Both of those declarations look weird to me. In Haskell it would be:
a :: Stringbob :: (String, Int, Double) -> [String]bob (a, b, c) = ...
... except that makes bob a function taking a tuple and it's much more idiomatic to curry it instead:
bob :: String -> Int -> Double -> [String]bob a b c = ...-- syntactic sugar for:-- bob = \a -> \b -> \c -> ...
The [T] syntax also has a prefix form [] T, so [String] could also be written [] String.
OCaml makes the opposite choice. In OCaml, a list of strings would be written string list, and a set of lists of strings would be string list set, a list of lists of integers int list list, etc.
Because let x: y is syntactically unambiguous, but you need to know that y names a type in order to correctly parse y x. (Or at least that's the case in C where a(b) may be a variable declaration or a function call depending on what typedefs are in scope.)
The same is true of std::endl. std::endl is simply defined as << '\n' << std::flush; nothing more, nothing less. In all cases where endl gives you a "properly translated" newline, so does \n.
s/diplomated/graduate/s/branche/industry (sector)/