3 ms·
> And for the transition phase, there has to be interop for async ↔ async2 For those like me who weren't clear whether `async2` was expected to be a real keywo
by kodablah 2y ago
> And for the transition phase, there has to be interop for async ↔ async2
For those like me who weren't clear whether `async2` was expected to be a real keyword in the final language, it's not[0].
0 - https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620#issuecomment-1883524868 https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620#issuecomment-...
- augusto-moura 2y agoasync2 looks like such a terrible keyword name, that it didn't even crossed my mind as an option. Only following your linked comment I understood that they used it as a temporary name while testing
- TwentyPosts 2y agoHave you read the article? > As async is already used as an identifier in C#, the team decided to use async2 as a codename for the experiment. If that thing ever makes it into the runtime, it will be called async - so it will be a replacement for the current async implementation.