> one would expect to annotate the return type as > foo(x : int) : string > since the pattern is showing foo applied to x. kind of like the C/C++ "declarati

> one would expect to annotate the return type as > foo(x : int) : string > since the pattern is showing foo applied to x. kind of like the C/C++ "declaration mirrors use" thing, i.e. int *foo; which means "the result of dereferencing `foo` is of type `int`" which is not the same as saying foo : Ptr<int>; because in the former, you're kind of describing what `foo` is a without actually saying it, if that makes sense. i find that way of specifying types counterintuitive in both C/C++ and MLs.