[goto11]

But that would only help you if you assign the numeric literal directly to a variable. If you use it in an expression like `foo(10)` or `10 * bar` you would still not see the numeric type specified.

So if you want the type to be always explicit, the type specifier should be coupled with the literal like `10[i32]` or similar, so you can write `foo(10[i32])`.

[moss2]

I might not be against that...

Assigning variables or calling methods (when you discard the return value) would look the same as is typical in many languages:

    int x = foo(); // foo() returns int but we can see that in what type x is
    foo(); // we don't care what foo() returns

Named variables in method calls would have to have the type so as to not hide what type a method-as-parameter returns:

    CoolObject cool_obj = bar(int arg1: foo())