Tobie,
> Function.prototype.repeat = function(interval) {
> var fn = this;
> if (arguments.length > 1) {
> // not testsed but you get the idea
> fn = fn.curry.apply(fn, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
> }
> return new PeriodicalExecuter(fn, interval);
>
> }
If sticking to the PE approach there's no internal self-stop mechanism
(is there?), which i see as a nice touch in the above proposal (for
what my opinion is worth).
What about (from 1.6.1_rc2):
onTimerEvent: function() {
if (!this.currentlyExecuting) {
try {
this.currentlyExecuting = true;
if (this.execute()===false) // MOD
this.stop(); // NEW
} catch(e) {
/* empty catch for clients that don't support try/finally */
}
finally {
this.currentlyExecuting = false;
}
}
}
Just tossing in my 2 cents because i'm intrigued by that feature.
-joe t.
On Jun 26, 6:02 am, Tobie Langel <tobie.lan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How to stop it? arguments?
>
> Stopping it is as easy as:
>
> pe = foo.repeat();
> pe.stop();
>
> Passing arguments would require some simple currying:
>
> Function.prototype.repeat = function(interval) {
> var fn = this;
> if (arguments.length > 1) {
> // not testsed but you get the idea
> fn = fn.curry.apply(fn, Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 1));
> }
> return new PeriodicalExecuter(fn, interval);
>
> }
> > This may come to you twice, but this is slightly updated:
>
> >http://jsbin.com/opimu
>
> > This repeat() method def is 775Bytes, accepts arguments like delay/defer,
> > uses setTimeout (returns initial setTimeout index) and has a stopping
> > mechanism.
>
> What's the point in returning setTimeout index? That will set
> expectations which can't be met: developers will expect to be able to
> stop the functions calls by clearing it.
>
> Are you sure your proposal fixes all of the small issues PE fixes? For
> example, does it guarantee that the function will continue being
> called if it happens to once throw an error. Does it avoid calling the
> function again if a previous function is still executing, etc.?
>
> I understand your eagerness to move away from a model you dislike, but
> that shouldn't make you throw away all of the work that's been put
> into previous solutions.
>
> FWIW, I just noticed a patch wasn't applied to PE in current trunk
> (it's missing a throw statement).
>
> Best,
>
> Tobie
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
