foo!(bar) ==> foo{bar}

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> It may be a problem, because inside a template expansion, the 
>>> template name with no arguments represents the current instantiation.
>>
>> Is that a behaviour which needs to be retained? After all, inside the 
>> template you have all of the template arguments, so you can write it 
>> out long-hand. (==> It's an issue of syntax sugar, not functionality). 
>> And I've found that you often want to have almost all of the arguments 
>> the same, except one or two different. ( ==> It's syntax sugar which 
>> might not be all that useful).
> 
> I think so. This may be a deal breaker for { }.

I don't understand this. Could you please explain the problem again and 
maybe illustrate with an example?

Andrei