doc: process.nextTick() example question

This section says:

// WARNING!  DO NOT USE!  BAD UNSAFE HAZARD!
function maybeSync(arg, cb) {
  if (arg) {
    cb();
    return;
  }

  fs.stat('file', cb);
}

This API is hazardous because in the following case:

maybeSync(true, () => {
  foo();
});
bar();

It is not clear whether foo() or bar() will be called first.

For me, if arg is true, the order is unambiguously maybeSync() -> cb() -> foo() -> bar(), i.e. no async at all. What do I miss?

Replace true with Math.random() > 0.5. The order of events is now indeterminate.

So is this a confusing wording in the doc ('in the following case')? Should the true in the example be replaced by this Math.random() > 0.5 or something like maybeTrue?

So is this a confusing wording in the doc ('in the following case')?

I'd say that's axiomatically true since it clearly confused you. :-)

Should the true in the example be replaced by this Math.random() > 0.5

I agree the current example is not great so yes, I'd update it.

doc: fix confusing example in process.md

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

doc: process.nextTick() example question #12280

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

doc: process.nextTick() example question #12280

Description

Activity

bnoordhuis commented on Apr 8, 2017

vsemozhetbyt commented on Apr 8, 2017

bnoordhuis commented on Apr 8, 2017

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions