carbon-lang/docs/design/syntactic_conventions.md

Syntactic conventions

Table of contents

• TODO
• Overview
• Alternatives
  • Types before or after name

TODO

This is a skeletal design, added to support the overview. It should not be treated as accepted by the core team; rather, it is a placeholder until we have more time to examine this detail. Please feel welcome to rewrite and update as appropriate.

Overview

Right now we expect variable syntax like: Int: x.

There are probably other syntactic conventions that can be added here, too.

Alternatives

Types before or after name

While we are currently keeping types first, matching C++, there is significant uncertainty around the right approach here. While adding the colon improves the grammar by unambiguously marking the transition from type to a declared identifier, in essentially every other language with a colon in a similar position, the identifier is first and the type follows. However, that ordering would be very inconsistent with C++.

One very important consideration here is the fundamental approach to type inference. Languages which use the syntax <identifier>: <type> typically allow completely omitting the colon and the type to signify inference. With C++, inference is achieved with a placeholder keyword auto, and Carbon is currently being consistent there as well with auto: <identifier>. For languages which simply allow omission, this seems an intentional incentive to encourage inference. On the other hand, there has been strong advocacy in the C++ community to not overly rely on inference and to write the explicit type whenever convenient. Being consistent with the ordering of identifier and type may ultimately be less important than being consistent with the incentives and approach to type inference. What should be the default that we teach? Teaching to avoid inference unless it specifically helps readability by avoiding a confusing or unhelpfully complex type name, and incentivizing that by requiring auto or another placeholder, may cause as much or more inconsistency with languages that use <identifier>: <type> as retaining the C++ ordering.

That said, all of this is largely unknown. It will require a significant exploration of the trade-offs and consistency differences. It should also factor in further development of pattern matching generally and whether that has an influence on one or another approach. Last but not least, while this may seem like something that people will get used to with time, it may be worthwhile to do some user research to understand the likely reaction distribution, strength of reaction, and any quantifiable impact these options have on measured readability. We have only found one very weak source of research that focused on the order question (rather than type inference versus explicit types or other questions in this space). That was a very limited PhD student's study of Java programmers that seemed to indicate improved latency for recalling the type of a given variable name with types on the left (as in C++). However, those results are far from conclusive.

TODO: Get a useful link to this PhD research (a few of us got a copy from the professor directly).