> I do actually think about this sort of thing quite a bit Forgive me for being abrasive above. > I’m firmly of the belief that C style type syntax is never g

> I do actually think about this sort of thing quite a bit Forgive me for being abrasive above. > I’m firmly of the belief that C style type syntax is never going to not be confusing Yeah, C is going to stay C. No fixing that. The bummer is when new languages repeat the problem because they don't understand what causes it. > Personally I think a core problem is that declaration and use are different I claim that declaration and use can be the same. In all cases, you read the affixes for arrays, pointers, function calls, and struct/union fields from left to right. // declarations int i int a[10] int f(int arg)[10] { ... } int p@ // usage print i print a[1] print f(1)[1] print p@ You could change the declarations to use a "let" keyword, but I don't think it'll make them more readable while maintaining the goal of "declaration follows usage". > I’m not sure how I would declare the type of a function that returns a pointer to an array // function, pointer, array int f()@[10] ...