On May 27, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Tim Caswell wrote:
> There are already many ways to starve/block the event loop.
>
> You could have an infinite loop
>
> while (true) {}
>
> Or a recursive loop that blocks till the stack overflows
>
> function a() {
> a();
> }
> a();
>
> Now these new semantics would add another way to do the recursive loop,
> except this time the trampoline is built in and the stack doesn't overflow.
>
> function a() {
> process.nextTick(a);
> }
> a();
>
> If we're worried about changing the name to match the meaning and we're
> worried about breaking existing code (I know I have some that accidentally
> depends on the non-blocking nature), we could add a new function
> process.afterTick that does the new semantics and deprecate process.nextTick.
>
> Then no code breaks and we eventually get the right behavior with the right
> name.
This needs a different method name, if not, the sky is going to fall on our
heads.
And the proper name IMO would be *this*Tick not *next*Tick :-P
And perhaps it should be internal, not part of the public API: _thisTick(). But
that depends: exactly *where* have you seen the problem you mention, @izs?
--
Jorge.
