[racket-dev] Motivation for handle-evt/wrap-evt contracts

PS: this distinction seems like something not worth reflecting in the type
system.

Robby


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu
> wrote:

> I think the issue is that the tail guarantee can't be met if there are two
> handles (one won't be in tail position wrt to the sync).
>
> Robby
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Asumu Takikawa <asumu at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I had a question about `handle-evt` and synchronizable events in
>> general. I was trying to understand the documentation and only have a
>> partial idea of the motivation behind `handle-evt` and the contracts of
>> `handle-evt` and `wrap-evt`.
>>
>> In particular, what is the motivation for disallowing objects that
>> satisfy `handle-evt?` as an argument for `handle-evt` and `wrap-evt`?
>>
>> As far as I understand, `handle-evt` allows more efficient
>> post-processing of a synchronization result because the handler is
>> called in tail position. However, it doesn't seem necessary to disallow
>> the addition of more handlers (with the caveat that the tail call
>> guarantee will disappear if this happens).
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Note: I'm asking because these restrictions in the contracts complicate
>> the types that we need to assign in Typed Racket:
>>   https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/379
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Asumu
>> _________________________
>>   Racket Developers list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130725/cd28a378/attachment.html>