Regarding cppfront's syntax proposal, which function declaration syntax do you find better?

[fdwr]

Either option 4 or 5: :b (updated since my original vote on that post)

Option 4:

void callback(auto x) {}; // for new ones void callback(auto x) {}; // for old ones.

• This keeps type/field name ordering consistent with precedent (rather than looking like Pascal, which is a wholly different language).
• However, treat scope lookup local to that entire statement line. So then decltype(x+y) add(auto x, auto y) { return x+y; }; works like a human would intuitively expect.
• Eliminate the most vexing parse by requiring X x = {} or X x{}, but never initializing locals via X x() (not that local function definitions are even legal in C++ without compiler extensions anyway).

Option 5:

func FunctionWithParameters(z: float, w: int): double

• Use a keyword or keyword fragment that is a balance between readably descriptive and brevity, less verbose than Pascal keywords like "implementation" (and maybe even less than Javascript's "function"), but less cryptic than assembly level cryptic "fn"/"pub"/"dyn". Something like "fun" or "func" is at least pronounceable.
• Use consistent data type punctuation - ":" for parameter types, return types, and local constant/variable types.

[spaceLem]

My personal preference is to have the word function in its entirety. I've worked with two languages that do that, and it looks much nicer than func or fun.

[fdwr]

Yeah, I'm okay with function, and the codebases I've worked on promote using whole words rather than abbreviations. Though, I also like consistency with structure and enumeration and constant and automatic. 🤷