This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 7, 2018. It is now read-only.
Initial attempt at supporting negative infinity start delay (issue #48)#87
Open
Initial attempt at supporting negative infinity start delay (issue #48)#87
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Ping @shans and @tabatkins ? I think you guys were the ones who wanted this change. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a sentence fragment. Is there meant to be more, or is this meant to be another dt for the following dl?
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks, that's helpful. I'm particularly interested, however, in whether you think this change is worthwhile, i.e. whether the complexity is warranted. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@shans @dstockwell @tabatkins I had a go at supporting negative infinity start delay as discussed last October (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014OctDec/0011.html)
What do you think? It's a fairly big change and I'm not sure it's entirely correct. Do you think it's worth the change?
(There's one minor unrelated change I made at the same time relating to making the time fraction equal the fraction part of the "iteration start" when the iteration duration is infinity. If we don't land this I'll probably still land that part.)