http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8214
--- Comment #2 from John Belmonte <j...@neggie.net> 2012-06-09 20:39:07 PDT --- I do prefer this being an option to finish() rather than a separate join() function. We all understand what finish() does and it's not a stretch at all to accept that there's blocking and non-blocking invocations (as evidenced by current doc needing to clearly state that it's non-blocking). Also I don't think the docs need a big example for the blocking case. It should suffice to say that blocking invocation only makes sense when task results aren't needed (otherwise the corresponding Task.*Force() calls would provide the blocking). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
