than trying to specify our way around them. Yes, I completely agree. I'm thinking of leaving unconstrained single-type overloads defined for C++03 mode, to defend against greedy unconstrained operators in old code. But for C++11 and later, when template authors have the tools to easily constrain their function templates, I think we should remove the single-type overloads and just have the constrained ones required by DR 685.
