But you can't know how many parameters do a user-defined "node" have. I don't see how it can work for generic data structures without a specific syntax for "the children of this node". Go also uses [] for generics, doesn't it?
At that point I find a uniform system (without special-casing arrays and pointers - they are also just types) would be simpler.
The advantage of type after name is that it keeps the traversing order consistently pre-order (node, left, right), instead of either:
- the notoriously ridiculous spiral cdecl: reading stuff right (output), node (func name) and left (input)
- create a new name to describe the function in pre-order: Func<Input, Output>