There are keywords with a consistent meaning: public and private. I'd
prefer those.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, 23:43 Sebastian Büttner via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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 {
> > };
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>