> There is no 'async'

I meant this more as simply an analogy to the devX of other languages.

>Bringing code-transform-async-await back is still on the todo-list.

The article makes it seem like "the plan is set" so I do wonder what that Todo looks like. Is this simply the plan for async IO?

> is expected to work properly both in multi- and single-threaded contexts.

Yeah... about that....

I'm also interested in how that will be solved. RTFM? I suppose a convention could be that your public API must be thread safe and if you have a thread-unsafe pattern it must be private? Maybe something else is planned?