How about a special null template parameter?

[Engine Machine via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 15:58:14 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 21:21:22 UTC, Engine Machine wrote:
>> Well, I see that a template with 0 parameters can act as a 
>> "type", if you will.
>>
>> Just like functions
>>
>> void foo(T)(T x)
>>
>> acts like a normal function foo(3) even though it is a 
>> templated function.
>>
>> In fact, I see very little difference between a template with 
>> 0 parameters and a type.
>>
>> Type!() = Type
>
> I think this is a very bad idea theory-wise, if not in practice 
> as well. A template is a type constructor, not a type. They are 
> two very different things. You can get the size of a type, its 
> members, etc. while you cannot for a template.

Yeah, maybe... but I think this is a user issue and not a 
language issue.  The programmer should attempt to know what he is 
doing. I'd prefer to use an extended ascii syntax so we can have 
proper categorization of things.

e.g.,
æType - a type
½Template - a template

Or whatever.

That way it is very easy to know what is what ;) Symbols may 
vary...