On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:18 PM, David Bruant wrote: > As I said, one way to bring setTimeout would be to standardized a > lower-level mechanism based on which setTimeout could be implemented.
Now you've got two problems... It is not precisely understood why setTimeout(..., 0) breaks the web if run nested or on next event turn. Arv may be able to supply details from one or a few sites. I suspect the whole problem cannot be understood in any bounded interval, since we're talking not only about the Google-indexable web but also paywalled content, etc. I'll go with browser-market-share-tested phenomenology (which means "not just Chrome, yet"). > Maybe that this timer granularity could be reconsidered for the > lower-level mechanism. Maybe that this lower-level mecanism could count > nanoseconds (I'm purposefully exagerating). Let's go from where we are, based on field testing. Theory is not really helpful. >>> - forbidding eval-like syntax >> What problem are you solving? > I would agree to forbid eval-like syntax. Why? Given the no-nesting, future-event-turn execution, what invariants are upset by the eval flavor of setTimeout? /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
