> On 20 Aug 2017, at 03:36, Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 19, 2017, at 2:25 AM, Thomas <tclement...@free.fr >> <mailto:tclement...@free.fr>> wrote: >> >>> I think we need to be a little careful here—the mere fact that a message >>> returns `Void` doesn't mean the caller shouldn't wait until it's done to >>> continue. For instance: >>> >>> listActor.delete(at: index) // Void, so it >>> doesn't wait >>> let count = await listActor.getCount() // But we want the count >>> *after* the deletion! >> >> In fact this will just work. Because both messages happen on the actor's >> internal serial queue, the "get count" message will only happen after the >> deletion. Therefore the "delete" message can return immediately to the >> caller (you just need the dispatch call on the queue to be made). > > Suppose `delete(at:)` needs to do something asynchronous, like ask a server > to do the deletion. Is processing of other messages to the actor suspended > until it finishes? (Maybe the answer is "yes"—I don't have experience with > proper actors.)
It seems like the answer should be "yes". But then how do you implement something like a cancel() method? I don't know how the actor model solves that problem. Thomas
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
