The first form that you list works, since it will evaluate a string at the end of delay. Using eval() is generally not a good idea, so you should avoid this. The second method doesn’t work, since you immediately execute a function object with the function call operator (). What ends up happening is that … Read more
This will make the second function wait 2 seconds (2000 milliseconds) before executing: $(‘.icon’).hover(function() { clearTimeout($(this).data(‘timeout’)); $(‘li.icon > ul’).slideDown(‘fast’); }, function() { var t = setTimeout(function() { $(‘li.icon > ul’).slideUp(‘fast’); }, 2000); $(this).data(‘timeout’, t); }); It also clears the timeout when the user hovers back in to avoid crazy behavior. This is not a very … Read more
In basic words $timeout refers to angularjs when setTimeout – to JavaScript. If you still think to use setTimeout therefore you need invoke $scope.$apply() after As a side note I suggest you to read How do I “think in AngularJS” if I have a jQuery background? post and AngularJS: use $timeout, not setTimeout Example 1: … Read more
You’ve got a couple of issues here. Firstly, you’re defining your code within an anonymous function. This construct: (function() { … )(); does two things. It defines an anonymous function and calls it. There are scope reasons to do this but I’m not sure it’s what you actually want. You’re passing in a code block … Read more
I think that 10 will be the most reliable minimum in all browser, since I’ve seen a lot of codes using it. However, 4ms is the minimum for HTML5 In fact, 4ms is specified by the HTML5 spec and is consistent across browsers released in 2010 and onward. Prior to (Firefox 5.0 / Thunderbird 5.0 … Read more
It won’t necessarily run right away, neither will explicitly setting the delay to 0. The reason is that setTimeout removes the function from the execution queue and it will only be invoked after JavaScript has finished with the current execution queue. console.log(1); setTimeout(function() {console.log(2)}); console.log(3); console.log(4); console.log(5); //console logs 1,3,4,5,2 for more details see http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/understanding-javascript-timers/
Variation on the accepted answer which is just as good as this one. Also, I agree with the caveats of preferring setTimeout and asynchronous function calling but sometimes e.g., when building tests, you just need a synchronous wait command… function wait(ms) { var start = Date.now(), now = start; while (now – start < ms) … Read more
Very simplified: Browsers are single threaded and this single thread (The UI thread) is shared between the rendering engine and the js engine. If the thing you want to do takes alot of time (we talking cycles here but still) it could halt (paus) the rendering (flow and paint). In browsers there also exists “The … Read more
If you can’t get access to the code where the timer is set Nick’s answer may not work, so all that I can think of is this hack. It is a hack, use with caution! // Set a fake timeout to get the highest timeout id var highestTimeoutId = setTimeout(“;”); for (var i = 0 … Read more
Asynchronous implementation with JDK 1.8: public static void setTimeout(Runnable runnable, int delay){ new Thread(() -> { try { Thread.sleep(delay); runnable.run(); } catch (Exception e){ System.err.println(e); } }).start(); } To call with lambda expression: setTimeout(() -> System.out.println(“test”), 1000); Or with method reference: setTimeout(anInstance::aMethod, 1000); To deal with the current running thread only use a synchronous version: … Read more