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

[Walter Bright]

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 { }.