https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8) > I think we should reconsider the rule against partial specialization of a > variable concept, as that seems like the right way to handle this situation. Except that would still run into the DR 1430 issue: a requires-clause that uses a pack expansion would normalize using the primary template defined with a parameter pack, even if a later instantiation of that requires-clause would work better with a different partial specialization.
