More flexibility in the ECMAScript part?
slightlyoff at google.com
Thu Apr 18 04:28:26 PDT 2013
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>>> 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.)
>> that is not true. HTML defines the event loop model and processing
> 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.
I don't think that's true at all. We're never going to be able to
standardize on ONE event-loop, nor even be able to require that
implementations have them...indeed, we've been pretty careful in designs
like Object.observe() to avoid dependencies on it.
What we can (and should) do is to say "if you have an event loop, some
primitives behave in this way relative to turns". That doesn't require
> 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
Yes, we'll need lots of tests, but the real world gets on fine with event
loops and lots of fine-grained, timing-dependent APIs in the web platform
today across multiple implementations. We don't have it any harder than any
other spec does in that regard.
> Is there a particular part of this work that you expect to be difficult.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss