I think most participants here appreciate that. So perhaps it can be more clearly articulated as the
.word visual pattern is currently used primarily for
field access or a couple of traits implemented on fields (
Deref, etc). People are concerned about a lot of things, consistency, ergonomics, teachability/learnability, etc.
That is true, but I think some people are actually also just trying avoid confusion (perhaps just with a different expectation of mastery or size of mental model - but I know this is a very fuzzy concept anyway).
To the latter part of your post, if
await, specifically in
.keyword form was already part of the RFC I humbly retract the comment you were replying to, but I guess what I was trying to say is that if it wasn’t envisioned when the RFC was accepted, and the scope naturally crept to land on this pattern a lot of the concerned community members might be more comfortable with the decision if it was illustrated somehow that the change to this (visual?) pattern was also carefully considered (and I’m not saying that it wasn’t, maybe it can just be pointed out or written up).
We all eagerly anticipate
async/await and it is definitely not in anyone’s interest to delay it unnecessarily, but asserting that the reason for questioning this design choice might be motivated by trying to impede the adoption of the design choice isn’t fair - feedback was solicited, all of these suggestions can be comfortably ignored with no repercussion.
Lastly, we can keep 100% of what @withoutboats proposed the final syntax should be (postfix/keyword) and change the chosen sigil to visually differentiate it from existing language syntax and I think a lot of the concern will be eased. Again - not saying this with the intent to frustrate or impede the process, but merely providing feedback.