26 Apr
2019
26 Apr
'19
6:59 a.m.
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
The first thing that comes to mind would be to create a new member function of Concurrent.Future, i.e. next to the timeout() already there, we could introduce a delay() which would then semantically be something like:
On second thought, that would increase the basic memory footprint of a Future to include extra state information.
Maybe a custom class called Concurrent.Delay() might be more appropriate, it would take a Future as argument, and return a delayed Future.
--
Stephen.