The concept syntax has been discussed already ad nauseam. The current syntax is inspired by the ConceptsLite proposal that will eventually make its way into C++, so in a distant future it should be familiar to a lot of people.
Considering that the concept definitions will be roughly 0.0005% of all Nim code ever written, I find it a bit strange that everyone spends so much time arguing about the peculiarities of the syntax. With concepts, it's the thousands of functions written to accept concept parameters that are important, not the syntax used in the definition of the concept. We should focus on the semantics of what can be expressed in a concept rather than how the syntax looks like (obviously, beauty here is in the eye of the beholder). But anyway, here is one of my previous attempts to shot down alternative syntax proposals: [https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/issues/5770#issuecomment-298886380](https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/issues/5770#issuecomment-298886380)
