W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:59:09 +0200
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uif58vz164w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:43:55 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:
> - Perhaps the argument order should be (handler, delay, repeating)  
> instead, to be more like setTimeout / setInterval
>
> - Perhaps the "repeating" or even the "delayInSeconds" arguments should  
> be optional, defaulting to false and 0 respectively, and possibly in  
> combination with the above suggestion.

I think that would be nice.


I was wondering why startTimer returns a Timer object. What is the use  
case for that?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 11:59:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT