On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I briefly considered cases like that, but I thought it seemed simple enough > to just cancel the existing timer and start a new one. And it seemed > uncommon enough to me that it didn't need a direct affordance in the API > instead of just making a new timer. >
The counter-use case I would have would be wanting to lengthen a timer that's already running; e.g. you set a timer for 1 second, and at some point while it's waiting to go off you realize you need to lengthen it to 2 seconds. If you have to cancel and reset, you also have to track separately just how much time has elapsed so you know how to do this. On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems safe to assume that a large number of timers are going to be > on the order of 1-10ms. Because of this I think that millisecond units > (which can also be fractional) would be best. It also is nice because > it is consistent with the current API. Most of the setTimeout()/setInterval() calls I saw in surveying the web the other day were for some round fraction of a second: 0.1, 0.5, 1, or 2 seconds. I don't think this would change too much. And fractional seconds doesn't make my head hurt the way fractional milliseconds does. PK
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
