It was. We also discussed and reached consensus about a path to resolving await syntax as a whole, which I have created a separate thread for. As to for await syntax in particular, we decided that:
- We are not certain we want this syntax at all for a couple of reasons.
- If we do, we think we likely can make it not a separate syntax, but just treat streams as processable by for loops as a streaming iterator of futures.
- No matter what, we think there are acceptable fallbacks and this won’t box us into a corner, so we don’t need to resolve this yet. That is, it doesn’t block the initial await syntax decision.