More flexibility in the ECMAScript part?

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Thu Apr 18 00:48:22 PDT 2013


Le 18/04/2013 09:40, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Note that Futures are entirely expressible in today's JS semantics.
>>
>> (Not to say that it shouldn't be reviewed by the language gurus here,
>> just saying.)
> JavaScript does not have an event loop (as I mentioned elsewhere) so
> that is not true. HTML defines the event loop model and processing
> model for any asynchronous JavaScript execution. Lifting that up to
> JavaScript seems difficult.
What do you expect to be difficult? I foresee that it's going to be *a 
lot* of work on both sides (W3C/WHATWG & TC39) to move this major piece 
from one place to another without breaking anything. But I would say 
it's a lot of "easy" work. It's going to take a lot of eyeballs and 
probably tests to make sure what the new spec jonction between HTML LS 
and ES7 conforms to what exists in reality (expecially in the new prose).
Is there a particular part of this work that you expect to be difficult.

David


More information about the es-discuss mailing list