Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That needs a postfix macro, which is a completely different feature that does not exist and may not ever exist.


Yeah, I was assuming postfix macro + prefix await was accepted, specifically to address the "it can't be a macro" argument in the initial post from boats.

Similarly, postfix keywords are not a thing that exist in rust, and await is the only accepted one.


The writeup mentioned that (await future)?; is undesirable because it disrupts the logical flow.

Could await be implemented as a prefix, with an additional macro?

awaits!(foo()) that expands to (await foo())


That ruins the chaining aspect.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: