- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:21 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > On August 19, 2014 at 4:39:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. (jackalmage@gmail.com) wrote: >> > Why is isHeld still used here? You don't need it to avoid squashing >> someone else's lock with this design, and several people have >> pointed out that exposing it is a footgun, as people might check it and >> decide they don't need to request their own lock (only to be screwed when >> the other lock releases earlier or later than they expected). > > It's the only authoritative source of truth. But ok, fair point about the footgun. > > Consider the static dropped. I mean, you could put a non-static isHeld on any individual lock, if you want to know whether this particular lock is held or released. I just don't think there's any reason to pass information around about the global lock state, if you're not being required to use that information for coordination purposes. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 21:05:06 UTC