- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:02:08 +0000 (UTC)
- To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011, James Robinson wrote: > > Read the spec. setTimeout() is only clamped when nested, that is the > clamp only applies when setTimeout() is invoked within the context of > another timer firing. ...and it's only there because UAs found that authors did tight loops and the only way to handle those without pegging the CPU pointlessly was to have a delay on repeat timers, which I'm sure will happen for setImmediate() as well. However, if that's no longer a concern, then we can certainly try changing the setTimeout() rules to not clamp, or to do something more clever (e.g. exponential backoff, or only clamping if the timer didn't take long to execute, indicating it's not an attempt to yield, or some such). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 00:02:32 UTC