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?

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

Have you considered the difference that separate pass compilation as used by Eiffel, and runtime compilation as used my Perl makes?

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

file_status (filedesc: INTEGER): INTEGER is
...
[download]

... looks to me like the types are written after the typed variables/parameters. Hence ... looks like it's not using prefix types. All I'm trying to say is that we should look at C and NOT repeat it's seemingly bright ideat to put the type before the variable ending up putting the type information all around the variable.

Jenda


Support Denmark! Defend the free world!

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.

Yeah, it doesn't have pointers, it has references. Is the difference between the two relevant? I think not!

Jenda


Support Denmark! Defend the free world!