> So your idea of better c++ which is intended to be LESS confusing than C
(and I find it to be the opposite ironically)
> is to add yet more confusion to the mix by overloading existing keywords?
Why not try inventing some new keywords instead?

Not sure why you state like this.

'auto' would still keep the meaning of deducing as for classic templates.
I don't see any overloading, but a new context where to use.
At the moment, it's just a floating proposal, aimed at exploiting multiple
parameter packs.

Of course, some more elaboration is needed, for example to understand
whether
partial specialization is manageable, with eventual limits, exactly as the
fact that
in case of multiple packs, then the syntax auto..[N] will be a must in
template-ids
in order to allow non-first packs to be useful. But, absence of auto..[N]
would still
be valid, leading the first pack to grab everything.

An obstacle may be about considering or not the 'defaulted' behaviour
something
bad as default parameter values for functions,
based on what I have read on the posts mentioned at the begin of this
thread.
On the other hand, at the moment I have no clue for such bad perspective
from the
community about defaulted deduction, but my knowledge of past discussions
is limited.