> Rick

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote:

>> This is fantastic feedback - thanks!

>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I can't say I'm a big fan of this.  For several reasons.

>>> First, it's just a cosmetic replacement for setInterval(myfunction
>>> (...).bind(), ...) which simply isn't all that bad.

>>> Second, I'm not a fan of setInterval in general.  I've seen some
>>> rather nasty behavior with calls queuing up if the invoked function
>>> takes longer than the delay to execute.  In particular, this seems to
>>> be an issue if you do something like put a laptop to sleep.  (But
>>> maybe others haven't seen this problem???)  Thus, I prefer to use a
>>> self-invoking timeout like so:

>>> function myFunction() {
>>>    // do stuff ...
>>>    // call ourselves again
>>>    if (/*we want to continue?*/) setTimeout(myFunction, 1000)
>>> }

>>> This doesn't call the function at exactly one second intervals, but
>>> that type of accuracy is rarely important.  Instead, it guarantees you
>>> have at least one second of delay between invocations, which for
>>> distributing cpu load or polling (the more common cases where
>>> setInterval might be used), is more desireable.

>>> Finally, as Joe T. points out, there should be a way of cancelling the
>>> interval that doesn't require the user to store the returned value
>>> (*that* is what I find most annoying, not the syntax of
>>> "setInterval").

>>> Thus, I'd suggest this instead:

>>>  Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
>>>    repeat: function(delay) {
>>>      // Reset state
>>>      if (this._repeater) delete this._repeater;
>>>      this._repeatTimeout = clearTimeout(this._repeatTimeout);

>>>      if (!delay) return; // (stop repeating if no args or delay==0)

>>>      // Create setTimeout-based invoker
>>>      var _method = this;
>>>      if (!this._repeater) this._repeater = function() {
>>>        // Let _method cancel repeat by doing "return false;"
>>>        if (_method() !== false) setTimeout(_method._repeater, delay);
>>>      }

>>>      // Start repeating
>>>      this._repeatTimeout = setTimeout(this._repeater, delay);
>>>    },

>>>    stopRepeating: function() {
>>>      this.repeat();
>>>    }
>>>  });

>>> For example:

>>>  var count = 0;
>>>  function foo() {
>>>    console.log(count++);
>>>    return count < 10;  // Return "false" when count >= 10 to cancel
>>> the repeat
>>>  }

>>>  // Start repeating 1/sec
>>>  foo.repeat(1000);
>>>  //... some time later change interval to 2/sec
>>>  foo.repeat(500);
>>>  // ... later still stop repeating.
>>>  foo.stopRepeating();

>>> As you can see, this implementation of repeat() does a lot more for
>>> you than simply alias'ing "setInterval":
>>>  - It guarantees your function is only invoked by one interval
>>>  - It makes changing the interval or cancelling it altogether
>>> trivial.
>>>  - It allows you to conditionally cancel the repeat from w/in the
>>> function itself.

>>> The only thing missing is the bind() behavior but, well, that's what
>>> bind is for.   If you need to bind arguments, just bind() your
>>> arguments first.

>>> On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I detest the way setInterval() looks, so I came up with this... have
>>> been
>>> > using it my personal JS for some time.

>>> > Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
>>> >   repeat: function() {
>>> >     var __method = this, args = $A(arguments), interval = args.shift()
>>> *
>>> > 1000;
>>> >     return window.setInterval(function() {
>>> >       return __method.apply(__method, args);
>>> >     }, interval );
>>> >   }

>>> > });

>>> > // usage:
>>> > var _pollInt = 0;
>>> > function repetiousPollFn() {
>>> >  console.log(_pollInt++);

>>> > }

>>> > repetiousPollFn.repeat(.5);

>>> > Will, of course, repeat repetiousPollFn() every half second.

>>> > Almost identical to .delay(), except that it returns setInterval
>>> instead of
>>> > setTimeout. One thing I intend to add is support for clearInterval,
>>> however
>>> > I figured I'd at least bring it up here first. I've never
>>> > proposed/contributed here before (i'm a lurker of the list :D ) - any
>>> > guidance is appreciated.

>>> > Rick

> I've posted a demo here:

> http://jsbin.com/ekone

> All the output is to the firebug console... i've included fbug lite just in
> case

> Rick

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > I've subbed my implementation with your to do some use-case testing. I'll
> > report back anything of interest as I go along.

> > Rick

> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote:

> >> This is fantastic feedback - thanks!

> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I can't say I'm a big fan of this.  For several reasons.

> >>> First, it's just a cosmetic replacement for setInterval(myfunction
> >>> (...).bind(), ...) which simply isn't all that bad.

> >>> Second, I'm not a fan of setInterval in general.  I've seen some
> >>> rather nasty behavior with calls queuing up if the invoked function
> >>> takes longer than the delay to execute.  In particular, this seems to
> >>> be an issue if you do something like put a laptop to sleep.  (But
> >>> maybe others haven't seen this problem???)  Thus, I prefer to use a
> >>> self-invoking timeout like so:

> >>> function myFunction() {
> >>>    // do stuff ...
> >>>    // call ourselves again
> >>>    if (/*we want to continue?*/) setTimeout(myFunction, 1000)
> >>> }

> >>> This doesn't call the function at exactly one second intervals, but
> >>> that type of accuracy is rarely important.  Instead, it guarantees you
> >>> have at least one second of delay between invocations, which for
> >>> distributing cpu load or polling (the more common cases where
> >>> setInterval might be used), is more desireable.

> >>> Finally, as Joe T. points out, there should be a way of cancelling the
> >>> interval that doesn't require the user to store the returned value
> >>> (*that* is what I find most annoying, not the syntax of
> >>> "setInterval").

> >>> Thus, I'd suggest this instead:

> >>>  Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
> >>>    repeat: function(delay) {
> >>>      // Reset state
> >>>      if (this._repeater) delete this._repeater;
> >>>      this._repeatTimeout = clearTimeout(this._repeatTimeout);

> >>>      if (!delay) return; // (stop repeating if no args or delay==0)

> >>>      // Create setTimeout-based invoker
> >>>      var _method = this;
> >>>      if (!this._repeater) this._repeater = function() {
> >>>        // Let _method cancel repeat by doing "return false;"
> >>>        if (_method() !== false) setTimeout(_method._repeater, delay);
> >>>      }

> >>>      // Start repeating
> >>>      this._repeatTimeout = setTimeout(this._repeater, delay);
> >>>    },

> >>>    stopRepeating: function() {
> >>>      this.repeat();
> >>>    }
> >>>  });

> >>> For example:

> >>>  var count = 0;
> >>>  function foo() {
> >>>    console.log(count++);
> >>>    return count < 10;  // Return "false" when count >= 10 to cancel
> >>> the repeat
> >>>  }

> >>>  // Start repeating 1/sec
> >>>  foo.repeat(1000);
> >>>  //... some time later change interval to 2/sec
> >>>  foo.repeat(500);
> >>>  // ... later still stop repeating.
> >>>  foo.stopRepeating();

> >>> As you can see, this implementation of repeat() does a lot more for
> >>> you than simply alias'ing "setInterval":
> >>>  - It guarantees your function is only invoked by one interval
> >>>  - It makes changing the interval or cancelling it altogether
> >>> trivial.
> >>>  - It allows you to conditionally cancel the repeat from w/in the
> >>> function itself.

> >>> The only thing missing is the bind() behavior but, well, that's what
> >>> bind is for.   If you need to bind arguments, just bind() your
> >>> arguments first.

> >>> On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > I detest the way setInterval() looks, so I came up with this... have
> >>> been
> >>> > using it my personal JS for some time.

> >>> > Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
> >>> >   repeat: function() {
> >>> >     var __method = this, args = $A(arguments), interval = args.shift()
> >>> *
> >>> > 1000;
> >>> >     return window.setInterval(function() {
> >>> >       return __method.apply(__method, args);
> >>> >     }, interval );
> >>> >   }

> >>> > });

> >>> > // usage:
> >>> > var _pollInt = 0;
> >>> > function repetiousPollFn() {
> >>> >  console.log(_pollInt++);

> >>> > }

> >>> > repetiousPollFn.repeat(.5);

> >>> > Will, of course, repeat repetiousPollFn() every half second.

> >>> > Almost identical to .delay(), except that it returns setInterval
> >>> instead of
> >>> > setTimeout. One thing I intend to add is support for clearInterval,
> >>> however
> >>> > I figured I'd at least bring it up here first. I've never
> >>> > proposed/contributed here before (i'm a lurker of the list :D ) - any
> >>> > guidance is appreciated.

> >>> > Rick

> Rick,
> Maybe i'm missing how that revision works, but it appears to me that
> your stop property doesn't actually stop the repeater. Your stop
> returns before further execution happens, but the timeout ID for the
> window still exists.

> What am i missing?
> -joe t.

> On Jun 24, 12:20 pm, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I made a few modifications to your version, allowing repeat() to behave
> like
> > delay() with regard to arguments

> > I've posted a demo here:

> > http://jsbin.com/ekone

> > All the output is to the firebug console... i've included fbug lite just
> in
> > case

> > Rick

> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com
> >wrote:

> > > I've subbed my implementation with your to do some use-case testing.
> I'll
> > > report back anything of interest as I go along.

> > > Rick

> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com
> >wrote:

> > >> This is fantastic feedback - thanks!

> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> > >>> I can't say I'm a big fan of this.  For several reasons.

> > >>> First, it's just a cosmetic replacement for setInterval(myfunction
> > >>> (...).bind(), ...) which simply isn't all that bad.

> > >>> Second, I'm not a fan of setInterval in general.  I've seen some
> > >>> rather nasty behavior with calls queuing up if the invoked function
> > >>> takes longer than the delay to execute.  In particular, this seems to
> > >>> be an issue if you do something like put a laptop to sleep.  (But
> > >>> maybe others haven't seen this problem???)  Thus, I prefer to use a
> > >>> self-invoking timeout like so:

> > >>> function myFunction() {
> > >>>    // do stuff ...
> > >>>    // call ourselves again
> > >>>    if (/*we want to continue?*/) setTimeout(myFunction, 1000)
> > >>> }

> > >>> This doesn't call the function at exactly one second intervals, but
> > >>> that type of accuracy is rarely important.  Instead, it guarantees
> you
> > >>> have at least one second of delay between invocations, which for
> > >>> distributing cpu load or polling (the more common cases where
> > >>> setInterval might be used), is more desireable.

> > >>> Finally, as Joe T. points out, there should be a way of cancelling
> the
> > >>> interval that doesn't require the user to store the returned value
> > >>> (*that* is what I find most annoying, not the syntax of
> > >>> "setInterval").

> > >>> Thus, I'd suggest this instead:

> > >>>  Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
> > >>>    repeat: function(delay) {
> > >>>      // Reset state
> > >>>      if (this._repeater) delete this._repeater;
> > >>>      this._repeatTimeout = clearTimeout(this._repeatTimeout);

> > >>>      if (!delay) return; // (stop repeating if no args or delay==0)

> > >>>      // Create setTimeout-based invoker
> > >>>      var _method = this;
> > >>>      if (!this._repeater) this._repeater = function() {
> > >>>        // Let _method cancel repeat by doing "return false;"
> > >>>        if (_method() !== false) setTimeout(_method._repeater, delay);
> > >>>      }

> > >>>      // Start repeating
> > >>>      this._repeatTimeout = setTimeout(this._repeater, delay);
> > >>>    },

> > >>>    stopRepeating: function() {
> > >>>      this.repeat();
> > >>>    }
> > >>>  });

> > >>> For example:

> > >>>  var count = 0;
> > >>>  function foo() {
> > >>>    console.log(count++);
> > >>>    return count < 10;  // Return "false" when count >= 10 to cancel
> > >>> the repeat
> > >>>  }

> > >>>  // Start repeating 1/sec
> > >>>  foo.repeat(1000);
> > >>>  //... some time later change interval to 2/sec
> > >>>  foo.repeat(500);
> > >>>  // ... later still stop repeating.
> > >>>  foo.stopRepeating();

> > >>> As you can see, this implementation of repeat() does a lot more for
> > >>> you than simply alias'ing "setInterval":
> > >>>  - It guarantees your function is only invoked by one interval
> > >>>  - It makes changing the interval or cancelling it altogether
> > >>> trivial.
> > >>>  - It allows you to conditionally cancel the repeat from w/in the
> > >>> function itself.

> > >>> The only thing missing is the bind() behavior but, well, that's what
> > >>> bind is for.   If you need to bind arguments, just bind() your
> > >>> arguments first.

> > >>> On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > I detest the way setInterval() looks, so I came up with this...
> have
> > >>> been
> > >>> > using it my personal JS for some time.

> > >>> > Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
> > >>> >   repeat: function() {
> > >>> >     var __method = this, args = $A(arguments), interval =
> args.shift()
> > >>> *
> > >>> > 1000;
> > >>> >     return window.setInterval(function() {
> > >>> >       return __method.apply(__method, args);
> > >>> >     }, interval );
> > >>> >   }

> > >>> > });

> > >>> > // usage:
> > >>> > var _pollInt = 0;
> > >>> > function repetiousPollFn() {
> > >>> >  console.log(_pollInt++);

> > >>> > }

> > >>> > repetiousPollFn.repeat(.5);

> > >>> > Will, of course, repeat repetiousPollFn() every half second.

> > >>> > Almost identical to .delay(), except that it returns setInterval
> > >>> instead of
> > >>> > setTimeout. One thing I intend to add is support for clearInterval,
> > >>> however
> > >>> > I figured I'd at least bring it up here first. I've never
> > >>> > proposed/contributed here before (i'm a lurker of the list :D ) -
> any
> > >>> > guidance is appreciated.

> > >>> > Rick

> http://jsbin.com/ajoqu

> Rick

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM, joe t. <thooke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Rick,
>> Maybe i'm missing how that revision works, but it appears to me that
>> your stop property doesn't actually stop the repeater. Your stop
>> returns before further execution happens, but the timeout ID for the
>> window still exists.

>> What am i missing?
>> -joe t.

>> On Jun 24, 12:20 pm, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I made a few modifications to your version, allowing repeat() to behave
>> like
>> > delay() with regard to arguments

>> > I've posted a demo here:

>> > http://jsbin.com/ekone

>> > All the output is to the firebug console... i've included fbug lite just
>> in
>> > case

>> > Rick

>> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com
>> >wrote:

>> > > I've subbed my implementation with your to do some use-case testing.
>> I'll
>> > > report back anything of interest as I go along.

>> > > Rick

>> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Rick Waldron <
>> waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote:

>> > >> This is fantastic feedback - thanks!

>> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> > >>> I can't say I'm a big fan of this.  For several reasons.

>> > >>> First, it's just a cosmetic replacement for setInterval(myfunction
>> > >>> (...).bind(), ...) which simply isn't all that bad.

>> > >>> Second, I'm not a fan of setInterval in general.  I've seen some
>> > >>> rather nasty behavior with calls queuing up if the invoked function
>> > >>> takes longer than the delay to execute.  In particular, this seems
>> to
>> > >>> be an issue if you do something like put a laptop to sleep.  (But
>> > >>> maybe others haven't seen this problem???)  Thus, I prefer to use a
>> > >>> self-invoking timeout like so:

>> > >>> function myFunction() {
>> > >>>    // do stuff ...
>> > >>>    // call ourselves again
>> > >>>    if (/*we want to continue?*/) setTimeout(myFunction, 1000)
>> > >>> }

>> > >>> This doesn't call the function at exactly one second intervals, but
>> > >>> that type of accuracy is rarely important.  Instead, it guarantees
>> you
>> > >>> have at least one second of delay between invocations, which for
>> > >>> distributing cpu load or polling (the more common cases where
>> > >>> setInterval might be used), is more desireable.

>> > >>> Finally, as Joe T. points out, there should be a way of cancelling
>> the
>> > >>> interval that doesn't require the user to store the returned value
>> > >>> (*that* is what I find most annoying, not the syntax of
>> > >>> "setInterval").

>> > >>> Thus, I'd suggest this instead:

>> > >>>  Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
>> > >>>    repeat: function(delay) {
>> > >>>      // Reset state
>> > >>>      if (this._repeater) delete this._repeater;
>> > >>>      this._repeatTimeout = clearTimeout(this._repeatTimeout);

>> > >>>      if (!delay) return; // (stop repeating if no args or delay==0)

>> > >>>      // Create setTimeout-based invoker
>> > >>>      var _method = this;
>> > >>>      if (!this._repeater) this._repeater = function() {
>> > >>>        // Let _method cancel repeat by doing "return false;"
>> > >>>        if (_method() !== false) setTimeout(_method._repeater,
>> delay);
>> > >>>      }

>> > >>>      // Start repeating
>> > >>>      this._repeatTimeout = setTimeout(this._repeater, delay);
>> > >>>    },

>> > >>>    stopRepeating: function() {
>> > >>>      this.repeat();
>> > >>>    }
>> > >>>  });

>> > >>> For example:

>> > >>>  var count = 0;
>> > >>>  function foo() {
>> > >>>    console.log(count++);
>> > >>>    return count < 10;  // Return "false" when count >= 10 to cancel
>> > >>> the repeat
>> > >>>  }

>> > >>>  // Start repeating 1/sec
>> > >>>  foo.repeat(1000);
>> > >>>  //... some time later change interval to 2/sec
>> > >>>  foo.repeat(500);
>> > >>>  // ... later still stop repeating.
>> > >>>  foo.stopRepeating();

>> > >>> As you can see, this implementation of repeat() does a lot more for
>> > >>> you than simply alias'ing "setInterval":
>> > >>>  - It guarantees your function is only invoked by one interval
>> > >>>  - It makes changing the interval or cancelling it altogether
>> > >>> trivial.
>> > >>>  - It allows you to conditionally cancel the repeat from w/in the
>> > >>> function itself.

>> > >>> The only thing missing is the bind() behavior but, well, that's what
>> > >>> bind is for.   If you need to bind arguments, just bind() your
>> > >>> arguments first.

>> > >>> On Jun 23, 8:25 am, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> > I detest the way setInterval() looks, so I came up with this...
>> have
>> > >>> been
>> > >>> > using it my personal JS for some time.

>> > >>> > Object.extend(Function.prototype, {
>> > >>> >   repeat: function() {
>> > >>> >     var __method = this, args = $A(arguments), interval =
>> args.shift()
>> > >>> *
>> > >>> > 1000;
>> > >>> >     return window.setInterval(function() {
>> > >>> >       return __method.apply(__method, args);
>> > >>> >     }, interval );
>> > >>> >   }

>> > >>> > });

>> > >>> > // usage:
>> > >>> > var _pollInt = 0;
>> > >>> > function repetiousPollFn() {
>> > >>> >  console.log(_pollInt++);

>> > >>> > }

>> > >>> > repetiousPollFn.repeat(.5);

>> > >>> > Will, of course, repeat repetiousPollFn() every half second.

>> > >>> > Almost identical to .delay(), except that it returns setInterval
>> > >>> instead of
>> > >>> > setTimeout. One thing I intend to add is support for
>> clearInterval,
>> > >>> however
>> > >>> > I figured I'd at least bring it up here first. I've never
>> > >>> > proposed/contributed here before (i'm a lurker of the list :D ) -
>> any
>> > >>> > guidance is appreciated.

>> > >>> > Rick