On May 26, 2012, at May 26, 20128:16 PM, Jorge wrote: > > It would mean there's one more thing that can go wrong: the way it's now it's > ~ impossible to block the event loop (*), the way you're proposing you could.
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that there is already something that can go wrong when people make the assumption that no IO will fire before their nextTick() hander, which is an assumption most people make although I doubt there are many cases where the assumption not being true will break something. This gives us a true assumption, which is a feature. In my opinion, it's a better feature than this edge case where you block the event loop (although I think we should put in a guard for it so that we can throw a nice exception). -Mikeal
