Random switching between "Awaitor" and "awaiter" makes it seem like these are distinct concepts instead that the reader is supposed to understand.
In general this moves way too fast for the density of the grammar it's trying to introduce, lines like:
> We have seen Awaitors already - suspend_always is an empty awaiter type that has await_ready returns false always.
But we haven't "seen" suspend_always, it's mentioned in half a sentence in an earlier paragraph, with no further context or examples.
There's a reason Lewis Baker's writings about C++ coroutines are 5000 word monsters, the body of grammar which needs to be covered demands that level of careful and precise definition and exploration.
In general this moves way too fast for the density of the grammar it's trying to introduce, lines like:
> We have seen Awaitors already - suspend_always is an empty awaiter type that has await_ready returns false always.
But we haven't "seen" suspend_always, it's mentioned in half a sentence in an earlier paragraph, with no further context or examples.
There's a reason Lewis Baker's writings about C++ coroutines are 5000 word monsters, the body of grammar which needs to be covered demands that level of careful and precise definition and exploration.