Parameter-less templates?

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 09:41:45 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> I think strictly speaking, that is a "parameterless 
> parameterized function", as opposed to a "non parameterized 
> function".
>

No, this is simply syntax sugar on top of eponymous template 
declaration.

> In regards to template (I mean the actual "template"), I guess 
> I wish we could either:
> 1. Allow non-parameterized templates (eg template foo {...})
> 2. Allow invoking a template without parameters (provided the 
> template has 0 parameters, or default parameters), without 
> doing "!()"
>

Amen !