What do you think? Would it make sense to provide two more variants for views::slice?
If you do, they should certainly have "extent" not "end" semantics. This also matches `substr`.
Absolutely no. Paired, consecutive parameters of the same type but different meanings are hostile; we must not repeat this mistake. The consistency argument picked something similar out of context but missed the picture of a consistent expectation. I have no idea how to convince myself that views::indices(3, 10) means {3, 4, ..., 9} but views::slice(3, 10) takes {3, 4, ..., 10, 11, 12}.