[Izkata]

> Frankly, I'm not sure why that design decision was made and find it rather confuses the meaning of await: asynchronously wait.

I've always understood it to mean "wait for asynchronous object", not that the wait itself is asynchronous. It's just an English word that roughly means "wait for", that was chosen for the nice "a" prefix for asynchronous stuff.

[anordin95]

Mmm fair point! Though, coroutines aren't really asynchronous objects in that usage, right? Since `await coroutine` would run that coroutine synchronously.

[Izkata]

But the coroutine object itself isn't synchronous, it represents suspended processing and by stuffing it into a task can be run asynchronously. If we don't try to consider it a separate third thing, I'd still put the coroutine object in the asynchronous bucket and say await is the thing synchronously waiting for it.

[throwawaymaths]

i don't think that's the case. an await coroutine requires you to be asynchronous because you are implicitly suspending yourself until the awaited function completes (and through however many suspensions the awaited function creates). an await can never be synchronous, you need to pull in an event loop to close between asynchronous functions and sync-land, not an await.