Agreed that class template parameters should be private by default, and having them available externally should be opt-in. There's a lot of code in the wild that assumes that template parameter names can be changed without API breakage. I like the idea of reusing access control modifiers (public, protected, private) for this purpose.

-- T.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 31, 2019 8:15 AM, Dmitry via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> Decomposing the type to know the template parameters is not the same as
>> making these parameters part of the class' public interface.
>
> Right, not exactly the same.
>
>> There are
>> cases when template parameters are used for auxiliary purposes, e.g. for
>> SFINAE or tagging and specialization. These parameters should not be
>> exposed.
>
> It looks like this statement is the most important thing. And I am struggling to understand why it is so. Can you please elaborate on this more? Why do you think it is a bad idea? (I hope you read my proposal and know that if there is already a user-defined type with the same name, they won't be declared).
>
>> I'm strongly opposed to making the proposed behavior the default. IMO,
>> if implemented, it must be opt-in.
>>
>> Another thing to consider: unnamed template parameters.
>
> Good point, but the answer naturally follows if you imagine what you can do with this unnamed parameters inside class - you can't declare using/typedef, ditto here, the answer to your question - there will be no implicitly generated typedefs.