Since the requires-clause is subordinate (in a way) to the template-head, maybe we can indent the requires-clause with two more spaces.

Since the requires-clause is subordinate (in a way) to the template-head, maybe we can indent the requires-clause with two more spaces.

FWIW, that is the formatting that we used for template declarations with requires-clauses in the Ranges TS, primarily because it allows adding requires-clauses to a pre-existing declaration without reflowing the rest of the declaration. It's minimally intrusive, in that sense.

I think adding blank lines between the declarations of the range algorithm overloads would help readability more.

It would be a radical (and controversial) change, but I have found consistently using late-specified return types, even when not syntactically required, gives a much more consistent layout. In particular, the function name, arguably the single most important part of a declaration, is in a much more predictable place. This was less of an issue before return types started being mini-programs in the type system using concepts.

Editorial meeting: Looks good as-is.