On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:46 AM Anoop Rana via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
I was reading temp.arg.explicit and noticed that there may be some defect in the wording there. [...]

If all of the template arguments can be deduced, they may all be omitted; in this case, the empty template argument list <> itself may also be omitted. "

If all of the template arguments can be deduced or obtained from default template arguments, they may all be omitted; in this case, the empty template argument list <> itself may also be omitted.

FWIW, I agree with your reasoning, and this looks like what we call an "editorial change" (as opposed to a feature), for which the correct venue is not a WG21 paper but simply a GitHub pull request to fix the "typo."  I encourage you to open a pull request at
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pulls

In this case IMO you don't even really need to repeat your detailed reasoning there; the target audience will instantly understand the point of this change. :)  They may be able to find a subtle reason the current wording is correct (e.g. if your addition is subtly implied by some other wording elsewhere), but I think there's a very good chance that this editorial change would simply be accepted.

(Note for other readers: GitHub pull requests are totally not appropriate for changes to the intent of the Standard, such as new features; those require a paper. Pull requests are appropriate for simple typos, code-formatting typos, English-grammar nits, and other small non-functional editorial changes, such as this one, where the intent is to make the existing wording better match the existing intent.)

my $.02,
–Arthur