Further changes

[MajorBreakfast]

• A missing word 😇
• Future -> Async
• Various improvements

Rendered

[MajorBreakfast]

Renamed Item to Output (mentioned by @alkis in rust-lang#2394 (review))

[MajorBreakfast]

Don't merge yet, I want to add a commit that changes Future to Async Edit: Done

[MajorBreakfast]

• Renamed Future to Async
• Consistent highlighting for async, await

[MajorBreakfast]

Don't merge yet. I have concerns that we'll be happy with our choice if we choose the name Async.

[MajorBreakfast]

As an experiment I've renamed Async to Task: Rendered

[MajorBreakfast]

My naming effort didn't catch on 😅Async it is

Here's the updated PR which renames everything from Future to Async

@aturon

[MajorBreakfast]

@aturon @withoutboats Any update on this?

[withoutboats]

In addition to the few specific comments, I think the introduction of code blocks here is a stylistic downgrade that makes the RFC less readable. Backticks should be used for keywords when discussing the keyword and for traits when discussing the type, not any time they are used. Several prominent examples:

• An async function is annotated with the async keyword, but that does not mean it should always be written "async function."
• A return expression must evaluate to the return type of the function, but that does not mean that type should be referred to as the "return type".
• A future is a type that implements Future, but that does not mean that you must always call them "Futures".
• You can "await" a future using the await! keyword, but that doesn't mean you must always "await a future" (indeed, in this case, in this RFC, any time await should be backticked it should be written await!, since it is a built-in macro and not normal syntax.)

Backticks should only be used when they improve understanding by clarifying that we are referring to a particular piece of code, not to the concept that that code would also refer to.

I'm going to merge the RFC now, but feel free to make another PR against the RFCs repo and request my review to make any of the other amendments this PR contains.

[withoutboats]

"different from" is correct: https://www.grammar.com/different-from-vs-different-than

[MajorBreakfast]

Interesting. Didn't know that. (I'm from Germany ;)

[withoutboats]

replaced "futures" with "s"

[MajorBreakfast]

Yes I wasn't so sure about whether styling all these words as code is a good idea myself. I'll create create a PR that only contains the other tweaks.