Re: [whatwg/dom] Add AbortSignal.any() (PR #1152)

@shaseley commented on this pull request.



>  
- <li><p>If <var>parentSignal</var> is [=AbortSignal/aborted=], then
- <a for=AbortSignal>signal abort</a> on <var>followingSignal</var> with <var>parentSignal</var>'s
- [=AbortSignal/abort reason=].
+ <li><p>Set <var>resultSignal</var>'s [=AbortSignal/composite=] to true.

Moved setting the flag until after checking the input signals for being aborted.

Not sure this is the right framing, but I've been thinking of such signals as being 'composed of nothing' or 'dependent on the empty set (of signals)', which is inert but still composite/dependent (note: signals can reach this state if source signals are GCed). Would 'dependent' is better, or does that have the same problem? 'dependent' could be nice because it matches the 'dependent signals' variable.

I have a slight preference for dependent/composite because it mentions a relationship to the input signals, but I don't feel strongly. unowned/uncontrolled could work too, but I think an "create an uncontrolled abort signal given [empty set]" would be less clear/readable than "create an dependent abort signal given [empty set]".

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1152#discussion_r1184180284
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/1152/review/1411680680@github.com>