Hi Steven, I am going through the documentation and simultaneously try out some things that weren't immediately obvious to me. When I came to the paragraph about composing concepts the last sentence "We can even specialize concept_interface for it." tripped me up. My thought was "but do I have to? and how do composed concepts interact with manually composed any's?" so I gave it a try: I used your push_back concept and defined a size concept like this: template<class C> struct size { static size_t apply(C& cont) { return cont.size(); } }; namespace boost { namespace type_erasure { template<class C, class Base> struct concept_interface< ::size<C>, Base, C> : Base { size_t size() { return call(::size<C>(), *this); } }; } } which works fine: std::vector<int> vec; typedef any<push_back<_self, int>, _self&> any_push_back; any_push_back pb(vec); pb.push_back(10); pb.push_back(2); typedef any<size<_self>, _self&> any_size; any_size s(vec); std::cout << "Size = " << s.size() << std::endl; Now I wanted to try composition first manually: typedef any< mpl::vector< push_back<_self, int>, size<_self> >, _self& > any_manual_vecconcept; any_manual_vecconcept alvec(vec); alvec.push_back(13); alvec.push_back(11); std::cout << "Size = " << alvec.size() << std::endl; and then via "named composition": template<class T, class C> struct vecconcept : mpl::vector< push_back<T, C>, size<T> > {}; typedef any<vecconcept<_self, int>, _self&> any_vecconcept; any_vecconcept acvec(vec); acvec.push_back(15); acvec.push_back(17); std::cout << "Size = " << acvec.size() << std::endl; great everything works as expected, and no, I did not have to define a concept_interface for the composite interface. Now the first question is why would I want to? now the main reason for the exercise was how do these interact with each other and while I am at it how do they interact with the concepts they are composed of? Well I can freely interact as I hoped: any_vecconcept acvec2(alvec); any_manual_vecconcept alvec2(acvec); any_push_back pb3(alvec); any_push_back pb4(acvec); any_size s2(alvec); any_size s3(acvec); This is great! I might have missed it in the documentation, but I think this is really an important feature that deserves special mention. Now I gather that there is no way to do the opposite, something along the lines of any_vecconcept acvec3 = dynamic_any_cast<any_vecconcept>(s3); Well over the next days I will dive a bit deeper into the internals to see if implementing such a feature would be feasible. (because I need it before I could replace my current solution with type erasure) Steven, let me finish by saying thank you for the great work. regards Fabio