- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:33:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, David Bruant wrote: > > Their response was to align to what other browsers were doing which was to > reinterpret "0" as something a bit higher (10ms at the time). > 10ms was later changed to 4ms and only for deeply-nested setTimeouts (so, > setTimeout(f,0) really means 0 until you've done it 4 times in a row after > which there is the minimum 4ms delay). Note that the delay starts from when you call setTimeout(). If you schedule a timeout, do 4ms' worth of work, and then yield, the next timeout will happen straight away (modulo the browser dealing with any UI events, and so on -- so it won't starve the other task sources), regardless of how deeply nested your timeouts are. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 00:33:42 UTC