> I suppose I saw it as a ParallelTaskExecutor or TaskGroupExecutor, and > not a ParallelTask or TaskGroupTask. This is probably where the > initial confusion came from.
I can understand that. OTOH, TaskGroupTask (or ParallelTaskGroupTask) is sort of verbose and arguably redundant, and as you noted, once you recognize that TaskGroup and TaskSequence extend Task, the existing behavior makes more sense. G
