If you are talking about prototypes, that's hardly the same.

Many staticly typed languages use it successfully, and if it stays optional I don't see a point against it.

If you don't like the notation, you are of course free to omit the types - that's why I wrote optional static typing.

BTW. I guess it would be Int @arr instead of Int @arr[].

(Update: fixed thinko spotted by holli)

Some programming languages use it with mixed success. With success for the simple cases of int and char variables, and utter failure for the more complex cases of (horrors) pointers to functions returning pointers or functions receiving pointers to functions. char *(*)foo(...)? Feeling well?

Jenda


Support Denmark! Defend the free world!

The fact that there is a bad example doesn't mean it can't be done right. Take a look at Eiffel for an example of simple, readable type declarations.

---

Perl 6 in German -- Difficult Sudoku

But Perl, either in its 5 or 6 incarnation is not going to have pointers anyway. Also, in 6 the static type system is optional, and in 5, should it ever be brought to it, it would too.