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.
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.