A final proposal for await syntax

[scottmcm]

Thanks, boats, for another excellent post!

---

@The blog post

In this model, even the ? operator can be thought of as a modification on the period construct.

I'm now really amused by the idea that ? is actually just sugar for .ʔ

(For extra clarity, just in case: I'm definitely not actually proposing that the latter be made to work.)

---

@mgeisler

I guess both foo.await and foo.r#await would exist — and do different things

loop { x } and r#loop { x } also both exist and do different things.

This kind of thing is why raw identifier syntax exists, so I don't understand the argument that it's a problem.

---

@Cazadorro

you guys discussed things internally, and already moved passed ideas the community re-argued about even though they were dead in the water.

I'd like to point out that the paper writeup for the previous syntax thread explicitly said

For that reason, we have excluded sigil based syntaxes like @ from further consideration. If we adopt a postfix syntax, it will include the await keyword in some way.

That didn't stop sigil-based syntax from being proposed in the thread anyway.

If you have suggestions for better ways for teams to communicate the state of things, I encourage you to give feedback to the governance working group.