It would, but with its own cost. All current programs using fn as an identifier would malfunction.   There are far less common and longer potential keywords, which have been rejected for that reason.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Filip <fph2137_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Mi 19.03.2025 09:22 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] Proposal: Making The auto Keyword Optional in Trailing Return Types An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Sebastian Wittmeier <wittmeier_at_[hidden]>; std-proposals_at_[hidden]; Just a thought but wouldn’t introducing keyword ‘fn’  Simplify compilation? It would be easier for the compiler to know if what is being written is specifically a function or a variable. Cheers, Filip Wiadomość napisana przez Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> w dniu 19 mar 2025, o godz. 07:02:  See https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/cn863t/why_is_auto_required_when_using_a_trailing_return/?rdt=44901 with https://godbolt.org/z/2jXUG9   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Fady al Dhaim via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Mi 19.03.2025 02:57 Betreff:[std-proposals] Proposal: Making The auto Keyword Optional in Trailing Return Types An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Fady al Dhaim <fadyaldhaim_at_[hidden]>; Hello, I’d like to propose a small but meaningful change to C++: making auto optional in trailing return types. 1. Motivation Currently, auto is required in functions that use trailing return types: auto func() -> int; // Required However, this requirement is redundant and misleading because: * The return type is explicitly specified (int), so auto adds no value. * auto implies type deduction, but no deduction is happening here. A more natural syntax would allow: func() -> int; // More intuitive Right? Not only does this improve readability and consistency with standard function declarations, but it also aligns well with Software Engineering Structural Diagrams, such as UML Class Diagrams and Object Diagrams.   In UML Class Diagrams, method return types are typically represented after the function name, similar to how trailing return types work in C++. Allowing func() -> int; without auto makes the C++ syntax closer to UML representations, enhancing clarity and traceability between a codebase and its corresponding UML models. -------------------------------- 2. Why This Won’t Break Existing Code This proposal is backward-compatible because: * auto is already optional in normal return types: int func(); * This change is purely syntactic—it does not affect semantics. * Existing code using auto remains fully valid. auto func() -> int;  // Remains valid auto func() -> decltype(some_expression);  // Also valid Thus, this proposal only removes an unnecessary restriction without introducing breaking changes. -------------------------------- 3. Proposed Change Modify the C++ grammar so that functions using trailing return types no longer require auto. This would allow: Current (C++ Standard Today) auto func() -> int; // Required Proposed (New Syntax Allowance) func() -> int; // Allowed This makes the syntax more consistent with regular function declarations. -------------------------------- 4. Next Steps Would this be a reasonable proposal for a future C++ standard update? I’d love to hear your thoughts and suggestions on how this could be refined further. Best regards, Fady al Dhaim -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals