- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:48:02 +1300
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow at google.com> wrote: > I really like the idea of some generic yield, though I wonder if there's > some reason it hasn't been added earlier. People have been using the > setTimeout(..., 0) trick for a while to get around slow script warnings (and > general unresponsiveness)...so surely something like this must have come up > before? If so, what were the drawbacks? > An obvious issue is that you can easily end up with arbitrarily deep nesting and stack overflows. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090324/3ea6de9b/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 14:48:02 UTC