|
|
|
|
|
by lenkite
626 days ago
|
|
It is utterly clear that the random wait is not intrinsic to the logic - it was only added for demonstration to simulate varying duration of requests. You can simply comment out the println and just pick the first results[0]. Again, the repeated println for all results was only added for demonstrative clarity. Frankly, the above satisfies all primary goals. The rest is just nitpicking - without a formal specification of the problem one can argue all day. |
|
I wasn't talking about the random wait at all. I was talking about
>You can simply comment out the println and just pick the first results[0].When should we look at results[0]? There needs to be some notification that results[0] is ready to be looked at. Similarly with all the rest of the results.
>Frankly, the above satisfies all primary goals. The rest is just nitpicking - without a formal specification of the problem one can argue all day.
I guess we have to disagree. From my reading of the blog post it was pretty clear what Chris wanted, and the code you provided didn't meet that.