The fix removes the incorrect claim, which makes the section accurate.
however, the original intent seemed to explain lexical this.

Would it be better to either:

• include a minimal example that actually demonstrates lexical this, or
• remove the mention entirely if it's out of scope here?

right now the explanation is correct but loses some educational value.

The fix removes the incorrect claim, which makes the section accurate. however, the original intent seemed to explain lexical this.

Would it be better to either:

• include a minimal example that actually demonstrates lexical this, or
• remove the mention entirely if it's out of scope here?

right now the explanation is correct but loses some educational value.

@grayguava Thanks for considering my pr . I see your point. How about adding real example that demonstrates lexical this :

// Example that ACTUALLY uses lexical this
const obj = {
  count: 0,
  start() {
    setInterval(() => {
      this.count++;  // "this" inherited from start() — lexical this!
      console.log(this.count);
    }, 1000);
  },
};

The fix removes the incorrect claim, which makes the section accurate. however, the original intent seemed to explain lexical this.
Would it be better to either:

• include a minimal example that actually demonstrates lexical this, or
• remove the mention entirely if it's out of scope here?

right now the explanation is correct but loses some educational value.

@grayguava Thanks for considering my pr . I see your point. How about adding real example that demonstrates lexical this :

// Example that ACTUALLY uses lexical this
const obj = {
  count: 0,
  start() {
    setInterval(() => {
      this.count++;  // "this" inherited from start() — lexical this!
      console.log(this.count);
    }, 1000);
  },
};

This example works well and clearly demonstrates lexical this.
One small suggestion: it might help to briefly contrast it with a function expression to make the difference explicit (since replacing the arrow function would change the behavior).

That could make the explanation clearer for readers who are less familiar with how this works in callbacks.

Thanks, I can't review this at this very moment, but like many MDN pages outside the JS area, anything involving JS mechanics is probably somewhat off😅 I will give the section a read and see if more changes are needed.

The fix removes the incorrect claim, which makes the section accurate. however, the original intent seemed to explain lexical this.
Would it be better to either:

• include a minimal example that actually demonstrates lexical this, or
• remove the mention entirely if it's out of scope here?

right now the explanation is correct but loses some educational value.

@grayguava Thanks for considering my pr . I see your point. How about adding real example that demonstrates lexical this :

// Example that ACTUALLY uses lexical this
const obj = {
  count: 0,
  start() {
    setInterval(() => {
      this.count++;  // "this" inherited from start() — lexical this!
      console.log(this.count);
    }, 1000);
  },
};

This example works well and clearly demonstrates lexical this. One small suggestion: it might help to briefly contrast it with a function expression to make the difference explicit (since replacing the arrow function would change the behavior).

That could make the explanation clearer for readers who are less familiar with how this works in callbacks.

@Josh-Cena Would it be okay if I update my PR based on this feedback?

Please make any change that you see fit; I will reread the whole thing later.

Preview URLs (2 pages)

• /en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/setInterval
• /en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/setTimeout

(comment last updated: 2026-03-30 19:45:02)

Thanks @pepelsbey would you merge it?

Thanks @pepelsbey would you merge it?

I would wait for @Josh-Cena’s review

@Josh-Cena Please review this PR. It’s been a week since I submitted it, even though it’s simple change.

Sorry busy week. I'll get to it before EOW. No need to rush

@Josh-Cena Sorry to bother again. I hope you had a great weekend. Please any updates for me.