zlacker

> Another possible way to fix this is, as the features docs suggest, creating separate crates. We’d have rspotify-sync and rspotify-async, and users would just pick whichever crate they want as a dependency

A nitpick, but please, if you do this for your library, name the sync one just the name and put "-async" in the name of the other one, so "rspotify" and "rspotify-async" instead of "rspotify-sync" and "rspotify-async". This mirrors the way the function definition keywords are "fn" and "async fn" instead of "sync fn" and "async fn". Most simple usecases don't need async and the extra typing and extra reading is annoying.

>>shpx+(OP)
I think the explicit -sync/-async is nice.

>>shpx+(OP)
Yes, a one-letter difference seems easy to miss.

>>shpx+(OP)
Sorry to pick on this comment in particular, but it being the top voted on the post seems like a good illustration of bikeshedding.