Nice insight into the amount of thought going into this design proposal. It's always tricky to introduce new syntax to a language and re-using the field access notation here isn't as icky an approach as it first looks.
I don't know enough about rust to understand how this would operate during compile time w.r.t if a user tries to define a field named 'async'. Is that no longer allowed or would the compiler be able to disambiguate?
I don't know enough about rust to understand how this would operate during compile time w.r.t if a user tries to define a field named 'async'. Is that no longer allowed or would the compiler be able to disambiguate?