> `foo.bar.qux.qaz.await!()` would need to expand to `await { foo.bar.qux.qaz }`
Interesting point, thank you. I hadn't seen this previously mentioned, and it's definitely a reasonable argument.
> there's no denying that `foo.await?.bar` appears nicer than `foo.await!()?.bar`, especially if there is no guarantee that postfix macros will ever become a thing.
Agreed, for sure. I'm honestly just very concerned about these features because I see them as stepping stones to others. The path from postfix macros seems much brigher than the path from postfix keywords.
I think I agree with you about an await block being a good idea.
Thanks for the response, I think this is the first meaningful response to the prefix await + postfix macro that I've read.
Interesting point, thank you. I hadn't seen this previously mentioned, and it's definitely a reasonable argument.
> there's no denying that `foo.await?.bar` appears nicer than `foo.await!()?.bar`, especially if there is no guarantee that postfix macros will ever become a thing.
Agreed, for sure. I'm honestly just very concerned about these features because I see them as stepping stones to others. The path from postfix macros seems much brigher than the path from postfix keywords.
I think I agree with you about an await block being a good idea.
Thanks for the response, I think this is the first meaningful response to the prefix await + postfix macro that I've read.