Jorge <mailto:[email protected]>
January 22, 2012 1:35 PM
Now isn't that ~ the opposite of what you said on 2011-03-18 in David
Bruants' "Bringing setTimeout to ECMAScript" thread ?
Is this a "gotcha" game? Notice the date. Our cutoff for ES6 features
was 2011-05. That's one thing that changed. But also, try to read more
carefully:
<quote>
Add to that the fact that Netscape and Microsoft failed, or chose not
to, standardize the DOM level 0, and we have the current split where
setTimeout is in HTML5 but the core language is embedded with
increasing success in non-browser, no-DOM host environments *that want
setTimeout*.
I'm open to Ecma TC39 absorbing setTimeout and the minimum machinery
it entrains. We should ping Hixie.
Nothing, and I mean *nothing*, that I wrote here contradicts what I
wrote in reply to Brandon. Ecma TC39 is almost certainly going to absorb
event loop, timeout, and other specs from the WHAT-WG / W3C (or
duplicate them).
Why do you insist on taking one thing I wrote and misreading it as
contradicting another thing (namely, timing re: ES6, Node's 1ms vs.
HTML5's 4ms lack of agreement indicating more synthesis needed, etc.)?
</quote>
Why ?
What has changed ?
P.S.
Node.js does *not* conform. Not at all. Not only it doesn't clamp to
4ms (which happens to be a good thing, IMO), but its timers often fire
out of order !
Here you clearly misread my reply to Brandon -- I was citing modern
browsers' clamping at 4ms, per HTML5, in contradiction to Node's 1ms as
cited by Brandon.
But I didn't know Node does not preserve FIFO order. That seems like an
easy bug to fix. Is it on file, do you know?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
