W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Future feedback

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:24:02 +1000
Message-ID: <5195DB12.10202@westnet.com.au>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:49 UTC