The presence of template specialisations and constexpr functions means that the GP is right here; you cannot decide whether an arbitrary piece of C++ is syntactically valid without instantiating templates and/or interpreting constexpr functions. Consider

    template <int>
    struct foo {
        template <int>
        static int bar(int);
    };

    template <>
    struct foo<8> {
        static const int bar = 99;
    };

    constexpr int some_function() { return (int) sizeof(void*); };

Now given the snippet

    foo<some_function()>::bar<0>(1);

then if some_function() returns something other than 8, we use the primary template and foo<N>::bar<0>(1) is a call to a static template member function.

But if some_function() does return 8, we use the specialisation and the foo<8>::bar is an int with value 99; so we ask is 99 less than the expression 0>(1) (aka "false", promoted to the int 0).

That is, there are two entirely different but valid parses depending on whether we are compiling on a 32- or 64-bit system.

Parsing C++ is hard.

EDIT: Godbolt example: https://godbolt.org/z/yR3YHW