Dear community, I’m not going to try and rehash any of the other arguments made for all the syntax proposals. I strongly support the process and the team’s leadership up to this point. @withoutboats has done an excellent job communicating the process and the reasons for the decisions, I’m also in favor of
.await as the preferred or “least bad” option.
I’ve read through the articles and posts recently and to me the main concern with the .keyword decision seems to be how it surprisingly/magically changes field access into something that you now have to teach as “, this is how field access is done in rust, except for
.await which is something you as a beginner will learn about later”. It detracts from “field access” being something that you can bank axiomatically.
Can the team perhaps consider discussing this explicitly, or point to the discussion in the RFC process if this has indeed been carefully considered?
In 2017 the community expended a tremendous amount of energy trying to make rust more accessible and learn-able (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/02/06/roadmap.html).
The top item for the 2017 Roadmap was Rust should have a lower learning curve .
Strong consideration should be given to the impact on brand new users, newcomers or interested parties reading code as a way to get a feel for the language. I’m not arguing for a change, but I for one would happily live with a little extra line noise (as would be the case when a sigil like
@ be introduced to the keyword,
@await perhaps) if it means protecting Learnability.