Update on await syntax in Rust

Re:Update on await syntax in Rust by eridius on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @03:40PM (#20033575)

I have to say, I don't consider

  "{} + {}".format!("foo", "bar")

to be better than

  format!("{} + {}", "foo", "bar")

Similarly with `result.try!()`, that does not look as nice to me as `result?`.

And postfix-macro syntax for await! would lead to code like

  let result = sendRequest().await!()?.getBody().await!()?.Root;

or if we used this for `try!()` as well then it would be

  let result = sendRequest().await!().try!().getBody().await!().try!().Root;

which just looks very noisy to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Update on await syntax in Rust by staticassertion on Tuesday May 28, 2019 @03:58PM (#20033763)

> to be better than

I do, especially in terms of writing. It's quite annoying to 'wrap' things, in my opinion. This is why chaining is desired to begin with - people consistently prefer to append new code than to wrap.

> Similarly with `result.try!()`, that does not look as nice to me as `result?`.

I also prefer ?. 'try' is so common it's worth optimizing down to a single character.

My point is to compare to the prefix try, not the question mark, as a motivator for where postfix macros are a reasonable concept.

> let result = sendRequest().await!()?.getBody().await!()?.Root;

It's an additional 3 character per 'await' vs the other syntax, which I think is fine - a small price to pay for a syntax that makes sense. If await were so common, I would once against think a sigil is the way to go, but I don't believe that await justifies that level of optimization at this point.

[ Parent | on HN ]