I think that's a good, workable solution, and would help with my
specific problem.
[>] Brian
On 3/14/2016 10:43 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/13/16 10:43 PM, Brian Barnes wrote:
1. Potential mis-use of API could make things slower
2. People assuming things could freeze behavior
3. People will assume behavior outside of the spec
4. What does GC mean? People will assume everything.
I think #1 there is a mechanism of #2, in that freezing behavior will
happen because what used to be good use of the API would become slow
misuse and browsers would therefore not make the corresponding change.
But yes, this seems like a reasonable summary.
A call that hints that next time control is released from a script,
that it triggers whatever the next type of GC, whatever it is, of any
of the methods, that would get triggered close to this time.
I think it's a good idea to not imply this API is specifically about GC.
I would much prefer we make it about what we actually care about:
telling the engine that you have time right now for it to do some work,
but won't have time later. This captures the semantics we really care
about, right?
Apart from that nit (which is basically about naming), this seems
reasonable to me as a thing to have.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
