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

It has exactly that (without the dynamic check). And no, I don't think so.

On Friday, July 26, 2013, Matthias Felleisen wrote:

>
> [Catching up]
>
> Does CML have anything even remotely comparable to handle-evt
> and does it assign a type distinction?
>
> -- Matthias
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>
> > On 2013-07-25 12:36:32 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >> My thought was that you should only use `handle-evt' if you need tail
> >> behavior for something like a loop. If you use `handle-evt' and you're
> >> not getting tail behavior (but `sync' continues on, anyway), then
> >> something has gone wrong --- and maybe it's better to get an error than
> >> have a slow leak that will be tricky to detect.
> >
> > I could see how that might be a better choice for debugging. Especially
> > since it seems that people don't check `handle-evt?` on events (which
> > you would need to do to ensure tail-behavior in semantics 2).
> >
> > In particular, there are zero uses of `handle-evt?` in the codebase
> > outside of tests.
> >
> > Since it's primarily a performance debugging feature, it seems OK to
> > ignore the distinction in Typed Racket and keep the current semantics.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Asumu
> > _________________________
> >  Racket Developers list:
> >  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
> _________________________
>   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/20130726/71a48b95/attachment.html>