On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:56 AM Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 11:39 AM Kang Hewill via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>>
>> template<class In>
>>   concept indirectly-readable-impl =
>>     requires(const In in) {
>>       typename iter_value_t<In>;
>>       typename iter_reference_t<In>;
>>       typename iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>;
>>       { *in } -> same_as<iter_reference_t<In>>;
>>       { ranges::iter_move(in) } -> same_as<iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>>;
>>     } &&
>>     common_reference_with<iter_reference_t<In>&&, iter_value_t<In>&> &&

>> template<class In>
>>   concept indirectly-readable-impl =
>>     requires(const In in) {
>>       using value_type = typename iter_value_t<In>;
>>       using reference = typename iter_reference_t<In>;
>>       using rvalue_reference = typename iter_rvalue_reference_t<In>;
>>       { *in } -> same_as<reference>;
>>       { ranges::iter_move(in) } -> same_as<rvalue_reference>;
>>       requires common_reference_with<reference&&, value_type&>;

> Plus, the major change you made there doesn't have anything to do with aliases — you merely moved the previously-subsumed sub-concepts into the requires-expression. That could be done today, if we didn't care about subsumption; and it can't be done tomorrow, if we continue to care about subsumption. So your example is not only not-very-motivating, it's also apples-to-oranges.

It's unclear how this breaks subsumption. Are type aliases meaningful to subsumption?