On Mar 3, 2014, at 10:04 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> Now its just a word that we are assigning our own meaning to, so we can use >> "turn" if we want. But is that equivalence of "turn" and "task" really what >> you're used to, and something whose meaning is intuitive enough? > > On naming, we can use Turn instead of Task if enough people get it. I like it > (much better than longer "Activity" which is quite vague in comparison, and > even better than even longer "ECMAScript Task"). So +1 for Mark's proposal > from me. > > More substantively, I'm concerned that you don't understand HTML microtasks > but conjecture that they can be layered on top of ES tasks. I'm not > necessarily faulting you alone here! The HTML specs I've read over the years > at whatwg.org are maddeningly strung out and (I think) incomplete in defining > tasks and microtasks. Perhaps they are better now.
To totally don't understand all the subtleties of HTML tasks and microtasks. But I'm confident that they can be layer above the ES6 tasks because ES 6 really only provides a way to partially order the execution of EStasks and a hook that permits a host to schedule and initiate run to completion calls of EStasks. It the extreme a host could use a single element ES6 task queue and only queue an EStask when it is next to run. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
