I've felt this as well, been using D for a couple years now, and this is the kind of thing that just makes me have to context switch more than I'd like. With the current implementation of the language it's hard to avoid, and function's return type can be quite complex, so writing it down can be hard.
Another reason is the (ironically) dynamic nature of a return type. E.g.
auto whatDoesItReturn(int i)() {
static if (i == 0) { return int.init; }
else { return string.init; }
}
Template code can do that quite easily and then you don't have a choice but to write auto as the return value.
What would be fantastic if the documentation could be given access to the the compiler's return type inference, so that it could document the auto returns with a little more info.
Another way useful approach would be to implement protocols like in swift, or traits like in scala/rust/others, signatures in ml, etc. Then you would be able to define the interface of what a function returns.
Another reason is the (ironically) dynamic nature of a return type. E.g.
auto whatDoesItReturn(int i)() { static if (i == 0) { return int.init; } else { return string.init; } }
Template code can do that quite easily and then you don't have a choice but to write auto as the return value.
What would be fantastic if the documentation could be given access to the the compiler's return type inference, so that it could document the auto returns with a little more info.
Another way useful approach would be to implement protocols like in swift, or traits like in scala/rust/others, signatures in ml, etc. Then you would be able to define the interface of what a function returns.