A final proposal for await syntax

After all the ‘thinking out loud’ that has been done on the thread I started yesterday here I have come away convinced that changing field access deserves its own RFC and that sneaking this big a change into the language design as part of the async/await RFC feels like something that a lot of people will only accept if due process were followed. Even if we end right back at @withoutboats’s last proposal.

In lieu of this a different sigil from . should be chosen, I think “line noise” is a weak argument to have such a broad scope for this RFC.

If careful consideration can be demonstrated I think a lot of this can be put to bed quite easily.

4 Likes