FWIW, +1 from me as the originator of this particular abuse of interval notation. It was originally less offensive since we used it in contexts where it was plain that the second member of the tuple is not a sentinel a la [i, 42), but we've had to avoid using it in less clear contexts ([i, n) isn't horrible, but [i, j) surely is). This context-sensitivity is a clear indicator that overloading the syntax is a bad idea.

I agree that we should not overload existing, established notation for counted ranges.

I don't have an "obvious" solution, but maybe we can define a slightly more elaborate device, maybe like “p + [0, N)” or so, to denote the set of iterators p + 0, p + 1, ..., p + (N - 1)? Something like a pair of a starting iterator plus the set of all valid offsets?

Editorial meeting: Define range of iterators. "Elements in the range" means dereferencing the iterators in the range. Use "p + [0,N)".