The "type first" declaration syntax is a source of much wailing and gnashing of teeth when it comes to trying to parse C++. See the "most vexing parse" [1].
The two examples on Wikipedia are both caused by this, even though it's not explicitly spelled out:
int i(int(my_dbl)); // two calls to int's constructor
// in Java/C# style syntax:
int i = new int(new int(my_dbl)); //no ambiguity
TimeKeeper time_keeper(Timer());
// in Java/C# style syntax:
TimeKeeper time_keeper = new TimeKeeper(new Timer());
I would also say that just moving the type after the variable name doesn't fully solve the issue - it's the : syntax for initialization that does this. Here is a hypothetical C++ where the syntax remained the same as today, but (return) type was moved at the end of a declaration:
typedef double my_dbl;
typedef int i;
foo (my_dbl double ) void {
i int (int(my_dbl));
//unambigous: i is an int initialized with an int constructed from my_dbl
f (double) int; //unambigous: f is a function from double to int
g int (my_dbl); //unambigous: g is an int constructed from my_dbl
bar((my_dbl)i);
//ambigous: calling bar with i cast to double, or calling it with a function from my_dbl to i (double to int)?
} X *y;