Skip to content

Conversation

@jsor
Copy link
Member

@jsorjsor commented Feb 3, 2017

References: #52 (comment), async-interop/event-loop#9

For the tests, i've added a helper function to TestCase.

Closes#52

clue
clue approved these changes Feb 3, 2017
Copy link
Member

@clueclue left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes 👍

This has been discussed plenty of times already and we have yet to come up with a use case that actually needs the tick() method. Removing this makes perfect sense, it avoids plenty of issues related to it, reduces implementation complexity and perceived external complexity (smaller public API).

@jsorjsor added this to the v0.5 milestone Feb 3, 2017
@jsor
Copy link
MemberAuthor

jsor commented Feb 3, 2017

I'd like to hear from @WyriHaximus about this because IIRC he's using tick() in a few of his libs.

Copy link
Member

@WyriHaximusWyriHaximus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jsor Glad to see this horrible hack go 👍 . I use it in one lib, but don't really recommend it, and really would prefer not to use and have it at all.

@jsor
Copy link
MemberAuthor

jsor commented Feb 3, 2017

Since this a BC break, i'd like to have also @cboden's approval here.

@cbodencboden self-requested a review February 3, 2017 19:30
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jsor@WyriHaximus@cboden@clue