Futures.wait should call then, even if some(or all) of the futures are done

tests/corelib/src/FuturesTest.dart

+// Copyright (c) 2011, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file
+// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
+// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
+
+class FuturesTest {
+  static void testMain() {
+    List<Future> futures = new List<Future>();
+
+    futures.add(testWaitEmpty());
+    futures.add(testCompleteAfterWait());
+    futures.add(testCompleteBeforeWait());
+
+    // Use a receive port for blocking the test. 
+    // Note that if the test fails, the program will not end.
+    ReceivePort port = new ReceivePort();
+    Futures.wait(futures).then((List list) {
+        Expect.equals(list.length, 3);

[kasperl, 2012/01/06 09:06:46]

Weird indentation. Emacs user?

[kasperl, 2012/01/06 09:06:46]

Expect.equals(3, list.length) -- expectation, actual

[Anders Johnsen, 2012/01/06 09:28:33]

Vim, fixed :)

+        port.close();
+      });
+  }
+
+  static void testWaitEmpty() {

[kasperl, 2012/01/06 09:06:46]

Your void methods return values. Seems wrong.

[Anders Johnsen, 2012/01/06 09:28:33]

Done.

+    List<Future> futures = new List<Future>();
+
+    return Futures.wait(futures);
+  }
+
+  static void testCompleteAfterWait() {
+    List<Future> futures = new List<Future>();
+    Completer<Object> c = new Completer<Object>();
+    futures.add(c.future);
+

[kasperl, 2012/01/06 09:06:46]

I would use less newlines here.

[Anders Johnsen, 2012/01/06 09:28:33]

Done.

+    Future future = Futures.wait(futures);
+
+    c.complete(null);
+
+    return future;
+  }
+
+  static void testCompleteBeforeWait() {
+    List<Future> futures = new List<Future>();
+    Completer c = new Completer();
+    futures.add(c.future);
+

[kasperl, 2012/01/06 09:06:46]

.. and here.

[Anders Johnsen, 2012/01/06 09:28:33]

Done.

+    c.complete(null);
+
+    return Futures.wait(futures);
+  }
+}
+
+main() {
+  FuturesTest.testMain();

[kasperl, 2012/01/06 09:06:46]

Maybe this would actually be nicer without the class. Why not just use top-level
functions instead?

[Anders Johnsen, 2012/01/06 09:28:33]

Yeah, but using a class with static members follows the style of the other
tests. Want me to remove the class?

+}