fn add(a: u8) -> u16 { let u15 t: a+7 } I admit it looks more wordy, but I think this is a good thing. It might be nice to allow it but issue

fn add(a: u8) -> u16 { let u15 t: a+7 } I admit it looks more wordy, but I think this is a good thing. It might be nice to allow it but issue a warning about widening types. As for the others, I kinda disagree. Enums allow for some nice syntax with match. Compare: match error_option { Ok(Some(a)) => {}, Ok(None(a)) => {}, Err=> {} } with match error_option { Error.Ok(Option.Some(a)) => {}, Error.Ok(Option.None(a)) => {}, Error.Err=> {} } See? It would get tedious fast with match pattern. I had never had problems with mut. The syntax is clear and unambiguous. It's fine as is really. I actually like knowing which pointers are mutable, by keyword instead of typing arcane stuff like @~ptr, @&ptr. Seeing how @ was a sigil for pointers this would make most people do a double somersault in fear of the GC pointer returning. I like macros with ! It tells you magic happens here beware. Not having those you'd have serious problem understanding where errors are once macro expands :? Ternary operator? Wth? You can just use if as a superio ternary (endless chaining) operator. let ter_demo = if a.is_none() then 3 else 2;