I figure the reason the proposed syntax looks gross is because other languages have been using a prefixed await for many years. The Rust decision seems well thought out though, enough to make me wonder if perhaps other languages have been doing it wrong.
My first experience with futures was in the form of QFuture (https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qfuture.html), and there you call .result() to block and wait for the result. This postfixing is intuitive.
Rust's "?" operator is neat. I don't know if I've seen a postfix operator anywhere else yet. It's certainly possible Rust got this language aspect wrong, but as a user it feels pretty right.
Given the existence of the "?" operator, and the fact that futures resolution via postfix is intuitive (and not a new thing either), IMHO the best course of action probably is postfix. I'm not sure if literally ".await" is the best, but it's in the ballpark.
My first experience with futures was in the form of QFuture (https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qfuture.html), and there you call .result() to block and wait for the result. This postfixing is intuitive.
Rust's "?" operator is neat. I don't know if I've seen a postfix operator anywhere else yet. It's certainly possible Rust got this language aspect wrong, but as a user it feels pretty right.
Given the existence of the "?" operator, and the fact that futures resolution via postfix is intuitive (and not a new thing either), IMHO the best course of action probably is postfix. I'm not sure if literally ".await" is the best, but it's in the ballpark.