Re: Types on the right or on the left

>> Except static function() and static >> function foo() already have >> meaning, and if we allowed static return types (very possible) that >> would be ambiguous. This syntax is a no-go. > > If it is possible, why it's not the part of the RFC? Probably because > there's not much place where it would make sense. So, the only > objections so far have been: > <snip> > 3. We could somehow in some undefined time in the future allow static > there, even though we're designing it right now and we actually *do not* > allow it and see no reason to allow it. <snip> You seem to be under the assumption that I have designed this as THE RFC for return types, and there will be no others. Quite the contrary: it has been designed to be incredibly minimal, and has taken into consideration possible expansions and allowed for them to work. Other examples not already included are generics and function`