From 9c69c2c6bcfa0d56178e9d801c1e5cf24c9cde0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bent Bisballe Nyeng <deva@aasimon.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 21:53:29 +0200
Subject: Tour3Log: Chapter 8

---
 tour3_log/tour3_log.tex | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

(limited to 'tour3_log/tour3_log.tex')

diff --git a/tour3_log/tour3_log.tex b/tour3_log/tour3_log.tex
index 4fd50f6..abf9ec5 100644
--- a/tour3_log/tour3_log.tex
+++ b/tour3_log/tour3_log.tex
@@ -166,4 +166,27 @@ Is it possible to somehow know, with a constexpr if, inside a
 constexpr function if it is currently being invoked in a constexpr
 context?
 
+\section*{Chapter 8: Concepts and Generic Programming}
+Is it somehow possible to indicate which specific types are allowed as
+template parameters? If for example it is unwanted to generate both a
+\texttt{Foo<int>} and \texttt{Foo<long int>} by accident? My guess is
+that this can be done with a concept/requires?
+
+\bigskip
+
+%In the example with \texttt{advance} it is stated
+%that \texttt{random\_access\_iterator} is ``stronger''
+%than \texttt{forward\_iterator}. Where/how is this relationship
+%established? does one extend the other for example?
+%In particular, how would two concepts be ranked if they are
+%completely disjoint in their respective requirement rules?
+In the case of a concept overload ambiguity, what can a developer do
+to point to a specific one and fix the ambiguity?
+
+\bigskip
+
+Are there any concepts required to be ``pre'' defined by the compiler
+that would otherwise be hard to express with \texttt{requires} clauses?
+Some of the fundamental language concepts for example.
+
 \end{document}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

