Task Library - Now Available!

Updates Announcements
,
#165

task.wait() in a while loop never stops if the script is disabled or destroyed. This is similar to custom wait modules that use coroutine.yield. So I assume task.wait has a similar implementation but internally.

Reproduction:

while true do
	print("Running")
	task.wait(0.5)
end

Put this in a script, then disable the script. It will continue to print.
Now change task.wait to wait, then disable the script. It will stop.

With custom wait modules there was no way other than adding checks within the loop to fix this, but since this implementation is internal there should be a way to fix this. I hope it is fixed soon, it is the only thing preventing me from using task.wait and I cannot stand the original wait function much longer. So please fix this.

2 Likes
#166

Oh i didn’t known.

But I don’t think inventing a new function just for different debugging is good and I think we should rather port the behavior of task.spawn to coroutine.wrap

#167

I understand task.wait() vs wait() but is there a difference between task.wait(20) vs wait(20)? Should wait(x) be avoided at all costs now?

AI Optimization issue
#168

wait(x) bad
task.wait(x) good

Yeah basically task.wait(x) is a better wait. Though you should still remember to use event based coding when you can.

But you should replace spawn() with coroutine.wrap and delay with task.delay, wait with task.wait etc.

2 Likes
#170

The second result is seldom used, so most people are probably unaware of it. It is very similar to the result of elapsedTime, which has nothing to do with the wait function. The wait function returning 2 values is weird, it doesn’t make sense to follow the same weird design set by wait.

#171

See my reply here → Task.wait() does not respect script.Disabled and always resumes - #4 by WallsAreForClimbing

#172

You should use the new methods. Here’s a quick cheat-sheet:

Before Now Now (Alt.)
wait() task.wait()
wait(n) task.wait(n)
spawn(f) task.defer(f) task.delay(0, f)
delay(n, f) task.delay(n, f)
spawn(function () f(uv1, ...) end) task.defer(f, uv1, ...) task.delay(0, f, uv1, ...)
delay(n, function () f(uv1, ...) end) task.delay(n, f, uv1, ...)
19 Likes
My for loop is avoiding the wait() in it?
Help with implementing spawn, or coroutine
#173

I forgot, does this do any performance increase with delay and spawn when switiching to task.delay/task.defer?

1 Like
#174

Of course.

The new task library uses an improved polling system.

1 Like
#176

I had a question.

Is wait() really deprecated?
Since then, I’ll change all my waits’ now. Else I’ll replace them later with task.wait

1 Like
#177

It’s not deprecated yet so that people have some time to naturally migrate off of it before being annoyed by warnings in the script editor, but it will be at some point.

3 Likes
#178

Well it does make sense, since wait is the only function that is used the most, so I guess it’s good to give developers some time. Thanks for the reply!

1 Like
#179

I think there’s a small bug with the autocomplete, as the script editor says task.wait() returns void (nil)
image
image

The DevHub says it returns a number:

image
image870×268 31.7 KB

Is that intentional?

1 Like
#180

So does this mean that my analogy is correct? When .defer was released I went by saying “It basically schedules threads to be resumed once there’s no other threads running anymore.” Would that mean that this analogy isn’t actually that wrong?

2 Likes
#181

Almost, but not quite. A deferred thread is resumed when all threads that were scheduled or running when it was deferred have yielded or terminated.

5 Likes
#182

I’ve heard before that Debris uses the older ‘deprecated’ wait/delay, anything I ask forward is dependant if that’s the case, if that’s the case, any plan to switch Debris to use task.wait/delay instead? Is that something that you guys think could break some code? If so, would Debris get possibly deprecated in the near future?

4 Likes
#183

you can do this if you want:

local function Debris(waitTime, Instance)
   task.delay(waitTime, function()
      Instance:Destroy()
   end)
end
2 Likes
#184

I know I can, that’s why I would expect Debris to be deprecated since it just does that anyway.
I always thought Debris was weird.

Also, even better version of this:
You could add some asserting into this, but this works just fine.

local function DestroyInstanceIn(waitTime, instance)
    assert(
        typeof(waitTime) == 'number',
        "WaitTime must be a number!"
    )

    assert(
        typeof(instance) == 'Instance',
        "Must be an instance"
    )

    task.delay(waitTime, instance.Destroy, instance)
end
2 Likes
#185

I didnt do that because it might error like it does if you try this on remote events/functions

task.spawn(RemoteEvent.Fire, Params)
1 Like
#186

Yeah, because you’re supposed to pass the RemoteEvent object as the 2nd argument before Params:

task.spawn(RemoteEvent.Fire, RemoteEvent, Params)
2 Likes