# New parametric functions syntax has a readability problem

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-parametric-functions-syntax-has-a-readability-problem/8036
**Category:** General Usage
**Created:** [December 28, 2017, 9:47am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-parametric-functions-syntax-has-a-readability-problem/8036 "2017-12-28T09:47:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![essenciary](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/essenciary/32/210469_2.png) [@essenciary](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/essenciary)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-parametric-functions-syntax-has-a-readability-problem/8036/9 "2017-12-28T15:21:46Z")

</div>

The topic pops up here and there on discourse, so people have been bitten - another one: [Return type assertions with type parameters](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/return-type-assertions-with-type-parameters/4984)  
They didn’t generate a lot of feedback – I just stumbled into them as I got the error and looked for a solution.

Don’t know what trips the compiler. Some other thread was speculating operator precedence.

Yes, maybe it has to do mostly with my coding style - parametric short-form functions with return type annotations might not be all that common 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-parametric-functions-syntax-has-a-readability-problem/8036)._