Sponsored
Sponsored
This approach leverages JavaScript's built-in setTimeout and clearTimeout functions. We schedule a timeout to execute the function fn after t milliseconds, and we return a cancelFn that, when called, cancels this scheduled timeout.
In C, without a standard set of functions for asynchronous timeouts, it's less about algorithmic complexity and more about the overhead of managing threads, which varies based on the implementation details.
1using System.Threading;
public class TimeoutFunction
{
private Timer _timer;
public TimeoutFunction(Action fn, int t)
{
_timer = new Timer(_ => fn(), null, t, Timeout.Infinite);
}
public void Cancel()
{
_timer?.Dispose();
}
}
// Example usage
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Action fn = () => Console.WriteLine(10);
TimeoutFunction timeoutFunction = new TimeoutFunction(fn, 20);
// Simulate cancel call
timeoutFunction.Cancel();
}
}In C#, the Timer class from the System.Threading namespace provides functionality akin to JavaScript's setTimeout. A timer is created and set to execute a callback after the given delay, and the cancelation involves disposing of the timer instance to prevent its callback execution.
This alternative approach involves using Promises to manage asynchronous execution and potential cancelation. By wrapping the setTimeout within a Promise, we can have more control over its execution and cancelation by managing the Promise lifecycle.
Time Complexity and space complexity would depend on the specific threading mechanism and the use of synchronization primitives.
1/* In C, you might implement this using threads and synchronizations like semaphores or condition variables to emulate Promise-like async tasks. Normally, C programs would not use this style directly. */Similar to the first approach, C would require a significant amount of helper code to achieve a Promise-like system, often using threads and synchronization primitives, unavailable directly in the standard library.