On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Erik Corry <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Mark S. Miller <[email protected]>: > > [...] However, I > > agree that these proposals should be decoupled if possible. Accordingly, > I > > have kludged [...] > > I really dislike this definition. This would imply that anyone could > overwrite setTimeout and get a completely different behaviour. If > overwriting is impossible then it introduces setTimeout into the > standard by the backdoor. > > I'd prefer an underspecified [[QueueForProcessing]] operation with no > connection to the global object and a note to say that in a browser it > would be expected to use the same mechanism as a setTimeout with a > timeout of zero. > > I agree. Done. To be consistent with the spec style on the rest of that page -- perhaps a bad idea -- I called your [[QueueForProcessing]] operation POSTPONE. This is a minor issue and I'm not attached to the choice. In any case, the most relevant new text is at < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:weak_references#safe_post_mortem_notification>. Thanks for the suggestion. > > There are lots of misunderstandings around GC, where people expect > this sort of callback to happen at some predictable time. If there's > no memory pressure then there's no reason to expect the GC to ever be > run even if the program runs for ever. It would be nice to have some > indication in the text of the standard that discouraged people from > expecting a callback at some predictable time. For example if people > want to close file descriptors or collect other resources that are not > memory using this mechanism it would be nice to discourage them > (because it won't work on a machine with lots of memory and not so > many max open fds). > > Does the current text clarify this to your satisfaction? -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
