On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Dustin Sallings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2008, at 21:29, Ray Krueger wrote: > > > An overload that allowed passing a timeout would probably suffice. > > Or an asyncIncr that returned a future :) > > > Yeah, I don't like not having an asyncIncr, but it's way more > complicated than an async set so I haven't got to it. > > Good point, though, I should have a bug filed for that just as a > reminder, or perhaps and invitation for someone else to come around > and do it. :)
I fully intended to produce a patch for the overload. It was time for bed when I sent that last message and I gotta figure out this whole "git" thing still :P > > -- > Dustin Sallings > > > >
