W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Sharing spec text between setImmediate and setTimeout

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 03:04:49 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
cc: Jason Weber <jweber@microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mozilla.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107020304240.20871@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/1/11 6:28 PM, Jason Weber wrote:
> > We thought it was important for setImmediate to be semantically identical to
> > setTimeout and started from that spec.
> 
> For what it's worth, it's not clear whether it's a good idea to be thus 
> identical.  In particular, the string version of setTimeout seems to be 
> to have been a design mistake that we should not repeat....  I 
> understand why it might make sense to make setImmediate as much like 
> setTimeout as possible, of course.  I'm just not sure whether that's 
> enough reason to proliferate the eval semantics of setTimeout.

Also the copy seems to be missing key information, such as the task 
source.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2011 03:05:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:31 UTC