Re: Sharing spec text between setImmediate and setTimeout

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