jussi.kalliokoski at gmail.com
Wed Jul 4 09:39:25 PDT 2012
I think the generators address this issue already, to some extent.
But regardless, you might be surprised to find out that this is possible
already (without generators), but this is a little secret I've been holding
in my pocket, all you'd have change in the example is use something else
than setTimeout, and make the delay a function call instead... I'm writing
a blog post about it and will be sure to share with the group. ;)
Oh and btw, if there was a keyword like this, I don't think the timeout
would always occur *during* the delay, as setTimeout(..., 0) doesn't
necessarily mean now, as opposed to a DOM event such as postMessage or the
user clicking somewhere.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Patrik Stutz <patrik.stutz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys!
> It's called 'delay'.
> What does the delay keyword ?
> The delay keyword does nothing more than stop the execution of the
> current stack and immediately continues to the next task in the queue. But
> that's not all! Instead of discarding the stack, it adds it to the end of
> the queue. After all tasks before it are done, the stack continues to
> What is it good for?
> delay could help make blocking code non-blocking while it still looks
> like synchronous code. A short example:
> delay; //since there is currently another task in the queue, do this task first before continuing
> //Outputs: one, two, three
> This simple keyword would allow us to create a synchronous-looking code
> wich is asynchronous behind the scenes. Using node.js modules, for example,
> would no longer be impossible to use in the browser without trickery.
> There would be so many possibilites with such a keyword!
> do to bring this into the new ECMAscript Specification?
> Please disuss as much as you want! :)
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss