- From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:24:02 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 17/05/13 12:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/16/13 6:52 PM, Sean Hogan wrote: >> So what would be the problem if `setImmediate()` just appended to the >> futures task source? > > None per se, except to the extent that you want to have different > priority settings for setImmediate and futures or to the extent that > you want some sort of ordering guarantees between setImmediate and > something other than futures. > From what I've read, the main demand for `setImmediate` (or equivalent) is for JS implementations of Promises, etc. Would anyone care if `setImmediate` was implemented and then Futures (or whatever browsers settle on) got the same task source?
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 07:24:30 UTC