I'm curious what you find ugly about setTimeout, and how jQuery could
improve on it.
I don't see much if any difference between:
$(foobar).click( function() {
// called on click
});
and:
setTimeout( function() {
// called on timeout
}, 1000 );
They look like extremely similar styles of coding to me.
-Mike
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:04 AM, jez9999 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It rather surprised me that one of the things I had to turn to a
> plugin for was a timer. It seems like the kind of thing that would
> frequently be useful to have, abstracted to a nice jQuery interface,
> rather than using directly the rather ugly setTimeout function in
> Javascript. Why not implement a timer interface in the jQuery core?
>
> You could also then take this one step further and use 1ms one-off
> timers to implement multithreaded programming through jQuery, too. I
> think this should work - a Javascript engine has to have the ability
> to do multithreading if several timers can callback over time whilst
> other JS code may be executing, right? So we could have a timer and
> multithreads abstracted out nicely in the jQuery core. Both would be
> nice.
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "jQuery Development" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<jquery-dev%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
