catchy phrase for this idiom?

[Ary Borenszweig]

Denis Koroskin escribió:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:24:10 +0300, Jarrett Billingsley 
> <jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:37:06 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
>>> <jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
>>>> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you do this without the Template Identity syntax?
>>>>> (I'm going to start calling it this to promote the term I thought was
>>>>> best
>>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not suggesting it be removed.  I'm suggesting that if you were
>>>> only able to put one symbol in the template, it would be completely
>>>> unnecessary.  Templates would always resolve to the single symbol that
>>>> they declare.
>>>
>>> So without requiring the alias how do you rewrite my example?  I'm not
>>> saying you are wrong, I just don't grasp what you are saying.  An 
>>> example
>>> would be helpful.
>>
>> It would go along with the suggestion of having some kind of name for
>> the current template.  Something like:
>>
>> template Blah(T)
>> {
>>   static if(is(T : int))
>>      alias T this template;
>>   else
>>      alias T* this template;
>> }
>>
>> 'this template' (which reads like English, nicely) would be
>> lexicalized as a single token and would only be legal within
>> templates.  But this suggestion is somewhat orthogonal.
> 
> Sean has proposed (or let out a secret?) that:
> 
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:02:18 +0300, Sean Kelly <sean at invisibleduck.org> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, and should this actually be:
>>
>> template Blah(Stuff)
>> {
>>      alias ... this;
>> }
>>
>> I thought that was the new syntax.
>>

But maybe "this" gets confused with "this class' instance" (just the 
meaning, I think there's no ambiguity in the semantic pass). What about:

alias T template;

?