I very much dislike reusing existing keywords with established meaning
for an entirely different purpose.
Even though i suspect that this is just a strawmen syntax i don't think
on the other hand that the suggestion is important enough to justify a
new keyword.

Sebastian

On 30.10.19 23:48, Bjorn Reese via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On 10/30/19 10:49 PM, Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
>> If I then _don't_ want to expose such a template parameter name, what
>> do I do?
>
> The proposal could make it opt-in instead of opt-out. That would not
> expose existing template parameters without the consent of the
> template author. For example:
>
> template <explicit class value_type,
> explicit class allocator_type>
> struct vector {
> };