# Finishing a task

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/finishing-a-task/86784>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Tags:** task\
**Created:** [September 5, 2022, 7:59am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/finishing-a-task/86784 "2022-09-05T07:59:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cstjean](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/cstjean/32/1444_2.png) [@cstjean](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/cstjean)\
**Post date:** [September 5, 2022, 6:54pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/finishing-a-task/86784/3 "2022-09-05T18:54:34Z")

</div>

For context, [Simple communication between tasks](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/simple-communication-between-tasks/86480)

> What sort of problem are you solving? Do your tasks need to share data or communicate with each other?

Yeah, my problem isn’t “task is waiting on IO so let’s use that time productively”, but rather “coroutines/continuations are cool for decoupling program logic in an AI context”. I don’t think the scheduler is the right tool. `yieldto` is nice, but it feels like the low-level layer is missing a handful of primitives. Indeed, looking at the scheduler code, it is not “implemented in terms of yieldto”, as one might hope, but rather full of C calls.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/finishing-a-task/86784)._