Seems legit -- Cheers, √
On Sep 26, 2016 23:29, "Attila Szegedi" <szege...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not at all, you could just have a call to cancel() block until the future > completes. > > *ducks* > > Attila. > > > On 25 Sep 2016, at 16:34, Viktor Klang <viktor.kl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If that truely is the case then the only way of implementing a readonly > > Future is by throwing an exception from cancel... > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > √ > > > > On Sep 25, 2016 4:20 PM, "Joe Bowbeer" <joe.bowb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> This statement regarding what happens after cancel is called is correct: > >> > >> "*After this method returns, subsequent calls to **isDone**() will > always > >> return true*. Subsequent calls to isCancelled() will always return true > >> if this method returned true." > >> > >> After cancel returns, the future is completed, hence isDone. If cancel > >> returns true, i.e. it was cancelled, then isCancelled returns true. > But, > >> for example if the future is already completed when cancel is called, > then > >> cancel will return false and isCancelled will return false. > >> > >> On Sep 25, 2016 6:49 AM, "David Holmes" <davidchol...@aapt.net.au> > wrote: > >> > >>> I think that was meant to read “After this method returns _*true*_, > >>> subsequent calls …” > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> David >
